Randomness has little to do with the conclusion. All that is needed is a distribution of insertion loci. Were the same virus DNA inserted in different places in closely related species, that would suffice.
Absolutely. This is, though, in direct contrast to itchy's argument wherein he stressed the site of insertion.
The Russian group that wrote the article cited by itchy identified elements by PCR which were common in all primates examined, some in humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons, some in chimps, human and gorilla and some in only human. The human chromosomal locations were known, but the location of the amplified sample was not addressed.