[tallhappy]

Even were the points of insertion unique, the current pattern (taken over several virial insertion regions) would indicate common ancestry.

I don't disagree.

The initial argument though was based upon the premise that integration was random and propigation was static. Odds of localization in different species were then presented for that scenario as an argument.

But the scenario first explicated is not biologically accurate or relevant.

One can make an argument based on erroneous information and premise for something is is true. That doesn't mean one should.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Randomized integration over species (or over indivudual in a single species or even an individual gamete) is sufficient to indicate common ancestry.