You have not addressed an error in part 4 of Theobald's work where he states (which you aped in what you said "are my own writings") wherein it is stated:
this process [retroviral integration] is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.
Retroviral integration is not random, nor fairly random.
Do you think the conclusion that "finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry" is weakened given non-random retroviral integration? Or does the random nature or non-randomness of the integration not effect the conclusion.
I didn't just rehash it, I added my own perspectives to it and helped explain it to an audience which has even less science background than Theobald's target audience. This seems to annoy you for some reason, though, you've harped on it several times now.
What's the matter, jealous that I write a lot of lengthy technical treatments of material, and your posts are just short snippy missives? If you're as smart as you obviously like to think you are, feel free to compose an actual argument with analysis and citations and evidence sometime, for once, instead of your constant implications and innuendo which never manage to actually present any specific material which can be checked or examined.
You have not addressed an error in part 4 of Theobald's work where he states
I haven't "addressed an error in part 4" because there isn't one.
(which you aped in what you said "are my own writings")
They are my own writings. I find your obsession with the fact that I have composed my own coverage of the subject, and your repeated implications that they're somehow less than my own words, to be odd, at the very least. There are medications for that sort of thing.
wherein it is stated: this process [retroviral integration] is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.
Retroviral integration is not random, nor fairly random.
If you want to try to claim or imply anything as stupid as the proposition that retroviral integration is non-stochastic, you are welcome to present your evidence which contradicts the actual research in this field.
More likely, however, you just want to play rhetorical word games over layman's terms such as "fairly random", in a way that dishonestly implies that retroviral insertion is somehow likely to occur at the identical locus in separate infection events, when that is very much *NOT* the case.
Do you think the conclusion that "finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry" is weakened given non-random retroviral integration?
No, I don't, because I know the behavior of the process under discussion, and your vague implications to the contrary don't change that. If you actually had findings which truly *did* undermine the shared endogenous retrovirus evidence, you would have presented it (*AND* been guaranteed prominent journal and a great deal of professional recognition).
Lacking that -- since you add nothing but innuendo and no citations or evidence of any kind which actually contradicts the material -- it's instead clear that you're just dishonestly bluffing. I don't know why you keep trying to pull this kind of BS, you *always* get caught at it.
Or does the random nature or non-randomness of the integration not effect the conclusion.
Not in the specific manner in which retroviral integration is less than 100% uniformly random, no.
A seven-count may be a much more likely outcome of a pair of rolled dice than a two-count, but that *still* doesn't mean that if you find someone rolling twenty sevens in a row, the dice aren't rigged in some way.
Yes, retroviral integration points are less than "totally" random (as Theobald openly states), but they are not so "non-random" as to make it likely that identical insertion points of matching retroviral fragments have occurred by independent events, *especially* when *most* shared ERVs match across lineages. *One* such match among hundreds of non-matching ERVs would reasonably indicate that it might just be a lucky fluke, but when the actual state is that *most* shared ERVs match and only a few exceptions show signs of being independent events (which *don't* match in location and sequence), then it's ludicrous to try to use innuendo such as yours to falsely imply that a) insertion locii are deterministic enough to make accidental matches likely and b) there isn't a lot of *additional* evidence confirming the paradigm of "matching shared ERVs marks common ancestry."
If you've got a case to make to the contrary, just MAKE it and show us the evidence, but drop the dishonest empty innuendo and the disingenuous talk about "errors" that aren't there.
Try again when you can be intellectually honest.