Once again we are reminded that tallhappy has very little actual understanding of basic genetics and his postings are just so much bluster.
The genomes of the great apes in these studes contain something like 3 billion base pairs spread over 22 chromosomes. The ERVs discussed here for example, that *are* shared between closely related organisms are not simply present in these species, but they are found at the *precisely the same locus*.
What are the odds that in each of these examples, these events all occurred independently?
Against this background, it was surprising to find that the chimpanzee genome has two active retroviral elements (PtERV1 and PtERV2) that are unlike any older elements in either genome; these must have been introduced by infection of the chimpanzee germ line. The smaller family (PtERV2) has only a few dozen copies, which nonetheless represent multiple (approx5−8) invasions, because the sequence differences among reconstructed subfamilies are too great (approx8%) to have arisen by mutation since divergence from human. It is closely related to a baboon endogenous retrovirus (BaEV, 88% ORF2 product identity) and a feline endogenous virus (ECE-1, 86% ORF2 product identity). The larger family (PtERV1) is more homogeneous and has over 200 copies. Whereas older ERVs, like HERV-K, are primarily represented by solo LTRs resulting from LTR−LTR recombination, more than half of the PtERV1 copies are still full length, probably reflecting the young age of the elements. PtERV1-like elements are present in the rhesus monkey, olive baboon and African great apes but not in human, orang-utan or gibbon, suggesting separate germline invasions in these species68.
This is but one example.
Talk Origins is not a scientific site and it would be best to not get your info there.
I also have referenced the sister article "A genome-wide comparison of recent chimpanzee and human segmental duplications" from the same Sept 1 2005 Nature issue.
TO simplifies things and is akin to a Jack Chick publicatiom. TO often is wrong as well.
To reiterate, TO is not a scientific site and you'd be better served to not get and regurgiate your material from there.
It is never as simple as TO evangelists try to make out.