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.
T.O. supplies citations to actual research in their articles. We can always doublecheck their findings. I'd be hardpressed to name a creationist site that does the same.
Did you miss this part? So mutations caused by retroviral element occurred only in the chimp lineage. Is that so surprising?
They say there is a similar element found in other great apes. They didnt say they found the *same* element in the some other great apes, much less at the *same* position.
Do you see the difference? ERVs are very mobile pieces of DNA and can move both horizontally and vertically. The AIDS virus for example incorporates in the genomes of hematopoetic cells. I am sure there are infectious retroviruses that can enter the germ line.
Talk Origins is not a scientific site and it would be best to not get your info there.
The link I gave you before was written by a real working scientist (an immunologist - Edward Max), who thouroughly references everything he uses in the paper. Most of the data was taken from peer-reviewed publications.
[Nature, Sept 1, 2005]
I'm not sure what the problem is supposed to be here.
Have they actually found ERVs at the same locus that don't follow the phylogenetic tree? If so, please highlight whewre they say so.