You mean like this one.
Secondary source, freeper post. A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans."
The significance of the work presented here is the demonstration of the utility of HERV-K as a marker for studying human evolution, the conclusion that HERV-K was active at about the time that the three lineages were evolutionarily separating, and the very strong experimental evidence that, in some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than any of them is to humans. HERV-K and other retrotransposable elements should contribute to determining what that fraction is.
Full article here(but his may not work)....http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-433PCG6-S&_coverDate=05%2F15%2F2001&_alid=374741385&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6243&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5e49b0326a8026f472bfcb0022b73c67
Several possibilities were considered to explain how a provirus could be present in Gorilla and Pan but be absent in Homo. It is highly unlikely that the provirus was deleted in humans, as the retroviral integration process is irreversible.
It is a good article. In the end, they use Darwinian logic to fit the pieces together, but it grieviously injures the assertion that ERV's are the end-all to assigning absolute relationships.
In the end, any competitive theory must do more than point out anomalies. It must explain and it must provide direction for research.
In the end, they use Darwinian logic to fit the pieces together, but it grieviously injures the assertion that ERV's are the end-all to assigning absolute relationships.
Well, I guess that's your interpretation. I agree with the authors that in fact what it did was confirm the utility of ERVs in exploring evolutionary divergences.
From the article: We identified a human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) provirus that is present at the orthologous position in the gorilla and chimpanzee genomes, but not in the human genome. Humans contain an intact preintegration site at this locus.
This paper is a study of one ERV site. We have found something like 2000 such sites. When finding an insertion in gorilla, chimp, but not human genomes, that says that the human ancestor split off from the common ancestor of gorilla and chimp before the insertion occurred. Unless you're making a claim that this contradicts the species split sequence assumptions, then what's the problem here? Even if you are saying there is a species split sequence problem, then science will re-evaluate this with other information and correct the false sequence.
From the article: These observations provide very strong evidence that, for some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than they are to humans.
Ok. What's wrong with that?
From the article: They also show that HERV-K replicated as a virus and reinfected the germline of the common ancestor of the four modern species during the period of time when the lineages were separating and demonstrate the utility of using HERV-K to trace human evolution.
The authors are saying that ERV insertions help trace when species separation took place. Well, yeah. That's what I've been saying, although I can't always detail everything in every post.
In short, studying ERV insertions supports the earlier morhpological separation points. The more recent the species separation, the more common ERV insertions we find, which is a cross correlation of the earlier morhpological studies done decades ago.
Darwin was a pretty smart dude, eh? He gave us a scientific theory that says that if we find a specific piece of information (and genome sequences are most definitely information copied through the ages like copying an analog tape of Star Wars over and over, each time with slight errors), then it should tend to confirm other studies based on morphology and fossil finds. And guess what, it does!
ERV insertions are the smoking gun of common descent, and the smoking gun that demonstrates that the various species came into existence via evolution.
If you want to believe that God directed it, like He directs thunderstorms, fine. But just like evaporation and condensation explains how He makes thunderstorms, evolution explains how He made species, including humans.