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.
Yes, thanks, that is why the link was to your post. I also posted a URL(which might not work. This one might work better....http://www.current-biology.com/content/article/fulltext?uid=PIIS0960982201002275) for those who wanted to read the paper.
It is your right to agree with the authors. On the other hand, it is alright for me to point out that the evidence in the paper is that gorillas and chimps share something that humans lack. The facts are then arranged to achieve a preconceived outcome. You can visualize what the result would be if humans also had the virus allele. The little tree would have remained the same. Same thing if humans and gorillas, but no chimp. Likewise humans and chimps but no gorilla.
1 = the tree as preconceived.
2 = some other tree.
000 = 1 gch 001 = 1 gc 010 = 1 gh 011 = 1 ch(or g as follows) 100 = 1 g 101 = 1 gh 110 = 1 gc 111 = 1 gch