[AndrewC]

Because we have this monstrous mound of evidence, if we get one little widget of evidence that's a bit confusing, it makes sense to think about a way in which it fits into the monstrous mound of evidence without disturbing it.

You still miss the point. That is not science, that is diversion. Like putting a crossword puzzle together.

P.S. I don't do red herring. The discussion is ERV, and its lack of conclusiveness for determining absolute relationships. This result shows that it is not conclusive. Open your mind to the concept that no matter what the relationship of the ERV would have been with the three branches, the scenario presented would hold all possibilities. It is not falsifiable. They could all have had the virus, none, or any one of them different than the other two and the tree would have been the same.

[ahayes]

What?? I thought I was in science, now you're telling me that I'm in crossword puzzle solving? Why didn't someone tell me this before!