I understand that. What I am trying to get you to understand is that there are also many situations where the selection cost is not high enough to be a problem. I am also trying to get yo to understand that there are situations where there is no selection costs because the allele can fix without selection as is the case with drift.
"LOL! I warn you about dealing with things that aren't observable by definition and you give me an imaginary example.
I gave you an imaginary example to help clarify the definition not to prove that ERVs have been observed. That the example is imaginary does not change the definition.
Please take the time to try to understand my posts.
No, imaginary examples are quite the problem, not the explanation.
Were real examples available, imaginary ones would not be necessary.
Please try to understand that reality is not defined by imaginary scenarios.
The selection costs of moving that many ERVs to fixation is huge. Neutral mutation is an entirely different thing altogether. ERVs are not always neutral and the study of their function is just beginning.
You're on the wrong side of this one.
The 'best' evidence for evolution always resides in the least understood areas of biology (like Haeckel's embyos). Once the attention focuses and the truth gets out, the support for evolution disappears like the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. It never was there in the first place.