You have substitution cost no matter what the mechanism, selection or genetic drift. You can't escape it. Haldane noted that the 'piggyback' hypothesis doesn't reduce the substitution cost.
Do not conflate ERVs and retroviruses. One is assumed, the other observed.
Adaptation is consistent with a created biology.
The many types of selection merely mean that you have nothing more than random movement around a mean. You know, statis, as observed.
Substitution cost applies in every situation where a genetic sequence must move to fixation. Thousands of severe drops in population means thousands of bottlenecks and founder effects. Not all result in founder effect, but you've got thousands of proposed bottlenecks just for assumed ERV's alone, never mind supposed 'positive' selections.
So explain how Joe Felsenstein has 'solved' Haldanes Dilemma and I will explain how he has not.
The difference between retroviruses and ERVs is that retroviruses are observed, ERV's are assumed.
Big difference except in evoland.
Haldane's dilemma is a concern only when populations fall in number rapidly. If the drop in number of organisms without the selected for allele is matched by the increase in number of organisms with the selected for allele the population never experiences a bottleneck. The dilemma is real, we have evidence of many populations going extinct but it does not apply in all situations. Many selection types reduce the number of offspring of the more poorly adapted slowly so that the reduction in population size is barely felt. Do the math.
"Do not conflate ERVs and retroviruses. One is assumed, the other observed.
Yes that is true. But it is true because an ERV occurs in the second and later generations and the retrovirus occurs in the first generation. We can observe a retrovirus occur in a parent organism. We can then observe that it is conserved in the second generation and then we call it an ERV. However, we did not observe the retrovirus occur in the second generation.
The fact that we observe retroviruses and do not observe ERVs is because of their definitions, not because we have no evidence that the ERV was once a retrovirus.
"Adaptation is consistent with a created biology.
If that is true then you should be able to make some predictions that will hold if creation is correct but not hold if evolution is correct. Care to put some forward, along with examples?
"The many types of selection merely mean that you have nothing more than random movement around a mean. You know, statis, as observed.
No, what it means is that the mean moves rather more slowly than it would otherwise. Sexual selection is such a selection force, those with a specific desirable trait have more, sometimes by only a couple of percent, offspring than those that do not. This gives every bit as much a direction as severe directional selection but at a much slower rate.
"Substitution cost applies in every situation where a genetic sequence must move to fixation. Thousands of severe drops in population means thousands of bottlenecks and founder effects. Not all result in founder effect, but you've got thousands of proposed bottlenecks just for assumed ERV's alone, never mind supposed 'positive' selections.
Selection costs apply to most situations but the costs are not always high. Sometimes the costs are quite low. In some instances, such as genetic drift selection costs do not apply.
"So explain how Joe Felsenstein has 'solved' Haldanes Dilemma and I will explain how he has not.
I have no idea how he has solved the problem. You are the one that considers selection cost to be unsurmountable, I don't. I supplied his name to you so you could investigate the solution to your problem.
"The difference between retroviruses and ERVs is that retroviruses are observed, ERV's are assumed.
As mentioned in a prior post and earlier in this post, ERV's are not observable by definition, whereas retroviruses are observable, again by definition.
"Big difference except in evoland.
You seem to have misunderstood the consequences of their definitions.