If there is a smoking gun here it is firing blanks. 1) Common ancestry can accommodate these alleged 'shared' 'errors', but TOE does not even predict their existence in the first place, much less that they will be in the same chromosonal locations in different species. 2) There are NO examples of ‘shared errors’ linking mammals to other species. 3) The assertion that common ancestry is the only possible explanation for endogenous retroviruses in identical chromosome locations of different species is based SOLEY on the mere ASSUMPTION that they are nonfunctional, but the fact of the matter is that they are not all nonfunctional. Some of them are active in protein expression in humans. Anyone who claims to know everything these things may be doing in a species or what their role was in the past is blowing hot air. It is just as possible that that retroviruses are a degeneration of a designed system rather than having arisen through some random process.
Cordially,
The pattern of the ERVs fits the predicted evolutionary tree for primates. Too much of a coincidence I am afraid.
2) There are NO examples of ‘shared errors’ linking mammals to other species.
Mammals are not a species and this is also a sidestep. The pattern of ERV's fits the evolutionary tree of primates and indicates they share common ancestory beyond doubt. This is just one line of evidence that coincidentally matches the primate tree.
3) The assertion that common ancestry is the only possible explanation for endogenous retroviruses in identical chromosome locations of different species is based SOLEY on the mere ASSUMPTION that they are nonfunctional
No, these ones are non-functional. It is not an assumption. They are not active in protein expression. Also even the rare ERV's that aid function are still due to past RV insertions. And still the pattern of these insertions matches the predicted primate tree of descent.
It is just as possible that that retroviruses are a degeneration of a designed system rather than having arisen through some random process.
You are throwing out all sorts of wild possibilities like someone thrashing around in deep water. There is no reason whatsoever that the pattern of ERVs in primate genomes would fit the predicted tree of descent of primates unless the ERV's were aquired through inheritance. Sorry its just too coincidental.
Complete nonsense. TOE most certainly predicts that a retroviral insertion will, in the absence of further transpositon, remain in an orthologous location.
The assertion that common ancestry is the only possible explanation for endogenous retroviruses in identical chromosome locations of different species is based SOLEY on the mere ASSUMPTION that they are nonfunctional, but the fact of the matter is that they are not all nonfunctional.
Since there is now evidence that the human/great ape lineage is losing retroviral elements, one wonders how they could be functional. In fact, most of our current retroviral insertions date back 25 million years. In addition, most retroviral insertions are heavily methylated, ruling out expression.
Evolution describes species change. The inheritance of externally acquired viral DNA in primates and humans proves a common ancestor, and proves that evolution has in fact occurred.
There are NO examples of ‘shared errors’ linking mammals to other species
This is like the continual bleating of "missing link, missing link". The DNA viral evidence is very recent and still being found. I'm sure there will be other evidence found in other mammal species, but in the mean time the viral DNA shared in primates and humans still proves evolution is fact.
The assertion that common ancestry is the only possible explanation for endogenous retroviruses in identical chromosome locations of different species is based SOLEY on the mere ASSUMPTION that they are nonfunctional
Whether the viral DNA segments have any current function in primate and human DNA is irrelevant. The shear odds of virus DNA segments inserting themselves into the same place in primate/human DNA makes common ancestry the only viable answer. Anything else is wishful thinking.