==Once again you have no answer other than a cut and paste from ignorant sources.
That’s not a cut and paste. I merely posted a link to a paper written by creation scientists who present evidence that the so-called GULO pseudogene is not evidence of common descent. Did you read it?
==There is no reason for all primates to have the same disabling mutation of the GULO gene other than the same mutation in a common ancestor.
You are assuming common descent. There is no reason for creation scientists to assume this. Furthermore, you are interpreting ERVs as evidence of ancient exogenous infections, which is another unwarrented Evo assumption. It is much more likely that ERVs were incorporated into the genome at the time of creation, and were designed to pick up the elements necessary to leave the genome and facilitate horizontal gene transfer. If this is indeed the case, then from a creation “modular design” perspective, the closer the body plan and functional needs are, the more we should expect to see “conserved” ERV sequences between the same. However, as mentioned before, creation also explains the functionality of the unconserved regions, which makes the design argument far more powerful than neo-Darwinian evolution.
And whether we are talking about pseudogenes or ERVs, both are increasingly thought of as functional precisely because the entire genome is rapidly being discovered to be functional. Just as Creation and ID scientists have been predicting for years.
Do you have a referece to when this prediction was first made?
I am assuming common descent BASED UPON DATA. It is the best explanation for the data.
Your ‘common features means common DNA’ leads you to such ignorant assertions as that chimps and humans being more similar in DNA than either is to a gorilla being a “logical impossibility”.
Functionality of unconserved regions? Source please.
So far Creationists have not broken the linkage between evolutionary conservation of sequences and the functionality of those sequences. Nor do they have an explanation for this linkage. No, they just insist that it is all useful.
What use is the GULO pseudogene? It certainly doesn't prevent them from getting Scurvy from a lack of dietary vitamin C. A GULO gene would seem far more useful than the broken remnant of a GULO gene.