???
What question am I evading?
Can you confirm that there are no retrovirus remnants not common to both Humans and Primates and what the % difference would be, and how it is determined that those not in common are not ancient.From link: https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/2015/11/
"The genetic signature of a retrovirus in the genome is very distinctive. ERVs have common features such as the genes that code for the viral coat protein and for the reverse transcriptase that copies the viral RNA genome into DNA. The ERV DNA codes for three groups of proteins, known as “gag” (matrix, capsid, nucleoproteins), “pol“ (protease, reverse transcriptase, RNaseH, dUTPase, integrase) and “env” (subunit and transmembrane). This genetic core is flanked by long terminal repeats (LTR) sections. Finally, when the retrovirus tears open the host genome for insertion, some of the torn original host DNA is recopied on either side of the viral insert.
Here is what all this looks like for the insertion of a particular retrovirus from the CERV 30 family into the chimpanzee genome:
Insertion of a member of the CERV 30 (HERVK10) family in chimps. The insertion occurred in the LINE element present in chromosome 10 of the chimpanzee genome. The orthologous LINE element is present in chromosome 12 in humans. In chimpanzees target site duplications (ATTAT) are identified. A single copy of TSD (ATTAT, the pre-integration site) is found inside the LINE element in humans. The LTRs of the element are 99.4% identical.
Source: Nalini Polavarapu, Nathan J Bowen, and John F McDonald, Identification, characterization and comparative genomics of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses, Genome Biol. 2006; 7(6): R51"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1779541/
Are you asking if humans have any ERVs not shared with primates?
CRSQ is not recognized as a legitimate scientific journal in the professional academic scientific community. CRSQ is *not* a legitimate scientific journal. Take any typical CRSQ article, submit it to a recognized scientific journal, and it would be rejected as substandard, and methodologically flawed.
I'm not knowledgeable in this area, but I know that causation-by-chance is a fiction. There is no such thing as truly 'random'. But you imply here, both contrasting notions —that this is caused by chance (ERV's are random), and —this is not mere coincidence. Take it a step further: This is not coincidence of random insertions, but that it is original to both species; or, that these insertions were inserted by God into both species at whatever point he did so.
I'm just being honest with you. CRSQ has published hoaxes before. How trustworthy is that? Not very.
Np. In fact, I'll do you one better. I'll start a separate thread on it.
You're partially correct. And the link explains that. It's not random insertion in the sense of it can insert anywhere in the 3 billion bp human genome, but ~1 in 10,000 places.
The difficulty with that is that these are not original DNA but from viral infections that come after creation and many would say after the Fall
The studies are neutral observations simply reporting what we find in genomes. They are not anti God anymore than observations about the planets that challenged church understanding in the 1500s are anti God.
Actually, you're incorrect. There are mutation "hot spots" in genomes that are more prone to mutations
No, I said mutations. Not all mutations are copying errors. You honestly do not know what you are talking about.
Did you also study goalpost moving back in your college days?
