The argument goes like this: ERVs invaded the DNA of our common ancestors long ago, inserted themselves into the genome, then got stuck there and were passed down to the descendants. Since different organisms share many of these so-called “ERVs” in the same spots in the genome,

Most of what are classified as "ERVs" are actually functional stretches of DNA, many of which contain integral, necessary functions. Over 90%+ of what have been deemed "ERV" sequences don’t even resemble true “endogenous retroviruses” because they lack standard ERV genes (gag,

On top of that, many other so-called “ERVs” [functional stretches of DNA] have been found to contain key functions in certain aspects of the immune system - especially related to fighting viruses, so it makes sense that they may mimic viral sequences. They need to mimic viral

On top of all that, we also have research that suggests there are specific "hot spots" where “ERVs” tend to gather, meaning their placement is non-random. This throws the entire "common descent" argument right out the window. After all, if the argument is based on the

So, in summary, evolutionists jumped the gun (as usual), in claiming these functional and necessary segments of functional DNA were "ERVs." Research is continuously showing more function for these segments, throwing into doubt their initial rushed classification as ERVs. ERVs

Wow. HUGE blunder on that last sentence. Should say: ERVs should NOT be considered evidence of common descent.

Read the whole thread.

Good point! Something else I didn't mention in this thread is some "ERVs" that have been found in humans but not in chimps or apes, and vice versa. Or some that are found in chimps and humans but not in apes, etc. It totally throws a wrench into the whole common descent idea.

If you read the thread, you would understand why that's not actually an argument for common descent.

om the start, you’re arguing against a strawman. I have never claimed that “retrovirology is a conspiracy.” Your problem, and the evolutionist’s problem in general, is your reliance on your assumptions when analyzing data. I am not saying that the research or the data being g

n for similar function. It's purely assumption to say certain elements are similar due to ancestry. Show how an ERV invades a cell, doesn't get immediately booted, mutates until it finds a key, necessary function for the organism, then reaches fixation in the entire popul