Re: So you have nothing!

Now, I know you know nothing about ERV’s and you failed to explain anything. So you have no model to counter the one provided by evolution.  Try Wikipedia, their article will explain things to you.

PLoS Biol. 2004 Aug;2(8):E234.
Retroviral DNA integration: ASLV, HIV, and MLV show distinct target site preferences.
Mitchell RS, Beitzel BF, Schroder AR, Shinn P, Chen H, Berry CC, Ecker JR, Bushman FD.
The completion of the human genome sequence has made possible genome-wide studies of retroviral DNA integration. Here we report an analysis of 3,127 integration site sequences from human cells. We compared retroviral vectors derived from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), avian sarcoma-leukosis virus (ASLV), and murine leukemia virus (MLV). Effects of gene activity on integration targeting were assessed by transcriiptional profiling of infected cells. Integration by HIV vectors, analyzed in two primary cell types and several cell lines, strongly favored active genes. An analysis of the effects of tissue-specific transcriiption showed that it resulted in tissue-specific integration targeting by HIV, though the effect was quantitatively modest. Chromosomal regions rich in expressed genes were favored for HIV integration, but these regions were found to be interleaved with unfavorable regions at CpG islands. MLV vectors showed a strong bias in favor of integration near transcriiption start sites, as reported previously. ASLV vectors showed only a weak preference for active genes and no preference for transcriiption start regions. Thus, each of the three retroviruses studied showed unique integration site preferences, suggesting that virus-specific binding of integration complexes to chromatin features likely guides site selection.

So much for your idea of specific site integration. Bushman show some retroviruses will have higher affinity for some regions of the genome, but these regions are quite large spanning and could span thousands of Kilobases.  But still when you compare the high number of ERV that are shared between chimps and humans the only logical explanation is the one provided by evolution: a common ancestor of humans and chips that carried these ERV in its genome and then passed it to both when they branched off.  The nested hierarchy as predicted by evolutionary theory is confirmed once again.

Your explanation of infection also fails, since all chimps everywhere would have to had infected all humans everywhere. It also requires for all the viruses from all the chimps integrate into all the humans in exactly the same place.  It is also not a problem with chimps, since we also share ERVs with many other primates including monkeys, your explanation is unsatisfactory.

When you look at this data from PNAS vol96no.18 then teh only explanation that fits the data is that of Evolution.
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254/F2.large.jpg

To my knowledge there is no case of a virus that infects plants and animals. If you can find one, I would be interested in learning about it.

And for you to introduce this idiot Beauchamp and the pseudoscience crap is absurd.  Again, it is you wanting to believe something despite evidence to the contrary.


Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

Tweet