What data have you shown supporting the claim that host genes are transported between complex eukaryote species by retroviruses? As far as I am aware, only retroviral genes are inserted by retroviruses in the species we are talking about. The example you give is for a bacteria which is hardly a problem for comparing chimp and human genomes.
Apparently, you don't read your own sources:
"HGT occurs at low, but appreciable, levels across all the animal species we examined; it has occurred over time and is still occurring; it mainly originates from bacteria and protists"
Retrovirsuse are not bacteria, nor are they protists. Nowhere does your reference give examples of retroviruses excising host DNA from one species and then shuttling it over to another species for the species groups we are discussing.
Moreover, you claim that they can't determine which DNA is vertically inherited because of HGT. Your own references refute this claim.
None of your references show retroviruses shuttling mammalian genes between mammals.
Apparently you don't read your own sources. Again - the odds against any life forming is what? And successful passing on a benefiting mutation is what?
Now suddenly infrequent is something you can't accept? While you can readily accept the odds of mutation over and over and over again for every species that exists? I have never yet seen an evolutionist that can keep a consistent argument for their beliefs.
So we both agree mutation can be dismissed as a cause of new genetic material because of 1) it's rarity - even rarer than HGT.
And 2) because all such experiments show mutation variation limits are always reached and can not be the source of new genetic material.
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf
And here is your proof that genomes are transfered between species, since you didnt read the others.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0001026
"Herein, we described several new complete ERV-K elements in the genomes of the common chimpanzee (
Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkey (
Macaca mulatta) and compared them to those found in humans. We show, for the first time, that the demographic history of the host may be a major factor determining the dynamics of an endogenous retrovirus. Despite the draft quality of the rhesus genome assembly, we found many complete proviruses that have a marked similarity in their fluctuating demographic history to that of humans, with both these species distinct from that observed in the chimpanzee...
...In particular, we found a distinct group of 13 RhERV-K, which diverged around 12 MYBP that were absent in both humans and chimpanzees."
But you won't understand the deeper meaning because you don't want to hear it.
