[qs]No, if we have different physiological reqirements we would have different ERVs.[/qs]
You have already stated that ERV's have function. If they have function, as you state, then it is the ERV's that determine our physiology, not the other way around. If ERV's have function then it is ERV's that are helping to drive the appearance of differences between species, not the other way around.
No, the creation of different organisms drove the elements used, not the other way around.
To use an analogy, you are telling me that the wet spot on the ground is telling the raindrop where to fall.
No, you already used the horse and cart thing. I told you that the horse and cart were in the same position. You are attempting to use the Darwinian friendly side to advance your case while ignoring the other.
So if our physiology requires ERV's to be in a certain place why don't all humans have the same ERV's?
The same reason all humans don't have the same genetic information. Notice you isolated physiological requirements from physiology to advance your case.
The LTR's of a single retroviral insertion is identical at the time of insertion. That is what I am telling you, and what you continue to ignore. This is observed time and again in the lab.
No, I listed the function of LTRs as promoters. Different functional requirements in different organisms means that there will be different LTRs. You then claimed that LTRs act as promoters in viruses which some have argued "do not eat or drink, have no metabolism with which to change anything or generate energy, no secretions, no defecation, no activities, no nerves, sensors or (electrical) nerve energy, no reproductive faculties nor, in fact, any qualities of life whatsoever." "That, as genomes, so-called viruses are merely the genetic patterns for entitative organisms with all the qualities of life as in bacteria, mitochondria, (organelles) fungi and human cells!" "Statements that so-called viruses, without any life qualities, or any ability to move or maneuver, attack cells, seize positions, inject themselves into a cell, command a cell, infect a cell, program a cell, wreak tremendous damage or in any manner perform any act or in any way cause any result are inherently absurd. The living organism always acts and causes results favorable to itself. Only pure chemical unions from chemicals (poisons) pose a serious threat. Dead materials are always acted upon! Only the living organism does the acting. The very statement that "viruses" attack when they do not have any faculties for movement, propulsion, assault or offensive action, and have no energy or capability for any activity at all and have no have no equipment for damaging anything at all, is sheer fiction."
The promotional role was most likely established by mapping viral sequences with active promoters then saying that they act as promoters in what would be, dead organic matter. In fact, as one writes "As may be expected because of the integrated phase of their life cycle, retroviruses have somewhat typical eucaryotic promoters."
You then presented reverse transcription ("Because of the mechanism of reverse transcription, the two LTRs must be identical at the time of integration,") As wikipedia writes "The LTRs are partially transcribed into an RNA intermediate, followed by reverse transcription into complementary DNA (cDNA) and ultimately dsDNA (double-stranded DNA) with full LTRs. The LTRs then mediate integration of the retroviral DNA via an LTR specific integrase into another region of the host chromosome.
Retroviruses such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) use this basic mechanism." There was actually an
interesting discussion about that.
CJ: Tell me about the reverse transcriptase observations. Why don't they prove the presence of a retrovirus?
EPE: Reverse transcriptase was discovered in retroviruses, but observation of it doesn't mean you've got a retrovirus, much less one particular retrovirus, because reverse transcriptase is not the only enzyme that can reverse transcribe, and reverse transcriptase is not unique to retroviruses.
The existence of RT is proven indirectly. By putting some RNA into a culture and seeing if DNA bearing the corresponding sequence appears.
CJ: You mean the presence of RT is implied by the ability of the culture to do this particular trick?
EPE: Yes. It's measured by demonstrating the process of reverse transcription. Like many enzyme tests, the test for reverse transcriptase measures what the enzyme does, not the actual enzyme itself. So in the case of RT it measures the production of DNA copied from a synthetic piece of RNA introduced into the cultures. The problem is that RT is not the only thing capable of doing this trick, as you call it. Normal cellular enzymes can also do this trick. In fact, they do it very well with the same synthetic RNA that all HIV researchers introduce into their cultures to copy into DNA in order to claim that their cultures contain HIV RT, and thus HIV [24].
What's more, when you read the AIDS literature, it becomes apparent that some authors who claim to have isolated HIV have done no more than detect reverse transcription.
CJ: So the evidence using RT does not look good?
EPE: The problem with RT is the same problem with all the evidence. It's just like the particles Gallo photographed. They might be the particles of a retrovirus. The reverse transcription might be caused by the RT of a retrovirus. But "might" is not scientific proof. You don't construct scientific theories from what "might" be going on.
CJ: How can you dismiss particles? They're very convincing. How can you escape the fact that no matter how widely Gallo and everybody else deviated from the traditional method of isolating a retrovirus, there are particles in these cultures, and a lot of very important people regard them as particles of a retrovirus.
EPE: Particles have to be viewed with a considerable amount of perspective. Retroviral-like particles are practically ubiquitous. In the 1970s such particles were frequently observed in human leukemia tissues, in cultures of embryonic tissues, and in the majority of animal and human placentas. This is of significance given that the H9 cell line is made up of leukemic cells and also because Montagnier obtained his EMs of "HIV" from cultures done with umbilical cord blood lymphocytes.
As already noted, some of these objects that look just like retroviruses are not viruses of any sort. Or they may be endogenous retroviruses. Only isolation can sort all this out.
We are not comparing ERV sequences across species. We are comparing the LTR's of a single ERV in a single species. So how does creationism explain this pattern of LTR divergence?
This was already given. LTRs are functional also. In the case of LTRs across species,
1. You are presupposing that the all the LTR elements are confined to a specific ERV suite. To put it analogically, You have a monitor, processor, keyboard and mouse in one suite. LTRs are the mouse. The keyboard, processor and monitor make up the rest of the ERV. You think that the mouse is determined by the type of keyboard, monitor and processor you have. I'm saying that the mouse is determined based on functional roles (with some chinks and scratches), independent of the keyboard etc. A particular keyboard doesn't mean that you will have a particular mouse. Some can have a standard keyboard and a laser mouse.
2. You spot an ERV suite with an infrared mouse, an infrared keyboard, 17 inch monitors, Core two duo processor. You say that this is one suite. Where ever we find an infrared keyboard, 17 inch monitors, and a core two duo processor, we should find an infrared mouse.
3. I say: The type of mouse is determined based on functional requirements (laden with a few scratches and chinks). It is not dependent on the type of keyboard, monitor etc you have.
No, it hasn't. Species specific mutations continue to occur, and genetic isolation continues to exist.
And? You are the one who thinks that this process can create a man from microbe. What's gong on here is adaptation. There is a difference among the creation of a car, the breaking down of a car, and lights on'off in a car.
How do fish with lungs break the nested hierarchy when evolution predicts, via the nested hierarchy, that there should have been transitional fish with a mixture of basal fish and basal tetrapod features? Do you even understand how nested hierarchies work?
That's completely irrelevant. Here you are just picking features. Seeing that birds are tetrapods, and Darwinian evolution depicts that fish gave rise to tetrapods, this means fishes should have feathers right? Of course, if they did, this would break the hierarchy as you have a fish with tetrapod features. But fish with tetrapod features doesn't break the hierarchy in the case of fishes with lungs because according to Darwinism, tetrapods came from fishes.
Contingency of what? Humans violate the nested hierarchies with ease. For example, the Glofish is a man made species. This is a fish that carries an exact copy of a jellyfish gene, a direct violation of the nested hierarchy. If human designers can violate the nested hierarchy with ease, why couldn't God?
This was just given. The nested hierarchy was broken multiple times.
They are functional 
