Why would creationism predict that all of the genome should have function? Does creationism predict that everything in the universe has a function? And why would evolution preclude some ERVs from being useful? ERV insertions are just a type of mutation, and the whole point of Darwinian evolution is that mutations can be functionally useful.
Well then Your researchers should not have screamed how this evolutionary remnant is functionless and this proves evolution only to recant and say these provide function and that also proves evolution is true. This is a good example of TOE being unfalsifiable. No matter what 'it proves evolution', at least for the month.
The point being that creationists never accepted there would be junk DNA in Gods creation. They have never erred from this concept. There has been no going with the flow and knee jerk reactions to make evidence fit. Evolutionists did call non coding DNA junk and asserted until recently it had no function, and you are now finding it is not junk at all an neither are ERV's. Hence if new data is meant to confirm and validate a theory it is the creationist predictions that are being shown to be consistent rather than having to elvolve your own theories to suit what you have found. That is the inescapable point you need to deal with.
Which is to say, you don't know how to compare sequences. Geneticists do, however.
The words 'huge deletions and nonsense mutations' in itself descibes two comparisons that are not alike. One does not need a degree in science to read what is plainly said. What you find are relics, ghosts, by the use of complicated models based on probabilities and assumptions, and still all you get are 'remnants' with huge genomic deletions and nonsense mutations. One does not need a degree to see what is going on here.
Well, you can certainly say that. You can say you're a turnip, too. Neither is true. (Assuming you're not really a root vegetable, that is. On the internet, one can never be sure.)
This is your fairytale so I suppose we should not expect consistency nor common sense. These virus should have 'evolved' differently in the various species. Hence through their own evolution differences in the virus should have occured. It seriously all appears to be straw grabbing.
Humans mutate, too, and undergo huge deletions in their genomes (vastly bigger deletions than anything seen in ERVs) and nonsense mutations, too. Yet we have no difficulty telling that they're genetically related.
Actually if you give some DNA on a swab to a lab you have to tell them what species it is or they are unable to set up the comparisons. It is not as straight forward as you are suggesting.
I have often seen the claim that ERVs, or any other piece of genetic data, can be explained equally well under a creationist paradigm, yet for some reason the explanation is never forthcoming. Why do closely related but different species have the same ERVs (and yes, you really can tell that they're the same ERVs) in the identical places in their genomes. Why do ERVs fall into families that themselves show genetic relatedness? Why are older ERV insertions (as measured by the number of mutations in them) shared across larger numbers of species?
I am saying and I will repeat, once an ERV is transfered horizontally and hits the germ line they become endogenous. Hence unrelated species may share similar ERv's that have nothing to do with ancestry.
"Contrary to being “junk” DNA, HERVs are thought to play at least three major roles. One role is to control the regulation of genes (the expression of proteins from genes).1Members of the HERV-K family are typically found in areas near genes.1 The regulatory role of HERVs has been demonstrated in the liver, placenta, colon, and other locations.1 It was recently reported that an endogenous retrovirus in sheep was necessary for maintaining pregnancy, as it was important in the formation of the placenta." (Answersingenesis)
So you are trying to establish that the deactivated remnant of a bug that has huge genomic deletions and nonsense mutations is responsible for a sheep maintaining pregnancy are you? It appears to be a functioning and necessary part of the creation to me. Does this same ERV provide the same function in other species? No. So now evos are trying to say that bug remnants are intelligent and just know what function to perform and where they need to reside n the genome?
And I am not even going near ERV's having preferential sites as another explanation for any homology seen and I can't be bothered speaking to genetic homology in distantly related species, which you should be aware of.
So once again what you thought were nothing more than ancestral remnants have been shown to have vital function. It is only a matter of time before all ERV's 'remnants' are found to have function. So again creationist predictions on this remain constant, non changing and continually validated...and by a science that is biased against creation and assumes common descent. Is it a miracle?.
No adjustment was needed, I'm afraid. There was never any reason to think that all ERV insertions would prove to be nonfunctional. Now if you could show that every ERV was functional, that would indeed be surprising. But that's not going to happen. Call that an evolutionary prediction
Oh I'd say calling ervs nothing more than a useless remnants then finding some have vital functions is a recanting woopsie that evolutionists go through so often I am sure you hardly notice it