No actually the opening post puts up a whole rheeme of woffle and an essay that is based on erraneous and contradictory evidence with simplistic algorithms often being poohied by the lastest one.
Let's go right back to the very start where you flatly denied that this research has anything to do with ervs.
Their study of the model organism
Daphnia pulex (water flea) is the first to demonstrate the colonization of a single lineage by "introns," as the interrupting sequences are known. The scientists say introns are inserted into the genome far more frequently than current models predict. The scientists also found what appear to be "hot spots" for intron insertion -- areas of the genome where repeated insertions are more likely to occur. And surprisingly, the vast majority of intron DNA sequences the scientists examined were of unknown origin.
"The thinking has been that these insertion events are very rare because they always have bad effects," said postdoctoral fellow Abraham Tucker, a lead author of the
Science paper.
Introns -- nonsense DNA -- may be more important to evolution of genomes than thought
So here we have the door open to large genomic sections being inserted through parallel transfer. Generally with bad effects which backs the other research I posted today. This supposedly happened 200,000 times with non lethal effects. Wakey Wakey lovey??? Some erv's reside in introns. Therefore you cannot tell if many of the introns you count as endogenous due to Mendellian inheritance were inserted this way at all 20mya and more. You can guess.
These algorithms are based on preconcieved assumptions. They are designed to look for what is most similar. (I think they will find similarities between coconuts and eggs) Similar is not similar at all in the real world with anything as close as 40%-60% being adequate to count as the same. Further to that some compress data for simplification and do not account for deletions and insertions, nor length of sequence. So they discount anything that looks different then get results like 40-60% similarity, and then have the hide to put this biased nonsense forward as evidence
You have lost this debate with me, as there are too many doors open to errors in your algorithms. They are not credible. No matter how complicated they get they never will be. You are frustrated because anything you provide is based on algorithms. That's all you've got in support of this erv evidence for ancestry. If you have researchers that challenge many algorithms as simplistic and narrow your opinion is not going to override that fact. As I say evolutionists have left observation behind and opened the door to storytellers.
Further to that this research suggests introns are inserted more frequently that current models predict. You lot are still confused as to whether the human genome is 1%-10% viral remnant. What the hell hope have you got of expecting any algorithm you devise to actually give you accurate data about anything let alone HGT percentages.
Everyone here does know don't they, that what you lot suggest are ervs that have inserted through HGT are said to be so purely based on the presumption that they'd be in other close species if they were anciently endogenised. Similarly those erv's that should be seen in various species are said to be purged or deleted purely based on the predetermined assumption of common ancestry. It is all unfalsifiable nonsense.
Maybe you can explain how an oviduct poofed into a triple uterus and then fused back into one uterus while selecting for the ervs that maintain mammalian pregnacy. Wake up!!!!!!!!
You loose because your algorithms are NOT observations and are simplistic and known to be erraneous..take it like a man!
