Hi Pcver,
You still seem to have a very tenuous grasp of any sort of evolution. For instance I suspect ...
I notice numerous articles suggesting human history is 6.3 million years old.
... is complete nonsense. What you have encountered numerous times is the conclusion from various sources of genetic and paleontological data that the human and chimp lineages diverged ~6 million years ago(MYA). That does not make 6 MYA the time when modern
Homo sapiens evolved, most current estimates for
that are closer to 400,000 to 250,000 years ago.
For it's totally inconceivable to me that intelligent human could possibly be 'apes-like' for 6.2 million years and then... Bingo! ... Some mysterious awakening caused them to start doing more with their brains.
When we are talking about cars and computers those are all only from the last century essentially, even with only a 6000 year history for the earth we might as well ask why Jesus didn't have an iPhone by your reasoning. Do you really believe that there was a steady linear progression in technology that has got us to our modern state? Do you find hundreds of thousands of years any more plausible than millions?
The data suggest to me chimps did not descend to humans because I cannot reconcile why chimps have 279 more ERVs when humans only have 82 more, since the time they split
Another explanation is of course chimps never descended to human but merely share a common ancestor.
Unless you assume that once the human chimp lineages split chimps never evolved any further genetically then these two things are exactly the same explanation.
But I suspect lifespan of chimps, being half that of human might lower the success rate of new ERVs in chimps.
I would suggest rather that being able to go through twice as many generations in the same time would allow them to undergo almost twice as much genetic change in terms of accumulated neutral mutations (if we consider ERVs neutral).
Your explanations of the existence of ERVs seem to be
ad hoc in the extreme.
One problem is your apparent assumption that every ERV is the result of a novel retroviral insertion event. This is by no means the case, once an ERV has inserted itself into the genome it is as liable to duplication, rearrangement and mutation as any other sequence, more so in some ways since it plays no functional role and will therefore not be maintained by selection. As well as this while ERVs retain enough retroviral function they can actively copy themselves through a process called transpostition.
Which leads me to a puzzle - If chimps were picking up ERVs along geological time scale then it is nearly impossible for all chimps to have exactly the same 279 'new' ERVs today.
This is quite an assertion. Bottlenecking is a well recognised mechanism for fixing a number of loci effectively simultaneously in a population. Perhaps one or more bottlenecking events were the basis for these chimp specific fixed ERVs.
Your entire argument seems to hinge principally upon your own capability for belief in a particular explanation. This is understandable for your own subjective opinion but surely you can appreciate that it isn't a line of argument calculated to sway anybody else?
TTFN,
WK