Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

All of them do. Read the papers you fucking moron.

They weren't only trying to detect the presence of ERV's, and they were widespread amongst vertebrates. Apparently, nothing. There are koalas with over 50 recently inserted ERVs and they are having offspring without a hitch. Already answered multiple times. LTRs are by definition from retroviral insertions. The same way you can identify a partial fingerprint. The same way we know a partial fingerprint is from a finger. Can a murder weapon have its own fingerprints?All you are trying to do is used the Omphalos argument. Arguing that the human genome was created with genetic scars from retroviral insertion is nonsense. It's like saying the universe was created last Thursday, complete with a false history and false memories.

LTRs are ERVs, you fucking moron. You would deny that those are tires. Instead, they are round pieces of rubber that were created with the Earth 6,000 years ago. They never came from a tire factory, nor did they ever reside on a car. I can tell you they are tires. In the same way, LTRs are the tires of the ERV vehicle. Your argument seems to be that the Earth was created with those tires already in place. You fucking moron. You don't even understand the papers you claim to reference. You don't even understand that modeling asexual reproduction does not accurately model the evolution of sexual species. You can't even understand that the mutation rate is different in humans and in bacteria.

You don't need mathematics to explain how antibiotic resistance evolves, you fucking moron. Prove it. Show me every paper in existence on antibiotic resistance and show me that none of them have the requisite math. You wouldn't recognize correct math if it was right in front of you, you fucking moron.

Everyone in biology claims that, you fucking moron. Which has nothing to do with what you asked. Any remnant of a retroviral insertion is an ERV. Solo LTR's are what is left over after homologous recombination of a full length ERV. Solo LTR's are the result of mutations in full length ERVs. They do exist in many ERVs, you fucking moron. Most of them are altered, you fucking moron.How do we tell that both mice and humans have a cytochrome c gene? How do you think that works? The two gene sequences differ by quite a bit, so how can they tell these are the same gene? No, you fucking moron. I have never said that. As shown by genes shared by many different vertebrates, it's possible to identify homologous sequence even when the sequence differs. These are basic, basic concepts, and you can't seem to understand them. So how do you think the authors of the human genome paper were able to distinguish between LTRs from retroviruses and LTRs from retrotransposons? Wrong question. What are the LTR sequences?

So says the person who accepts the irrational belief that DNA was magically poofed into being.

I already did multiple times, and here we are again. You fucking moron. And they have, you fucking moron. None of which actually matches reality. For example, the rate of appearance for antibiotic resistance in the Lenski paper differs based on the genetic background of the bacteria. Where is that in your math?Genomic evolution of antibiotic resistance is contingent on genetic background following a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli - PubMedNot only that, but the appearance of antibiotic resistance can differ by 1,000 fold depending on the antibiotic. Where is that in your math?REPLICA PLATING AND INDIRECT SELECTION OF BACTERIAL MUTANTS - PMCOn top of everything else, your math is completely irrelevant to the vast majority of adaptation in biology.