I've studied this topic in considerable depth, and discussed it with many creationists. Some are familiar with it, some are not. Some have come up with ingenious objections, but none have stuck. Each time a new one is brought up, dealing with it has strengthened the case from ERVs for common descent. I'd be vary happy if anyone here could come up with anything, especially anything new.
Isn't this the fallacy of chronological snobbery? Whereby old or new things are deemed "bad" or "good" simply because they are old or new.
Additionally I wouldn't regard one person's opinion on the matter the be-all-end-all to determine the worth of an objection, so just because you think they do not stick doesn't mean they actually don't.
Not therefore evolution, but therefore retroviral. You don't know why something should be contrived in great detail to look exactly like a retroviral provirus if it isn't one? Me neither.
That doesn't mean one should assume evolution, much like evolutionists did with "junk" DNA, much to their folly. I'd adopt a "wait and see" approach rather than assuming an evolutionary victory.
Though what I do wonder about is if these ERVs contain required information, (which you have admitted it does in one of the other forums you ask this), then how could the species exist "before" receiving such information since it is required for an extremely important function, (in this case pregnancy). I believe I asked this before..
If the ERV is claimed to be added before it is required is mere assumption as well as defying the evolutionists own interpretation of natural selection since the code would not be required and thus not selected for, allowing it to become eliminated.
I suppose anything whatsoever could be claimed to be 'design', but that doesn't, indeed cannot explain why something is one way and not another. That is why, unless you can impose some constraints on what your hypothetical designer can and cannot or would and would not do, such as making something that makes a tiny bit of sense, the hypothesis is of little interest or value to science.
Assuming "evolution did it" has no value either since it stops scientific research into the mechanisms of such, exactly in the same way it hindered research into "junk" DNA. I am sure we would have researched "junk" DNA much more comprehensively by now if we didn't adhere to evolutionist dogma and regarded it as "junk".
But patience. I haven't finished posting the proof that ERVs are indeed of retroviral origin. The detailed genome and the traces of the action of integrase should be enough for anyone objective and free of presuppositions, but there is much more...
We wait with baited breath