For some reason I cannot break the quote up with spaces so will revert to my old style with numbers.
1. Claiming its concluded doesn't stop it being assumed. Unless you can experimentally demonstrate in real time what you claim then it is an assumption, plain and simple.
2. Virtually identical... Meaning there are differences? Hmmm.
I do wonder that if this is the case wouldn't such be evidence against mutation changes in the genome. The current method of DNA analysis includes adding insertions into the DNA being assessed due to the assumption that millions of years of mutations have occured and thus the DNA would be different. If this is the case then shouldn't the ERVs also be different also?
So on one hand evolutionists claim differences are caused by mutation and thus evidence of evolution, yet in this case evolutionists claim they are similar and therefore are evidence of evolution.
Additionally I wonder how can one determine what is an ERV in our DNA or not?
3. And how was this "majority vote" conducted, I hope you excuse me since too many times I have seen evolutionist scientists take "liberties" in their studies in order to attempt to prove their evolutionist dogma, (see piltdown man, nebraska man, java man, Lucy, Haekle, etc).
4. Which doesn't explain the chicken and the egg conundrum I mentioned twice before.
5. This is merely your opinion and is not a point for anything.
6. And? That doesn't support evolutionary origins only that viruses can become endogenous which is what you claimed before
So what DNA sequences have been looked at and which ERVs are similar with which other ones?
I prefer numbers too.
1. Claiming something is being assumed does not mean that it is. We can experimentally demonstrate what we know about retroviruses and ERVs.
2. As I said before, you would not want a fully functional provirus embedded in every cell of your body. Reverse transcription is a very error-prone process, and often fails to produce a functional provirus. See the reference to the phoenix virus for the types of errors encountered in ERVs. It's the usual stuff. Substitutions, insertions and deletions.
Mutation rates to nuclear DNA are a different topic. I'm happy to discuss the issue. Maybe in another thread.
We can determine what is an ERV by the signs I described earlier. Repetition of a short stretch of native DNA either side of the integration site, long term repeats at each end, signature retroviral genes such as reverse transcriptase and integrase, which are only of any use to a retrovirus. It doesn't take much reverse transcription error and subsequent mutation to render this DNA ineffective, but It is still easily recognizable. In fact, the 200,000 figure is probably an underestimate. Some older ERVs could well be mutated to the point where it is difficult to be sure they are of retroviral origin. The 200,000 we can be pretty sure of. A handful would be a clincher for common descent, if they were found in corresponding locations in two different species, but we are getting ahead of ourselves. At this point, I am merely explaining why ERVs are concluded to have been of retroviral origin.
3. The majority vote in the Phoenix virus experiment is described in the paper, Identification of an infectious progenitor for the multiple-copy HERV-K human endogenous retroelements I explain the process by analogy here, The Phoenix Virus.
4. A marsupial that provides a bit more nurturing in the womb will produce fitter offspring, and their progeny, in turn, if they develop an even more advantageous pre-birth environment, will also meet with more reproductive success. It's not an either/or thing. A fully developed placental system "poofing" into existence would falsify evolution. It is not how evolution occurs.
5. It doesn't matter what phenomena we find. We can always claim that an omni-everything designer did it, for reasons we do not have to explain. But that cannot explain why anything is one way and not another, so it has no explanatory power. It cannot explain, for example, why a syncytin-bearing ERV includes reverse transcriptase and integrase. This is the question raised in the OP, and nobody so far has offered at even a suggestion for an explanation. Endogenization does just that. It fits all the observed data and makes complete sense.
6. I'm glad you agree that retroviruses can become endogenized. That is one of the contributory items in the case for common descent, a case which I have not made yet. I am not assuming evolution here.
Go and look at the original Phoenix virus paper for examples of several similar ERV sequences. If you want to see more, there is a whole zoo of them. Just get googling.