Why Aren't the Twin Locations of >100k+ ERV's (human vs. chimp) Discussed More?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

I wanted to leave a record of the post below (from another thread) …

Viruses intentionally choose how they infect

Then those intentions weren’t very kind. Retroviruses cause a lot of harm to many species. HIV is a retrovirus, and I am sure you don’t need any education as to the harm this retrovirus has caused the human species. Also, this is nothing but an aside to the larger question. If retroviruses do have intent, then their intent is to insert all over the place in a genome. Scientists have run experiments where they let these retroviruses insert into the host genome and then map the viral inserti…

on THIS thread!

"The bars are the 22 human chromosomes and the X chromosome. The colored lollipops are the mapped insertions for 3 retroviruses: HIV, MLV, and ASLV. As you can see, they insert all over the place. Some viruses do show preferences for certain portions of the genome, but these portions make up a large percentage of the overall genome. For example:

For HIV the frequency of integration in transcription units ranged from 75% to 80%, while the frequency for MLV was 61% and for ASLV was 57%. For comparison, about 45% of the human genome is composed of transcription units (using the Acembly gene definition).
ibid

So HIV does show a preference, but that preference is to areas with active transcription which makes up 45% of the genome. So 80% of the time it inserts into a pool of about 1.5 billion bases, and 20% of the time it inserts into the other pool of 1.5 billion bases.

As you can see, the chances of a retrovirus inserting at the same base in two genomes is extremely slim. This is why independent insertions can not explain humans and chimps sharing 99+% of their 200,000+ ERVs at the same base in each of their genomes. The only explanation is common ancestry, the very same reason that you and your siblings and cousins share the same ERVs."