leroy
Well-Known Member
But you don’t know the exact probability given the hot spots, nor the probability of preserving that genetic change, nor the probability of getting the viral infection in the first place, 3billion is also just an estimateThe probability of sharing exact ERV's without common ancestors where the initial infection took place, is rather easy to calculate.
Simplisticly put:
About 3000-ish known ERV's in the genome.
About 3 billion potential insertion spots.
Sharing an ERV without common ancestry: 1 in 3000*3 billion.
Sharing 2 ERV's without common ancestry: 1 in (3000*3 billion)²
Sharing 3 ERV's without common ancestry: 1 in (3000*3 billion)³
etc
You can further refine this calculation by also taking into account "hot spots", where insertion is more likely then in other spots, based on statistics etc.
My point is that we don’t need to know the exact probabilities in order to conclude that “chance” is an absurd explanation,
The argument is still pretty solid evidence for common ancestry despite the lack of robust math and exact probability (agree?)
BTW I am aware that yesterday you made a few comments, I haven’t read them yet (but I will)