Study: Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place.
My comment. “Common ancestor” is an a priori assumption and not warranted by the science involved. In actuality, what this study has probably found is a common genetic creation template from which both primates and humans were constructed – or fashioned by God.
Study: In theory, the species distribution of a set of known integration sites can be used to construct phylogenetic trees in a manner similar to restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis.
My comment. Removing the unsupported claim of a common ancestor, the phylogenetic trees are simple pictographs representing genetic change over time within created animal kinds.
Study: Second, as with other sequence-based phylogenetic analyses, mutations in a provirus that have accumulated since the divergence of the species provide an estimate of the genetic distance between the species.
Comment. “Divergence” is an a priori assumption and not warranted by the science involved. In actuality, what the study has probably found is a means to estimate the genetic distance that both primates and humans have moved from the original creation template .
Study: To estimate the age of each provirus the human/chimpanzee distances from each tree were used to calibrate the rate of molecular evolution at each locus. The most recent common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived approximately 4.5 million years ago.
My comment. Removing the unsupported claim of a common ancestor, and substituting molecular “change” for “evolution”, this study attempted to identify an historical date for the animal/human creation event – specifically, the time before current that God brought forth primates and humans from a common genetic creation template . (The 4.5 mya figure is likely in question and warrants further research.)