The strong claim is I have not seen any attempt to reconcile the assumption of these sequences being retroviruses or endogenous retroviruses that are randomly written in the germ line. If endogenous retroviruses being randomly inserted in the germ line of animals turns out to be a rare event then the current scientific explanation is wrong.
What I mean by rare is the number that are deleterious which makes your claim more challenging if deleterious endogenous retroviruses are not rare.
Sure this is how it is working but when the established results are not solidly tested the claims that are made rely on untested results. You are relying on the assumption of methodological naturalism to draw many of the conclusions that the theory is built on.
You are back to assertions that ignore that we can see the Designers capability by studying biology. The designer is limited by the laws of nature that He established.
There are sequences similarities and differences. This is observed and very similar to human designs.
Biology is best understood when one infers design vs blind unguided processes. This is a claim that is backed up by the complex systems we observe when studying biology. The insistence on blind and unguided processes is due to the limitations of methodological naturalism. Insisting on this limitation is giving us a false view of reality.