>>14234244>Wrong>What >WhereMore shotgun posting retardation. Ignored.
>Right here:Replication incompetent means a virus itself cannot REPLICATE (apparently they think one did and has 200 copies in human genome, I'd have to research that one). This is basic virology. It does not mean these DNA strands serve no immune purpose in humans. We would expect them all to be replication incompetent because they were NEVER virus DNA in the first place. Monumental failure on your part.
>Read the paper and find out. It's not my job to summarize entire papers for you. So you have no idea what you are talking about and cannot actually verbalize why it's nothing more than an assumption that they are viral insertions. You don't even comprehend what the paper is saying. LIke I already knew, you are too ignorant to understand and debate this topic. THanks for proving me right.
>The vast majority do nothing. So you're saying they weren't designedNo, the vast majority cannot replicate because they were never viruses (I'd have to look into the exceptions of alleged replication on a case by base basis) They all serve a purpose suggesting design.
>How am I dodging the topic? You created an analogy that doesn't make sense. If it didn't make sense then why not just say it doesn't make sense? You are trying to qualify it into something else, usinf false premises that they DNA strands "do nothing" and attack that. You are trying to set up a strawman and it's very pathetic.
>I'm asking you to clarify it so that it can be answered. There is no need for clarification. It can be answered as written if we reject your lies about the DNA strands serving no purpose (its still answerable with them btw).
>So far the answers you are giving me tell me the answer is no.Shocking, i see why you need to change my valid analogy now. But I thought you said it was unanswerable/ not making sense? How can it tell you something if it makes no sense?
