Regarding David G

https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/to-david-g.html

*Davd G from FaceBookLand has attempted to answer a set of questions I have in my FAQ on endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) @  https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/endogenous-retroviruses-frequently.html. The questions arise when one considers the hypothesis that endogenous retroviruses, (ERVs) were designed into our genomes. My comments and corrections commence with a *, and are color-coded in my FAQ/blog for easier reading. 
My original questions are in blue, Davis's responses are in black, @ https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/to-david-g.html. 

*David seems to be worried about God, and whether explaining ERVs is an attempt to disprove him. No, David. God is no more mentioned than you would find in, say, an automotive maintenance manual. 

*David deserves a few points for making a bit of an effort. Few others have tried to do so. However, he would have fared much better if he had studied the FAQ, or if he didn't trust me, he would have learned how to use Google. 

Ill try and answer your questions half this stuff i dont look into because its really just lame excuses to disprove God. But here we go.

*See above.

a) What is reverse transcriptase designed to do? Why was it designed? To what purpose?

I would say to duplicate a cell that is either damaged or forming

*No, David. Reverse transcriptase takes an RNA molecule and gets a DNA version of it made This only makes sense in the context of the retroviral replication cycle.

b) What is integrase designed to do? Why was it designed? To what purpose?

To transform a virus cell into a foreign cell, bodies way of overcoming sickness.

*No, David. It cuts the DNA of a host cell and pastes the DNA version of the retroviral genome into it. This only makes sense in the context of the retroviral replication cycle.

c) Why were ERVs designed with a viral codon bias?

I think you are now just making up words to sound like your smart. Use language people can understand or atleast clarify your questions.

*This is easily googled. A codon is a triplet of DNA base pairs. Each triplet, in a protein coding gene, 'specifies' a particular amino acid. Now, there are several different codons that can 'specify' the same amino acid. Think of the different ones as a word pronounced in different accents in the English language. They all mean the same, but they sound different. Viral DNA has a distinct viral 'accent'. The only explanation for this is that they are ultimately of viral origin. 

d) What is the design purpose of re-transcribable promoters?

To retranscribe a promoter that is lost or damaged...

*No, David. RNA polymerase does not normally transcribe promoters in DNA. But retroviruses require that their promoters are preserved through the replication cycle. They are required to cause the host cell to transcribe their genes. This is done by a special 'hack' that is too technical to go into here. Again, this only makes sense in the context of the retroviral replication cycle.

e) What were the HERVs that produced the consensus sequence that generated Phoenix designed for?

What are you even talking about brah, you tell me.

*It doesn't make any sense to think of them being designed. The HERVs used to reconstruct Phoenix are all 'broken' endogenous proviruses. The fact that this reconstruction produced a fully functional and replication-competent exogenous retrovirus is just about as slam-dunk evidence you would want in order to conclude that the HERVs derive from retroviruses.

f) What is the design purpose of both exogenous and endogenous KoRV?

I dont know half these words you are using speak in plain English please..

Exogenous viruses transmit from external causes. Endogenous - internal causes

*Use Google. The whole world of knowledge is there at your fingertips. You are without excuse. Here is my page about KoRV. https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/the-koalas-tale.html

g) If chimps and humans have commonly located ERVs, what is the design purpose of giving these common ERVs common disabling mutations?

To Heal themselves, you keep asking the same question.

To heal the Chimp from wounds or disease, God cares for the animals he creates so he makes a way their bodies can heal themselves.

*This makes no sense, David. God/ the intelligent designer creating retroviruses and then damaging them so that they don't cause disease? Why not simply not create them in the first place?

h) What is the design purpose of giving some people certain HERVs and not others?

Some people do disgusting things and may be the cause why their bodies are full of viruses and others arnt. Or simply some people might be sick with something another person is not effected by at that point in time.

*I asked that question because some people try to maintain that ERVs are part of the original 'design' of our genomes. The fact is that DNA variants, including ERVs, spread through the population over generations. Sometimes they eventually become ubiquitous or 'fixed'. Everyone has them. Sometimes they become extinct. The explanation for these HERVs is that they are still in some individuals, but they have not become fixed in the whole population.  

i) What is the design purpose of creating different syncytia in different placental lineages?

A placental lineage. different syncytia's? I dont know because people are different you do know that, all people are individually different from one another.

*No, David. I'm talking about differences between species, not individuals. Synctin genes are present in different ERVs in different chromosomes. We often hear "same design, same designer', but this is not the case here. There is no design rationale for this.

Bonus questions for VIGE enthusiasts. (See https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/could-you-have-this-backwards.html)

j) Why would an intelligent designer need to use a retroviral vector for altering intelligently designed genomes?

He doesnt, but like i have stated already Gods purpose and mans purpose may alter and in the altercation, death is the result. Wages of sin is death you go against what God is your logical ends is death.

*So, David, you don't believe that ERVs were designed after all?

k) Why use reverse transcriptase to copy RNA to DNA when, as we know, the reverse transcription process is error-prone, with no error detection and correction?

As of above. Yet God created us to be immortal, we decided to go agaisnt life and choose death therefore a consequence of Man and not God. God doesnt make robots and our free will then at times leads to death

*This is all very confusing, David. Are we responsible for creating reverse transcriptase? Who did it? How?

l) Why use integrase to insert potentially erroneous DNA in virtually random locations, often disrupting the genetics already there?

Thats just natural laws of finite things becoming less adaptable as time goes by.

*So again, David, you don't think it was designed - or was it an incompetent or careless designer?

m) Why did it take humans, rather than a magic being, to create CRISPR/Cas9 technology for precise gene editing?

You cannot create anything that wasn't already here to begin with. Name one thing you can make without a natural substance/material that already exists.

All these questions just show me even if there was a God you would like His character therefore you make yourself an enemy of Him and good luck trying to win that battle.

*Humans have created no end of things. Don't talk silly. The question was, if ERVs were designed to be VIGEs, why not use a more precise gene-editing technology than retroviral vectors?

*David, as you might now be able to see, all the features of ERVs make sense only as the inherited copies of ancestral retroviral integrations with our DNA. The idea of them being designed cannot be made to make any sense. That does not mean that there cannot be any god or intelligent designer, but it does mean that evolution is true.