https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/url-on-article-by-one-fazale-rana-vice.html

On an article by one Fazale Rana, vice president of "research and apologetics" at "Reasons to Believe", a creationist outlet, article titled "Insights about Suppressyn Support Creation Model View of ERVs", March 22, 2023 @ https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/insights-about-suppressyn-support-creation-model-view-of-ervs.

Extracts from the article are indented and rendered in black. As usual, my comments are in red. But there is much content in Rana's article that is of no relevance to the science itself, so I shall skip over all that. And if you are unfamiliar with ERVs (endogenous retroviruses) go to my FAQ pages from the link at the top, "ERV FAQ". 

>ERVs bear strong sequence similarity to retroviruses. But because these genetic sequences are found in genomes, biologists have deemed them to be the leftover genetic remnants of retroviral infections. Accordingly, if the retroviral infection occurs in germ cells, the virus can be passed on to subsequent generations. For this reason, evolutionary biologists use the distribution of ERV sequences in genomes to determine evolutionary relationships among organisms.

As usual in creationist articles on ERVs, Rana, you ignore the evidence and reasoning that leads virologists and geneticists to conclude that ERVs are of retroviral origin. You don't want to trouble readers with inconvenient facts. I summarise this evidence and reasoning @ https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/why-do-virologists-and-geneticists.html.

>In recent years, however, biologists have discovered that ERVs and DNA elements presumably derived from ERVs, such as long terminal repeats (LTRs) serve a variety of critical roles. LTRs play a role in regulating gene expression. And ERVs play an active role in the innate immune system (among other things). This role vitally depends on the sequence similarity between ERVs and retroviral nucleotide sequences.

Yes indeed. Many components of ERVs have been found to serve a purpose for their hosts, but never a complete endogenous provirus, which would be instantly fatal. See https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/the-not-junk-efence.html.

>The importance of ERVs in genomes has been highlighted by recently published work from a research team headed by an investigator from Cornell University.1 These molecular biologists add insight into the benefits provided by transcribed retroviral-like sequences and their protein products. The transcripts and their translated protein products protect early-stage human embryos and the placenta from retroviral infections through a mechanism called competitive inhibition.

You do not give links to any of Cornell's work, which is rather strange. Here is a link to a Cornell article on the subject. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/70400/Frank_cornellgrad_0058F_11962.pdf. 

>Advances in our understanding of the functions served by ERVs offer justification for the conviction that human beings are the product of a Creator’s handiwork. Accordingly, we would expect that the human genome (and genomes of other organisms) must display design signatures.

If you think ERVs were designed for a purpose, I have a number of questions for you. You can find them @ https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/in-science-we-apply-principle-of.html.

Anyway, let's continue.

You  go on to describe (without linking to) studies that have found ERVs providing protection against viral infection and you try to argue that this is evidence of design.

What you neglect to mention is that these features are already part of the armoury of retroviruses, and that they are well-understood as part of the "requirements" of retroviruses themselves, and not specific to any supposed "designed" endogenous genetics. 

The trouble with this "protection" argument is that the protection features are not just to be found in ERVs, but also in the proviruses of infected somatic cells. It is part of the armoury of the retroviruses themselves, to ward off competition from other viruses, and not designed into host genomes. Part of retroviral genomes.

And why would a benign intelligent designer design ways of generating infectious viruses and use the same genetics to protect us against them? How does this make any sense? 

Here's Jon Perry on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B75lH9FeYiM&t=413s.

And here's a paper on superinfection exclusion. https://retrovirology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4690-2-52

>For many people, the presence and distribution of ERV sequences in genomes provides indisputable evidence for human evolution and our shared ancestry with the great apes. How is it possible to account for ERVs in genomes from an intelligent design/creation model perspective?

>To do so, at minimum the ID/creation model must:

>Find evidence that ERVs are functional

>Account for the sequence similarity between ERVs and retroviruses

>Explain their shared distribution in the genomes of organisms that naturally cluster together

>It’s true that most life scientists regard shared biological features—including DNA sequences—as evidence for their shared evolutionary ancestry. Yet, an alternative explanation for biological similarities can be advanced. Instead of evincing common descent, they could be interpreted as shared biological designs with the mutual features reflecting manifestations of a common blueprint—an archetype that arises out of the Creator’s mind. From a creation model perspective, the genetic similarities in the genomes of humans and the great apes—including DNA sequence elements such as ERVs—have been intentionally introduced by the Creator. 

These are not merely "similarities", but precise markers, in precisely corresponding loci, with a well-known and evidenced explanation. As I have shown, design, as an explanation, just doesn't fit the facts, or even common sense.

>To be clear, the Cornell research team views the genomes of humans, great apes, and old-world monkeys as the product of evolution. 

Quite.