My point was that how do we know that the genetic code came from a virus rather than a virus coming from the genetic code. This whole theory of human genetic code evolving through viral infiltration of eggs depends on the genetic code originating in a virus.

Since a virus does not create genetic code but rather steals it from other organisms, it must be assumed that no genetic code could can be considered native viral code.

This article is claiming that humans are built (at least 8%) by viral code. My question would be, “why aren’t viruses considered to be composed of human genetic code instead of humans composed of viral genetic code?”

Yeah, I don’t know anything about the evidence for punctuated equillibrium. It’s just that I found Gould’s hypothesis for a mechanism compelling.

I do wish that a professional would happen upon this comment thread and help us out with these questions. I don’t even know who I’d ask!

So this is a way that the genome of a species can acquire a mutation. This provides new raw genetic information that natural selection can work on.

The great thing about this is that this new genetic information isn’t merely single bit coding errors, or a flipped bit due to a stray cosmic particle or other mutagenic exposure. Instead it’s entire strings of new information, already in some cases useful strings of proteins, mulitple codons long.

Has this been explored as a second mechanism behind punctuated equilibrium? We know that small population sizes will allow greater variation of genes to more quickly propogate among a population.

But ALSO a small or concentrated population would provide a great breeding ground for viruses. It is a population under stress that is likely to be fertile for viral epidemics. Populations encountering invading species would be exposed to new viruses. Populations colonizing new territory would as well. Populations hunting a different food source than they are used to will also be exposed to that animal’s viruses.

These viral epidemics provide a population under stress with perhaps, if they’re lucky, the raw genetic data to survive.

So these retroviruses provide the mechanism for accelerated mutation at the same time that small population sizes provide the mechanism for accelerated propogation of the genes successful individuals. Is this a second part of the Punctuated Equilibrium puzzle?

That’s my hypothesis. Anyone working on that? Sorry if my understanding of the science is totally off. I assume there are people here to correct me if it is!

What a TOTALLY amazing piece of the puzzle of evolution if I’m not completely making this up out of my hat. The idea that colonizing species have a mechanism to get the new genetic material for natural selection to work on.

This is a fascinating field!

Interesting… I keep hearing everywhere that there is no genetic/biological basis for race (which I think is baloney), so could anyone provide a source for that?

Theo has no answer because he popped out a non sequiter like “biochemical similarity” as an explanation for viral similarity. That’s garbage. Carl’s talking about viruses in the same locations – thousands of them – in the genomes of putatively related species. YECs would have to prove that viruses don’t insert themselves randomly but actively seek out the same locations in the merely similar genomes of different species. Or else swallow a BIG pill of “random chance” somehow creating these orderly patterns that look like inheritance in multiple genomes. Or a vengeful, spiteful God who creates such as a test to snare and damn rational free-thinkers.

Yeah right.

Would these be, fundamentally, the same thing? We are looking at genetic markers, whether they be viral or not, correct?

For that matter, why isn’t so much of our genome doing anything?