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?

Kirsten: I didn’t get Darwin’s Children ’cause I was disappointed by the first ending, the whole split-mouth/patchy-faces thing is really clumsy… but I’ll give it a shot if you say it’s worth it…

As for our ‘super-organismicity’, could you point me out to the exact reference? it really interests me…

But, it’s not just retroviruses… it’s bacteria, fungi, you name it. I read somewhere last summer that humans should think of ourselves as a super-organism since we actually consist of more foreign cellular matter than human. There are something like 100 trillion bacteria on and in us whereas we consist of only a few trillion human cells. Add that to the virus load within our cells, and the question truly becomes, how human are we?

If this is the case, genetic similarities between monkeys and humans are due to structural and biochemical similarities. The fact that a virus has those same similarities is only due to the fact that the virus has once infected a human or primate host.

They say that the human genome contains 8% viral DNA. Human DNA has 3.5 billion base pairs. They are saying that 280 million of these base pairs come from viruses.

Everytime a virus mutates, it mutates because it has adopted host DNA. The mechanism for adopting host DNA is alot more explainable than a mechanism wherein a egg infected by a virus would survive to pass on this new code. A cell will typically lyse when infected by a virus. Otherwise the virus has no means of reproduction.

Are there nowadays more known cases where the insert was lost by chance or doesn’t occur in one species inside a clade?

Carl Zimmer in “The Loom” hat eine interessante Geschichte: Wie Viren h

I wonder about this timeframe, is there an explanation for these numbers? Why these waves and why should this activity have ceased? What if HIV gets stuck?

Thanks!

let’s see the YECs explain this away! (or will they simply ignore it as they generally do?)
this is the absolute death-knell for YEC, and certainly a mortal blow to creationism in general. the only POSSIBLE creationist response is to allow for evolution after creation, but where does ths lead them?

and “intelligent design”? don’t get me started!