Ancient virus DNA thrives in us

They looked at the genome of mammals and compared the genetic material to discover how many had the same genetic material from viruses. I'm not sure how they determined this material was dirfectly linked to viruses though, maybe someone here can shed light on that.

Apparently they hypothesize that the virus evolves and loses the ability to transmit between cells and instead invades the host DNA becoming a part of it. The only genetic material passed on though is found in reproductive cells, what are some examples of sperm being invaded by a virus.

The work established that many of these viruses lost the ability to transfer from one cell to another.

Instead they evolved to stay within their host cell where they have profilerated very effectively - spending their entire life cycle within the cell.

They believe about half our DNA is viral or from parasites.

Astonishingly, only 1.5% of the genetic material in our cells codes for human life. Half of the rest is sometimes described as "junk DNA" with no known function, and the other half consist of genes introduced by viruses and other parasites.

I somehow think this is similar to them saying years ago we only use 10% of our brain and the rest is not used, which we now know is categorically false. They go on to say ....

There is evidence that they can provide positive services. For example the protein syncytin - derived from a virus - helps develop the placenta.

So how did childbirth occur before this viras infected us with its DNA?

What do you guys think about this?

www.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


That's a very good point you make about how could we have reproduced before. I think this is total bunk. What did they say, 1.5%? Rediculous!

So how did childbirth occur before this viras infected us with its DNA?

It likely didn't, giving birth isn't a requirement for making a new life, I think Mitosis came first from single-celled organisms and later multi-celled animals gave their offspring shells, which were softer than the shells we know on land for the animals that are still in the water use the shell as a sort of amniotic sac instead of a delicate barrier for life against predators.

However as species began to thrive on land shells on eggs became harder, chitinous as like bugs and bugs who laid eggs still used a larval stage between egg and pupae stages (then adult?) and since mammals decided that giving birth was better because not only does your offspring survive in a well-made nest but the mother can leave the still-growing child alone to bring it food.

Childbirth did not happen before DNA, DNA is what makes Childbirth a miracle. Viruses do not reproduce without a host, it is why they are not considered life, and it is one of those spectacularly complex reasons why life is amazing; without Viruses deciding the basis of natural selection humanity would have never existed, and perhaps Childbirth would still be a primitive thing where the mother doesn't really stand a chance to survive after the arduous process of squeezing a watermelon through a garden hose.

Other than that, you know this means each human being is a walking talking vector for microbial attack, cover your mouth when you cough I don't need your germs!

Deny Ignorance ATS, Viruses did not directly lead to live-birth in Mammals, Viruses were what chased life into an Egg and without the egg no sperm would be swimming in a race to see who gets what and where first.

hmmm..?! similar to how that parasite eats a fish's tongue, and them becomes that fish's tongue!

what if our intestines used to be big worms, infecting all of humanity, until we became one with them?

assimilation is closer than we think.

reply to post by Sachyriel


That is not what was presented, did you read the article? These virus are not from single celled organisms. The article does not support your assertion. Show me this viral invasion is tracked back to single celled organisms. Thanks.

reply to post by SoymilkAlaska


That's definitely interesting, but it would have to be that the fish are born with the parasite as their tongue for it to be equal. I think the fish/louse relationship is extraordinary, but not an example of this.
news.discovery.com...

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Sachyriel

 

That is not what was presented, did you read the article? These virus are not from single celled organisms. The article does not support your assertion. Show me this viral invasion is tracked back to single celled organisms. Thanks.

It's not an invasion, human life evolved because Viruses aren't life and they invade despite our wishes for them to stay away.

Your assertion is that the virus is invading, and to me that makes little sense, Viruses were here before humanity.

I read the article and was intrigued, then I answered your question about childbirth.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by SoymilkAlaska

 

That's definitely interesting, but it would have to be that the fish are born with the parasite as their tongue for it to be equal. I think the fish/louse relationship is extraordinary, but not an example of this.
news.discovery.com...

i meant over a long period of time.

don't be silly

reply to post by Sachyriel


Here is proof you are wrong.

Apparently numerous mammals (who all use the placenta to give birth and can't give birth without this gene) have different genes from different viral infections. They all serve the same purpose, but caused by different virus.

blogs.discovermagazine.com...

Therefore mammals, which need this gene to give birth, all got it at different times from different infections. So my question stands, how did they give birth without this gene since it was a recent addition?

Edit: I do not want this to become a creation vs. evolution debate. Let's stick to the science please.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Therefore mammals, which need this gene to give birth, all got it at different times from different infections. So my question stands, how did they give birth without this gene since it was a recent addition?

Contemporary mammals need this gene (facultative or obligate? Have there been knockout studies?). Doesn't mean that past ones did. Might be that the role of this gene has become more important whereas role of some other genes has decreased. Might be that the "old gene" was discarded completely in favor of this new one. Might be that the old gene is still present in all these animals, and it just hasn't been identified yet. Eukaryotes are very chimeric, a large proportion of our protein-coding genes comes from archaea, and even larger proportion (in fact largest) from at least two different bacteria. Then there's all that viral stuff. E.g. almost all mitochondria replicate their DNA with T7 viral type DNA polymerase.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

You haven't understood how viruses are assimilated to genomes.

Rhinoceros is too modest to link you to his own thread, so let me do it for you: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You'll find the knowledge you need in the thread and the links to it.

reply to post by Astyanax


No, what I have is no answer from him and a whole lot of might be, maybe, don't know, could be. I don't understand the rediculous hostility, I asked if anyone had any insights, and I did not want this to be a creationism vs evolution debate (which is what you are trying to make it) and you link me to his thread about ... wait for it ... creationism vs evolution. You tell me the links are magically there to solve all lifes mysteries for me, and yet not a single question I asked is answered in that thread. Please go away if you have nothing constructive to add to the thread and head to the flamewar thread you link me to.

Oh and thanks for telling me I just haven't understood without answering anything I asked, please show me your peer review work you have published? Thank you expert.

So my question stands, how did they give birth without this gene since it was a recent addition?

I don't want to hear evolution is a crock, I don't want to hear you simply don't understand, I am asking for actual information, as I am genuinely interested.