/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12277308

9KiB, 678x240, 8-40 percent.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 02:13:24 2020 No.12277308 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12277328

How much virus can a human have in their DNA before they start coming out fucked up?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2020 02:20:01 No.12277325 Report

Quoted By: >>12277344

If it's not a problem it's not a problem. Some of it is even beneficial. You could have an arbitrarily large % as foreign DNA with no problems. Hell, you could have 100% of the genome be from viruses and it's possible it would still work fine.
Keep in mind that most of the human genome came about from random uncontrolled mutations, which aren't really any better than a virus inserting its dna

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2020 02:20:31 No.12277328 Report

Quoted By:

>>12277308
what are you actually talking about? how much virus?

1 lol

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO chewed up controller.jpg, 1MiB, 3024x4032

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2020 02:28:18 No.12277344 Report

Quoted By: >>12277353 >>12277369 >>12277371

>>12277325
It seems unideal to me if any percentage of our DNA is coming from a foreign DNA-altering entity rather than through selective breeding. Would you rather eat a wild cow that has 100% of its DNA from its lineage of wild cows that chose all their mates from a selection of available gene pool, or a cow that got some of its DNA randomly fucked up by viruses?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2020 02:31:48 No.12277353 Report

Quoted By:

>>12277344
its not like you can effectively stop it though, unless you seal yourself into a airtight bubble from birth or something. it would be impractical to try, and cells are pretty good at killing themselves if they get FUBAR

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2020 02:39:08 No.12277369 Report

Quoted By:

>>12277344
if it's not doing anything actively harmful or potentially harmful (transposon) then it can be helpful in the sense that a mutation might affect junk repeats in that 40% rather than functional genes or regulatory elements

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2020 02:41:11 No.12277371 Report

Quoted By:

>>12277344
You're implying that retrovirus infections are not also subject to natural selection. That is wrong.

Lets say you have a population of animals. One of them gets a random mutation, and one of them gets a retroviral modification to their DNA.

If the DNA change helps, they live and pass it on. If it does not help, the change dies with them. There is effectively no difference here between these two lads in terms of natural selection.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches