It's imprtant for scientists, and the viral part of the human genome maybe an interesting rhetorical ploy in debates among non-scientists. But otherwise, what's all the excitement about.
.....
Instead of trying to answer your question -- which, I suppose, isn't actually a question at all -- I'm going to take this opportunity to illustrate why several of your posts inspire irritated reactions.
You start by writing:
I had trouble following the first few posts on this, the core of it was (or seemed to be) wrapped in too much rhetoric for my eyes to follow.
[...]
A straightforward statement about the challenges you're facing because of failing eyesight. Fair enough.
But instead of following that lead, which should suggest the wisdom of cautious conclusions, you charge ahead, using Max's very brief, and really, comedically intended drive-by post as the basis for an assessment of an entire branch of evolutionary theory.
Those earlier, 'rhetoric heavy' posts provided the full context. Since you couldn't follow them, it might have been prudent to reserve judgement, ask questions...or just let it pass without comment.
It's this air of excessive confidence, of dismissiveness, which grates on the nerves.
"...the viral part of the human genome maybe an interesting rhetorical ploy in debates among non-scientists."
But not that alone since these matters can be of interest to informed non-specialists...and not simply as a tool for creating clever metaphors.
"The subject line is completely misleading."
Actually, no. It's precisely to the point. The point being that new ideas are starting to flourish in evolutionary research, ideas which might fundamentally change our concept of species-being (among other things). Rather talented people -- such as Lynn Margulis -- have compelling things to say about this. A few of us have tried to share a bit of information.
Your hand waving, which is the equivalent of reviewing a movie you haven't seen and barely heard about, is unfortunate.
.d.