My two cents about the achievements of the EB team

[Ludens]

Like I wrote, it is disputed that 99% of our DNA is inactive. The best you can say is that 99% of our DNA isn't transcribed into protein. I am sceptical of the notion that it contains back-ups of long dormant genes, since these are very prone to mutation*.

(* Or, rather, they are not subject to natural selection, so deleterious mutations accumulate. Natural selection is only affected by current fitness, so only genes that affect fitness in the here and now are selected for or against. Mutations in a dormant gene have no effect, so they are ignored. Unless a gene is used at least occasionally (every couple dozen generations or so), it will do the genetic equivalent of rusting away.)

This is getting rather OT, though. If the OP wishes it, I can move it to a new thread.

[helenos aiakides]

Like I wrote, it is disputed that 99% of our DNA is inactive. The best you can say is that 99% of our DNA isn't transcribed into protein. I am sceptical of the notion that it contains back-ups of long dormant genes, since these are very prone to mutation*.

(* Or, rather, they are not subject to natural selection, so deleterious mutations accumulate. Natural selection is only affected by current fitness, so only genes that affect fitness in the here and now are selected for or against. Mutations in a dormant gene have no effect, so they are ignored. Unless a gene is used at least occasionally (every couple dozen generations or so), it will do the genetic equivalent of rusting away.)

This is getting rather OT, though. If the OP wishes it, I can move it to a new thread.

I agree, and I'm impressed by your knowledge of biochemistry.

It is worth noting that when deciding the relationship genetically between animals, it is non-coding DNA (which we can debate about till the cows come home) which is used. This is because there is little or no selective pressure on it, so although highly conserved, they pick up mutations at a greater rate than "coding DNA" This can be used with a suprising degree of accuracy to determine how long ago species diverge etc. Traditional this was done by DNA-DNA hybridisation, but nowadays is done by means of computer software, which is a much more flexible tool. I digress.
I second Ludens' point, but I felt that it was necessary to emphasise that the "rusting away" process is slow
This post was useless, but I'm tired drunk and have already thrashed it out. It's probably a bit OT, and for that I apologise.

[moonburn]

me likeis the last post i do have a great interest in the domestication process

particulary the highly contested theoryn that we humans domesticated the most dangerous animal of all ourselfs :P

[helenos aiakides]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

Reported today, the revision of the estimate.
Very relevant to this discussion