Origin of AIDS found

  • Thread starter Thread starter root
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 40
  • Views Views 7K
root

root

IB Expert
Messages
1,348
Reaction score
73
I thought this was interesting considering all the misconception that get touted from timr to time on this forum:

HIV origin 'found in wild chimps'

It is thought that people hunting chimpanzees first contracted the virus - and that cases were first seen in Kinshasa, in the Democratic Republic of Congo - the nearest urban area - in 1930.

Paul Sharp, professor of genetics at the University of Nottingham said: "It is likely that the jump between chimps and humans occurred in south-east Cameroon - and that virus then spread across the world.

"When you consider that HIV probably originated more than 75 years ago, it is most unlikely that there are any viruses out there that will prove to be more closely related to the human virus."

He said the team were currently working to understand if the genetic differences between SIVcpz and HIV evolved as a response to the species jump.
Click to expand...

Keith Alcorn of Aidsmap said: "The researchers have pinned down a very specific location where they believe the precursor of HIV came from.

"But there are vast areas of west Africa where other forms of SIVcpz lineages exist, and the possibility remains for human infection.

Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5012268.stm
 
Please tell me the virus became sexually transmitable AFTER the species-jump from chimps. The alternative is just nasty.
 
Please tell me the virus became sexually transmitable AFTER the species-jump from chimps. The alternative is just nasty.
Click to expand...

Currently AIDS is not necessarily sexually transmitable parsai. Aids is spread by infected blood so absorbing HIV infection can be through a number of means that are not sexual. However, we do have to acknowledge that sexual intercourse does permit AIDS to spread due to minute tearing of capillery blood vessels during sex and it spread was more prominant in Gay communities because Anal sex bleeding during intercourse is much more prominant than non anal sex.

So after establishing it's transport method "blood to blood" the virus initially infected humans in the 1930's through the hunting of Chimps either by the blood of the chimps getting onto open wounds and very small abrasions on the hunters or beneficeries of the kill and or the eating of bush meat insufficiently cooked. A question of either or.
 
Ah ha. Silly me, I forgot that it is transmitable through blood. You're right, chimps bleeding into open human wounds makes sense.
 
Muezzin said:
Please tell me the virus became sexually transmitable AFTER the species-jump from chimps. The alternative is just nasty.
Click to expand...

Without going into detail, the alternative is virtualy physicaly impossible.

If somebody really thinks they have a valid reason to know more then that I suggest they enrole in an approved University, major in biology and take some advance comparative anatomy courses.
 
do you know that depressed AIDS victims now inject their blood with syringes into innocent poeple in crowded places?
 
Muezzin said:
Please tell me the virus became sexually transmitable AFTER the species-jump from chimps. The alternative is just nasty.
Click to expand...

I don't think I have anything much I care to contribute to this thread.

Evolution's human and chimp twist
Humans and chimpanzees may have split away from a common ancestor far more recently than was previously thought.

A detailed analysis of human and chimp DNA suggests the lines finally diverged less than 5.4 million years ago.

The finding, published in the journal Nature, is about 1-2 million years later than the fossils have indicated.

A US team says its results hint at the possibility that interbreeding occurred between the two lines for thousands, even millions, of years.

This hybridisation would have been important in swapping genes for traits that allowed the emerging species to survive in their environments, explain the scientists affiliated to the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and the Harvard Medical School.

And it underlines, they believe, just how complex human evolution has been.

"This is a hypothesis; we haven't proved it but it would explain multiple features of our data," said David Reich, assistant professor of genetics at the Harvard Medical School and an author on the Nature paper.

"The hypothesis is that there was gene flow between the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees after their original divergence.

"So, there might have been an original divergence and a separation for long enough that the species became differentiated - for example, we might have adapted features such as upright walking - and then there was a re-mixture event quite a while after; a hybridisation event," he told the Science in Action programme on the BBC World Service.

Gene swapping

Humans and chimps contain DNA sequences that are very similar to each other; the differences are due to mutations, or errors, in the genetic code that have occurred since these animals diverged on to separate evolutionary paths.

By analysing where these differences occur in the animals' genomes, it is possible to get an insight into the two species' histories - the timing of key events in their evolution.

Scientists have been able to do this for some time but the recent projects to fully decode the two primates' genomes have provided details that have taken this type of study to a more advanced level.

The US investigation indicates the human and chimp lines split no more than 6.3 million years ago and probably less than 5.4 million years ago.

It is a problematic finding because of our current understanding of early fossils, such as the famous Toumai specimen uncovered in Chad.

Toumai ( Sahelanthropus tchadensis ) was thought to be right at the foot of the human family tree. It dates to between 6.5 and 7.4 million years ago. In other words, it is older than the point of human-chimp divergence seen in the genetic data.

"It is possible that the Toumai fossil is more recent than previously thought," said Nick Patterson, a senior research scientist and statistician at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and lead author on the Nature paper.

"But if the dating is correct, the Toumai fossil would precede the human-chimp split. The fact that it has human-like features suggests that human-chimp speciation may have occurred over a long period with episodes of hybridisation between the emerging species."

Commenting on the research, Daniel Lieberman, a professor of biological anthropology at Harvard, told the Associated Press: "It's a totally cool and extremely clever analysis.

"My problem is imagining what it would be like to have a bipedal hominid and a chimpanzee viewing each other as appropriate mates, not to put it too crudely."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4991470.stm

Published: 2006/05/18 11:00:34 GMT​
 
HeiGou, Surprisingly, I am going to agree with you and accept that as a feasable possability. Although I can not say this proves your statement, but it does lend credability to your statement.

2:65. And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." S P C
2:66. So We made it an example to their own time and to their posterity, and a lesson to those who fear Allah. S P

Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation

Now what I see from that, is that some people were changed into apes. Since they were changed they are no longer human. It is as if they never were human. My conclusion is that therefore humans are not related to Chimps.

Just my honest opinion astaghfirullah
 
Now what I see from that, is that some people were changed into apes. Since they were changed they are no longer human. It is as if they never were human. My conclusion is that therefore humans are not related to Chimps.
Click to expand...

The scientific data is in direct odds with your statement. Further, apes and humans split what would appear to be a number of times and hybrids could be a real possibility (as some fossils) thought to be an ancestor may have been early hybrid attempts.

It seems as Heigou's reference points out cross breeding before the final isolation of breeding occured showed that chimps and bipedal (pre-human) chimps continued to breed, Chimps were on this planet before Humans.
 
Woodrow said:
Without going into detail, the alternative is virtualy physicaly impossible.

If somebody really thinks they have a valid reason to know more then that I suggest they enrole in an approved University, major in biology and take some advance comparative anatomy courses.
Click to expand...
As Homer Simpson would say: 'Woohoo!'
 
root said:
I thought this was interesting considering all the misconception that get touted from timr to time on this forum:

HIV origin 'found in wild chimps'

It is thought that people hunting chimpanzees first contracted the virus - and that cases were first seen in Kinshasa, in the Democratic Republic of Congo - the nearest urban area - in 1930.

Paul Sharp, professor of genetics at the University of Nottingham said: "It is likely that the jump between chimps and humans occurred in south-east Cameroon - and that virus then spread across the world.

"When you consider that HIV probably originated more than 75 years ago, it is most unlikely that there are any viruses out there that will prove to be more closely related to the human virus."



Keith Alcorn of Aidsmap said: "The researchers have pinned down a very specific location where they believe the precursor of HIV came from.

"But there are vast areas of west Africa where other forms of SIVcpz lineages exist, and the possibility remains for human infection.

Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5012268.stm
Click to expand...

Wow, I read these articles from Newsweek in History class today about AIDS. I never got to state my opinon so I'm going to say it now. The part that shocks me the isn't the statistics. It is how the people feel embarrassed about this and don't tell anyone. They make up that they are dying from cancer or they keep have unsafe sex not telling their partners. I just wanted to get that out in the open.
 
In my opinion aids is engineer disease by sciencetist, their alot of truth not have been told.
 
correct if im wrong but i thought it was impossible to deduce that AIDS came from one source as it was found in three parts of the world at around the same time??
 
correct if im wrong but i thought it was impossible to deduce that AIDS came from one source as it was found in three parts of the world at around the same time??
Click to expand...

You got a source for that and most importantly does it date to being located in the 1930's? Somehow, I don't think you will provide the source
 
i saw a video last week that showed that HIV might not really be the cause of AIDS and that HIV patients are given medication that might somehow lead to the cause of AIDS. i dont think its true but the video definitely raises questions.
 
Woodrow said:
Without going into detail, the alternative is virtualy physicaly impossible.

If somebody really thinks they have a valid reason to know more then that I suggest they enrole in an approved University, major in biology and take some advance comparative anatomy courses.
Click to expand...


;D

or just use plain common sense..
 
HIV is found in a few bodily fluids that come in contact with other people. They are:
Blood
Semen
Vaginal Secretions
Breast Milk
HIV is also found in spinal fluid, but that rarely leaves the body, much less gets shared with another person. If HIV was originally a simian disease, coming in contact with simian blood (possibly anywhere in the process of hunting down, killing, and eating a primate) could have transmitted it. Personally, I'm going to spend less time speculating on its beginning, and more time hastening its end.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top