Pointless debates and fruitless discussion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Muezzin
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 52
  • Views Views 7K
Status
Not open for further replies.
your point being what? I have already stated above viruses aren't living organisms.. They need to use the host's machinery whether a eukaryotic or a prokaryotic in the form of a bacteriophage-- via recombination, reassortment, complementation or phenotypic mixing, etc is inconsequential from a human evolutionary stand point. I hope we are clear on that.
 
Last edited:
your point being what?

I have no 'point' other that I am just trying to understand something I know little about. You seem to be saying that viruses cannot evolve because they are are not living organisms. Yet the Wiki article states that they do evolve via mutation/natural selection/adaptation (even if the biological mechanisms are different)? I am obviously missing something!
 
I have no 'point' other that I am just trying to understand something I know little about. You seem to be saying that viruses cannot evolve because they are are not living organisms. Yet the Wiki article states that they do evolve via mutation/natural selection/adaptation (even if the biological mechanisms are different)? I am obviously missing something!

I never said they can't evolve. In fact their genius (if I can call it that) is in their ability to change their nucleic acid sequences so you aren't really sure how to attack them.. else it would have been fairly easy for us to eradicate --Rhino virus or the flu -- the best we can do is figure out which new recombination it will assume and come up with a flu vaccine which is introduced into the body in many forms I can't get into it now.. but to mount a host immune response.. so when the actual virus hits your body is already familiar with its mechanisms and can attack it properly... this is a very expansive topic--
I am simply saying they are not governed by the laws that apply to us on the account that they aren't living organisms.. if you know what it entails I have no doubt you can make your own virus in a lab just recombining pieces of nucleic acids.. there is no guaranteeing that it will be lethal.. most viruses are small enough to go through our system undetected.. but folks play with that a lot to try to fix some of the genetic diseases that we have (SCID) being one--point being if they (viruses) make it/ should they make it.. they need either a bacterial or human host to replicate and do their thing.. and their replication is really not directed like bacteria, or flukes or helminths or fungi... I can get into that a bit more tomorrow... I sincerely don't feel well tonight...

peace
 
Just an addendum from a point of interest, I wanted to enclose this website which really explains fairly easily and adequately how we can use a retrovirus in gene therapy to combat a DZ like (SCID) whence you can figure out how easy it is to manipulate a virus hopefully to see some positive results in some rather deadly disease...
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/G/GeneTherapy.html

peace and Gnight
 
Re: Creationists dealt a blow

Actually it has many a practical use, especially in the field of health. The medical industry itself spends millions every year trying to keep up with the new diseases that evolve.
That's true.

I was talking more about Evolution in terms of the 'controversial' type that causes so much ape-debate.
 
I have no 'point' other that I am just trying to understand something I know little about. You seem to be saying that viruses cannot evolve because they are are not living organisms. Yet the Wiki article states that they do evolve via mutation/natural selection/adaptation (even if the biological mechanisms are different)? I am obviously missing something!
There is a critical point here that is being missed. Virii are not living and are outside the realm of evolution in the sense evolutionists talk about. No where on the "tree of life" showing ancestral relations will you find a virus. Although a virus can mutate and adapt to become virulent where it was not previously, it can't "evolve" into a living organism - even a single celled bacteria. Just as PurestAmbrosia said, it may be possible to generate a new virus in the lab, but it is impossible to generate even a single living bacteria from the basic elements.
 
There is a critical point here that is being missed. Virii are not living and are outside the realm of evolution in the sense evolutionists talk about. No where on the "tree of life" showing ancestral relations will you find a virus. Although a virus can mutate and adapt to become virulent where it was not previously, it can't "evolve" into a living organism - even a single celled bacteria. Just as PurestAmbrosia said, it may be possible to generate a new virus in the lab, but it is impossible to generate even a single living bacteria from the basic elements.

Great post akhi:
I am going to try to explain this in very easy terms.. How viruses work--I wish someone had done this for me back in the day-- but anyhow for those interested, and I am almost certain for the most part no one will be interested in reading this save a handful. As I notice people enjoy throwing terms and using articles but not really understanding the mechanism behind them, which is a shame since it can mislead many people...

The best example of a virus in lay man's term is a polymer, but out of nucleic acid so obviously they change all the time from things they pick up or exchange along the way through many mechanisms.. the mechanisms can only be attained from living things and that is how they become infective or lethal. let's say your cell has a key that is triangular shaped.. and I make this polymer that will be a perfect fit for that triangular shaped lock of yours.. obviously this can be understood as Glycoprotein- GP 120 or CCR5.. I am just using normal terms so when you read about CCR5 or Gp-120 or any other that might pass your way-- on your own time you can assimilate it to something that makes sense on an every day level!

then any number of things can happen--we can have recombination via the exchange of genes between two sets of chromosomes by crossing over within regions of significant base sequence homology in other words two nucleic acids can be exchanged but they are still somehow alike. that is one way so you don't end up with many different serotypes.

Also we can have reassortment which is when viruses with segmented regions (that is pretty much self explanatory) but an ex of that would be the flu exchanges these segments, and I believe that is very much where the term "evolution" can fit, every time you have a new segmentation, it causes a very high frequency of new recombination, and that is why it causes world wide pandemics.. if scientists aren't on top of it trying to figure out what new recombination might arise yearly. What they don't tell you though, is that sometimes it can be a miss... I mean some segments can be assimilated in the vaccine and some can be completely missed.

We can also have complementation it pretty much like a marriage I don't want to use rogue terms but neither a man nor a woman can have a baby on their own.. they are missing something that the other partner can give and that is what complementation does for a virus -- one complements the other and they exchange parts that make both of them functional.

and last but not least we can have phenotypic mixing again in lay man terms is like we are exchanging coats or cloaks. I give you my coat which can cause harm in its own (surface protein) way plus your own nucleic acid sequence which causes harm in another way.. so you have my type A coat with your own Type B genetic material however there is many different combination that can exist.

I can go into more details in this, if anyone has specific questions. If not.. I hope we can all see the difference between a cell and all its functions and a purely acellular organism.
thanks for reading
:w:
 
Aw man, now we appear to be debating evolution again :p
 
No dear sir I beg to differ---I was discussing how Viral "evolution" isn't evolution that pertains to cellular life form as the pseudo intellects will have us believe -- at least that is what I am hoping the thinking reader would conclude after this short explanation!
From now on--you should impose some sort of a tariff --whenever one of them tries to revive this sort of topic under the guise of a new discovery courtesy of reader's digest or the lady's home journal!

:w:
peace!
 
I’m not entirely sure I want to get into this with someone who has such an appalling lack of knowledge about evolution
Then don't!.. I am not sure I want to engage someone with such an appalling form of continuous verbigeration, and subjective views. If you are handy with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.. why don't you reflect a little and come up with a handy solution as to what ails your person instead of dispensing free advise as to what you assume "religion entities" have done to our mind.. This is the most amazing form of projection I have ever come across....

peace!
 
Respond to what exactly? what have you offered in regard to evolution?
This is what you managed to come up with!
I’m not entirely sure I want to get into this with someone who has such an appalling lack of knowledge about evolution.
For starters what a great preamble...

As a starting point, you may wish to review authoritative sources about the very best factual data about how life has evolved on the planet. I think you'll find the evidence for major evolution is vast and overwhelming.
By authority you mean your person? or simply assume that we can't do a google search to see various third party frauds on wikipedia? that have undoubtedly gave you exclusive rights to the illuminati club?

I'll be pleased to provide additional data sources at your request.
I am sure it will prove to be earth shattering...

Unfortunately, your entire premise is terribly flawed. I see this frequently.
Another subjective view? or you are really ready to wow us with the same rhetoric we are accustomed to seeing?

My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts.
lol-- Ok!

Meaning, of course that the “apes into human beings” nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or a monkey. Man was never descended from a monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.

for what it is worth I was never the one who stated we are descended from Apes.. you can thank your fellow atheists for that...mine was merely a mocking reply!
the most amusing part is your nit picking on one post in particular that has absolutely nothing to do with the entire topic..
I have already explained ad nauseam the flaws with evolution under -- well "evolution" and "creationists dealt a blow"-- the party is over...
if you want to start a new topic... then do... and clean up your disposition if you wish to get some sort of feedback from members...
peace!
 
Last edited:
Well, this topic sort of backfired...

Can somebody close it please? I have no mod magic in this particular section.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top