Notices
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 844
Like Tree117Likes

Thread: Do Viruses drive Evolution in Multicellular organisms?

  1. #201  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post

    How about you ..... actually back up your claims?
    I haven't made any claims yet. I am just trying to answer the question "Do Viruses drive Evolution in Multicellular organisms?" Professor Villarreal, and Dr.Frank Ryan have proposed they do and back up their claims. I have even attempted to find articles that refute their work but I haven't found any yet.

    OK?
    See above post #195
    No dice.

    You previously wanted me to work a three body problem. You must have got the email from Villareal after you made the assertion. And I'd rather drink a coffee.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post

    How about you ..... actually back up your claims?
    I haven't made any claims yet. I am just trying to answer the question "Do Viruses drive Evolution in Multicellular organisms?" Professor Villarreal, and Dr.Frank Ryan have proposed they do and back up their claims. I have even attempted to find articles that refute their work but I haven't found any yet.

    OK?
    See above post #195
    No dice.

    You previously wanted me to work a three body problem. You must have got the email from Villareal after you made the assertion. And I'd rather drink a coffee.
    I might have put you wrong there maybe it is a website link. I'll edit soon.
    Problems the email has disappeared! But the page with all the references has gone!
    Same day as Villarreal sent me this link
    Do Viruses drive Evolution in Multicellular organisms?
    and this note
    "Hi Robert,

    I have more time now to reply to you. I briefly looked at the discussion thread you indicated below. It seems many want citations and some feel that use of the term 'virolution' needs to be authenticated by peer review (in spite of its simple definition and abundant genomic data). I find it a bit ironic that these participants think there are few relevant primary references. I have written many articles and books on this topic (all peer reviewed) and it has been my experience that editors will frequently complain to me that I have too many primary references (usually in the hundreds). As you know, ''virolution' was coined by Frank Ryan. He is a professor and member of the Royal Society in England. I'm attaching his latest peer reviewed paper on the subject of virus in human evolution. Given the fundamental importance of books for new science ideas (Jenner, Newton, Darwin, etc), this belief in journal review as the ultimate authority for science terminology is curious. Perhaps those holding such views should read the writings of Wittgenstein on the social and dynamic nature of meaning of words. However, it turns out I have what seems to be the perfect chapter for you on 'virolution' with tons of references. I recently wrote it for a new text book titled "Astrobiology; an evolutionary approach" edted by Vera Kolbe. However, this book has not yet been published. I would be willing to provide you with a preprint of my chapters, but you would need to promise not to post it or republish it, although you would be free to use any references therein. You might find it a bit much to digest however. Let me know if you can agree to this. In the mean time, I'm also attaching a reading list I provide to students on this topic. This is a bit much, as well.

    cheers,





    Luis P. Villarreal, Ph.D.


    Director, Center for Virus Research
    2208 Biological Science 3
    University of California, Irvine
    Irvine CA 92697


    CVR office phone: (949) 824-6074
    CVR FAX (949) 824-9437


    http://CVR.bio.uci.edu
    Last edited by Robittybob1; December 21st, 2013 at 12:09 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post

    How about you ..... actually back up your claims?
    I haven't made any claims yet. I am just trying to answer the question "Do Viruses drive Evolution in Multicellular organisms?" Professor Villarreal, and Dr.Frank Ryan have proposed they do and back up their claims. I have even attempted to find articles that refute their work but I haven't found any yet.
    OK?
    See above post #195
    Read the bolded sentence that YOU originally posted, B-W/S has provided exactly what you asked for, now answer the questions posed by B-W/S
    Prof Villarreal did read this thread and maybe he will answer the question but it is definitely not up to me to speak for him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    ....
    What is there more to discover? How many times to we have to spoon feed you the answers before you understand your concept does not hold water.

    I WILL NOT supply the basic biological answer that you should already have from any level of study into biology that is High school or above. I have asked you to supply that answer and will keep asking until you do.
    You claim my "concept does not hold water" but won't actually discuss why, but just demand answers and threaten to pester me until something happens of which I have no idea what you want. If you won't respond in a reasonable manner I will have to just totally ignore you. I really don't want to do that for you seem in some other ways to be a person of knowledge, but please be reasonable, I'm not a mind reader.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    A group of single celled entities(organisms?) driving the evolution of another group of single celled organisms is not evidence for DNA transmutation by viruses in multicellular organisms.

    Can you tell us what basic multicellular reproductive feature found in complex sexually reproducing organisms would prevent the type of manipulation you are asserting?
    In this article abstract they eludes to the problem of viruses entering the genome.
    Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Generated Without Viral Integration
    Pluripotent stem cells have been generated from mouse and human somatic cells by viral expression of the transcription factors Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc. A major limitation of this technology is the use of potentially harmful genome-integrating viruses.
    Use of a recombinant retrovirus to study post-implantation cell lineage in mouse embryos.
    We show that a gene introduced into cells of mouse embryos by a retrovirus can serve as a heritable marker for the study of cell lineage in vivo.
    Didn't seem to be impossible in that study!

    "Introduction of a rabbit β-globin gene into the mouse germ line" Introduction of a rabbit β-globin gene into the mouse germ line
    This could be accomplished by the transfer of a cloned gene into germ-line cells, and the subsequent transmission of that gene to offspring. Previously, SV40 DNA sequences11and a cloned HSV-1 thymidine kinase gene12 have been introduced into somatic tissues of mice by microinjection of the DNAs into blastocysts11 or eggs12, but germ-line transmission of these sequences has not been demonstrated. The only foreign DNA sequences which have been transferred into and transmitted by the mouse germ-line have been exogenous Moloney leukaemia virus genomes introduced by viral infection of early embryos13. We now report the introduction of a cloned rabbit DNA fragment containing the adult β-globin gene into the germ-line of mice. We have analysed 24 mice derived from eggs microinjected with this DNA. Nine mice contain the rabbit β-globin gene in liver DNA, and at least four males from this group transmit the gene to a fraction of their progeny.
    There are more - look it isn't impossible for a virus to infect the germ cells and end up having inherited foreign genes being passed on. What made you think it was impossible?

    what basic multicellular reproductive feature found in complex sexually reproducing organisms would prevent the type of manipulation you are asserting?
    There was nothing that i could see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Genetically engineering glow-in-the-dark cats would not be a sign of natural evolution.



    "IT'S ALIVE!"
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/glow-in-the-dark-cats-jellyfish-and-monkeys-may-prevent-aids/2011/09/12/gIQAdq89MK_blog.html

    I
    don't have a clue about this but it's funny.
    Last edited by Beer w/Straw; December 21st, 2013 at 09:56 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    You might find this interesting and it also may shut you up too.

    Indeed, HHV-6 is the first functional virus of any type reported to be passed through the human germ line.

    Infectious virus hidden in chromosomes can be passed from parents to children
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    So rob, your finially starting to get the point I was making. That viral infection would NOT change the DNA composition of an adult mco in a way that would be passed on to offspring.

    Now show us the NATURALLY occurring viral taxa that specifically target zygote and embryonic stages in mcos..
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    You might find this interesting and it also may shut you up too.

    Indeed, HHV-6 is the first functional virus of any type reported to be passed through the human germ line.

    Infectious virus hidden in chromosomes can be passed from parents to children
    That might "shut" paleiochneum "up" but why would that make me "shut up"?
    For now we have to take it to the next step; is there any evidence that an inherited virus ultimately improves the organism, i.e. gives it an advantage and hence drives evolution?
    An improvement could be something like this: A mutation of an inherited viral gene portion (host type II) makes the host resistant. Instead of passing on the disease the inherited viral genes now prevents reinfection with to this virus and some related viruses. Upon challenge with these viruses the wrong viral gene is activated (host type II) and the challenging virus is rendered ineffective.

    That is a hypothetical example, but certainly freedom from a group of viruses would make it be worthwhile carrying the inherited virus in the genome. It then is a matter of closing down or find uses for any of the remaining viral genes all except the (host type II) gene.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    So rob, your finially starting to get the point I was making. That viral infection would NOT change the DNA composition of an adult mco in a way that would be passed on to offspring.

    Now show us the NATURALLY occurring viral taxa that specifically target zygote and embryonic stages in mcos..
    Didn't Beer's example do that? There may not be a " specific targeting effect" but it has happened; the "NATURALLY occurring" virus above is being passed on genetically.

    Hypothetically speaking - trying to stimulate you.
    Not every viral infection will do this but for evolution to occur you only need it to happen once every million years or so. But as I write this there is potentially 100 or so viruses that are similarly interacting with our genome at any one time.
    100,000 times a million = 100 billion years, so obviously when we were much more primitive, when the common ancestor was a unicellular organism and onwards, when our life cycles were measured in hours not in 30 year generations, evolution would have been a much more rapid event.
    Yet 50,000 years (on average) would still have been enough for humans to have 100,000 viral elements in their DNA. In the 4-5 billion years since life first formed (sorry but I am a panspermia believer) we could have easily picked up and included 100,000 viral elements in our genome.

    That is not a number "plucked out of my arse" as some will say, but the "100,000 viral elements in our genome" is the number mentioned earlier in the thread
    Do Viruses drive Evolution in Multicellular organisms?
    Last edited by Robittybob1; December 21st, 2013 at 12:24 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    An improvement could be something like this: A mutation of an inherited viral gene portion (host type II) makes the host resistant. Instead of passing on the disease the inherited viral genes now prevents reinfection with to this virus and some related viruses. Upon challenge with these viruses the wrong viral gene is activated (host type II) and the challenging virus is rendered ineffective.

    I'm really not getting it.

    Did you say viruses drive evolution because they organize mass genocide of their own type and similar kinds of virus types?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    An improvement could be something like this: A mutation of an inherited viral gene portion (host type II) makes the host resistant. Instead of passing on the disease the inherited viral genes now prevents reinfection with to this virus and some related viruses. Upon challenge with these viruses the wrong viral gene is activated (host type II) and the challenging virus is rendered ineffective.

    I'm really not getting it.

    Did you say viruses drive evolution because they organize mass genocide of their own type and similar kinds of virus types?
    Living organisms will use the genetic material in a myriad of interesting ways, ways that even I can't imagine, but the example I gave was based on a YT where parts of the Mosaic Virus was injected into a bacterium which then transferred the gene to the cassava plant giving it resistance. It did NOT say how that resistance was mediated in the plant.

    So the answer is "Yes", we could make use of the viral genes to make us resistant to the virus. But it will only be a handful of individual genetic lines that achieve this and so they become a type of Genetic Adam and Eve again. Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered : Discovery News (That website was just to introduce this weird term.)

    Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women.
    It is not like he was the only human alive but they are only male and female genetic lines to have mastered all the viral attacks happening since that time. Is that the meaning of it? I have been wondering for there has been more than 1 "Genetic Adam", hasn't there? But the one mentioned here was the last known one. Weird isn't it!
    Last edited by Robittybob1; December 21st, 2013 at 02:37 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    That's almost exactly what is being done with cats that glow in the dark.

    Both are examples of genetic engineering, hence, not a natural occurrence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    That's almost exactly what is being done with cats that glow in the dark.

    Both are examples of genetic engineering, hence, not a natural occurrence.
    What they were doing shows what could happen naturally too though for example using the natural aspect of Agrobacterium species.

    Agrobacterium-Mediated Plant Transformation: the Biology behind the
    Agrobacterium-Mediated Plant Transformation: the Biology behind the “Gene-Jockeying” Tool

    Agrobacterium tumefaciens and related Agrobacterium species have been known as plant pathogens since the beginning of the 20th century. However, only in the past two decades has the ability of Agrobacterium to transfer DNA to plant cells been harnessed for the purposes of plant genetic engineering. Since the initial reports in the early 1980s using Agrobacterium to generate transgenic plants, scientists have attempted to improve this “natural genetic engineer” for biotechnology purposes.
    .....
    Twenty-five years ago, the concept of using Agrobacterium tumefaciens as a vector to create transgenic plants was viewed as a prospect and a “wish.” Today, many agronomically and horticulturally important species are routinely transformed using this bacterium, and the list of species that is susceptible toAgrobacterium-mediated transformation seems to grow daily.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    There is the possibility a rogue black hole is headed for me too, and right now I'm more interested in trying to calculate the probabilities for that.

    Maybe I'll start a thread after I've done some research.
    Robittybob1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    There is the possibility a rogue black hole is headed for me too, and right now I'm more interested in trying to calculate the probabilities for that.

    Maybe I'll start a thread after I've done some research.
    I can only think you answered like that was because you didn't go back and listen to Do Viruses drive Evolution in Multicellular organisms?.


    The talk about viruses being an essential part of the formation of the mammalian placenta keeps on getting mentioned. I have not even tried to understand the specifics of it yet but now is about time. It is the example of how an infecting virus has been utilized by the host.

    Just so many articles come up when you search for > mammalian placenta + viral proteins.

    Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein inv... [Nature. 2000] - PubMed - NCBI
    Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis.

    Abstract

    Many mammalian viruses have acquired genes from their hosts during their evolution. The rationale for these acquisitions is usually quite clear: the captured genes are subverted to provide a selective advantage to the virus. Here we describe the opposite situation, where a viral gene has been sequestered to serve an important function in the physiology of a mammalian host. This gene, encoding a protein that we have called syncytin, is the envelope gene of a recently identified human endogenous defective retrovirus, HERV-W. We find that the major sites of syncytin expression are placental syncytiotrophoblasts, multinucleated cells that originate from fetal trophoblasts. We show that expression of recombinant syncytin in a wide variety of cell types induces the formation of giant syncytia, and that fusion of a human trophoblastic cell line expressing endogenous syncytin can be inhibited by an anti-syncytin antiserum. Our data indicate that syncytin may mediate placental cytotrophoblast fusion in vivo, and thus may be important in human placental morphogenesis.
    The first sentence of that abstract goes against my hypothesis "Many mammalian viruses have acquired genes from their hosts during their evolution. " The way i think of it is the other way around at all times, in that the virus perfects the gene which is then acquired by the host.
    But let's keep an open mind it could be two way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    The first sentence of that abstract goes against my hypothesis "Many mammalian viruses have acquired genes from their hosts during their evolution."
    Yes, because the people who do this for a living cannot know more than you.

    Here is the offensive thing about you Robi. You refuse to acknowledge that you could be wrong, so much so, you disregard proof because it goes against your hypothesis.

    The way i think of it is the other way around at all times, in that the virus perfects the gene which is then acquired by the host.
    But let's keep an open mind it could be two way.
    You also believe that turtles bury their eggs because of a flash fire that drove them to it in the past. What you think no longer really matters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    The first sentence of that abstract goes against my hypothesis "Many mammalian viruses have acquired genes from their hosts during their evolution."
    Yes, because the people who do this for a living cannot know more than you.

    Here is the offensive thing about you Robi. You refuse to acknowledge that you could be wrong, so much so, you disregard proof because it goes against your hypothesis.

    The way i think of it is the other way around at all times, in that the virus perfects the gene which is then acquired by the host.
    But let's keep an open mind it could be two way.
    You also believe that turtles bury their eggs because of a flash fire that drove them to it in the past. What you think no longer really matters.
    Answers like that are just so silly I can't be bothered to reply.

    The whole thread has been showing the high rate of evolution in viruses means the transfer of evolved genes goes from the virus to the host, and an article writes what I reckon is incorrect, and notice they never offered any proof of their assertion but you take it as an opportunity to use it against me. For God's sake! I even concede it is possibly a two way exchange.
    You also believe that turtles bury their eggs because of a flash fire that drove them to it in the past.
    If you ever think I ever said:
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1
    [I] also believe that turtles bury their eggs because of a flash fire that drove them to it in the past.
    , you are obviously mental.
    I said it may have been because they buried their eggs that they survived the flash fire. The logic being that the eggs being deep under the surface would not have been affected by a short term fire storm.
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1
    But could the turtles have only survived via the buried unhatched eggs? For I was thinking what sort event would a burrowed or buried or submerged animal be protected from? The only idea that came up was flash fire. Did the birds have buried nesting sites as well? It is not so hard to imagine birds in the air being able to out-fly a fire storm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Rob, you haven't even clearly defined what virolution is yet.

    Maybe addressing like: timeline, food chain and difference between effect on a unicellular organism to say, one with 37.2 trillion cells.

    1 : 37,200,000,000,000 is lots. So yeah, any finite mathematical input would show initiative.

    Oh and genetic engineering is still not a natural occurrence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    What flashfire? You mean the extinction event? Bahahahaaa! Bloody hell you come out with some BS! And you have the cheek to call me mental.

    It's because of their slow metabolic rate, so they did not need much to eat to survive. So many turtles and small animals were able to survive the extinction event that eventually killed off the dinosaurs, because they could live on less during a time where food was quite scarce.

    The whole thread has been showing the high rate of evolution in viruses means the transfer of evolved genes goes from the virus to the host, and an article writes what I reckon is incorrect, and notice they never offered any proof of their assertion but you take it as an opportunity to use it against me. For God's sake! I even concede it is possibly a two way exchange.
    You think the biologists who wrote the paper, are incorrect, because it does not fit into your hypothesis? Not that you're up yourself much.

    Robi, you barely understand basic biology or the terminology used. You are in absolutely no place to concede anything when you cannot even understand what you are conceding to.

    Have you read the article in full? Or are you basing what you believe is their lack of proof from the abstract alone? Have you looked at the data they even mentioned in their abstract? Or did you not get past the first sentence because it does not support your hypothesis?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    What flashfire? You mean the extinction event? Bahahahaaa! Bloody hell you come out with some BS! And you have the cheek to call me mental.

    It's because of their slow metabolic rate, so they did not need much to eat to survive. So many turtles and small animals were able to survive the extinction event that eventually killed off the dinosaurs, because they could live on less during a time where food was quite scarce.

    The whole thread has been showing the high rate of evolution in viruses means the transfer of evolved genes goes from the virus to the host, and an article writes what I reckon is incorrect, and notice they never offered any proof of their assertion but you take it as an opportunity to use it against me. For God's sake! I even concede it is possibly a two way exchange.
    You think the biologists who wrote the paper, are incorrect, because it does not fit into your hypothesis? Not that you're up yourself much.

    Robi, you barely understand basic biology or the terminology used. You are in absolutely no place to concede anything when you cannot even understand what you are conceding to.

    Have you read the article in full? Or are you basing what you believe is their lack of proof from the abstract alone? Have you looked at the data they even mentioned in their abstract? Or did you not get past the first sentence because it does not support your hypothesis?
    It was a bit of a knee jerk reaction admittedly. So you do think the article supports their contention? I'll read a bit more then, but the main point I was emphasising was the mammalian use of the viral proteins.
    I called you mental if you reckoned that is what i said. So do you agree I never said:
    You also believe that turtles bury their eggs because of a flash fire that drove them to it in the past.
    : if you can concede to that maybe we move along.
    The fires were the first obstacle after the impact, the lack of food comes later, so both have to be survived.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretace...ects_of_impact
    The consequences of reentry of ejecta into Earth's atmosphere would include a brief (hours long) but intense pulse of infrared radiation, killing exposed organisms.[49] Global firestorms likely resulted from the heat pulse and the fall back to Earth of incendiary fragments from the blast. Recent research indicates that the global debris layer deposited by the impact contained enough soot to suggest that the entire terrestrial biosphere had burned.[116] The high O
    2
    levels during the late Cretaceous would have supported intense combustion. The level of atmospheric O
    2
    plummeted in the early Cenozoic era. If widespread fires occurred, they would have increased the CO
    2
    content of the atmosphere and caused a temporary greenhouse effect once the dust cloud settled, and this would have exterminated the most vulnerable organisms that survived the period immediately after the impact.[117]
    Last edited by Robittybob1; December 21st, 2013 at 08:55 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Rob, you haven't even clearly defined what virolution is yet.

    Maybe addressing like: timeline, food chain and difference between effect on a unicellular organism to say, one with 37.2 trillion cells.

    1 : 37,200,000,000,000 is lots. So yeah, any finite mathematical input would show initiative.

    Oh and genetic engineering is still not a natural occurrence.
    Typical Beer w/Straw.... look even an organism with 37.2 trillion cells starts off as a unicellular organism, a fertilized ovum. So what is the point, of the maths.

    Virolution was term left for Tranquille to define for she has read the book, and I haven't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    I can't access the full article but searching the web i found another study on the same topic

    PLOS Computational Biology: Viral Proteins Acquired from a Host Converge to Simplified Domain Architectures
    Viral Proteins Acquired from a Host Converge to Simplified Domain Architectures

    Abstract

    The infection cycle of viruses creates many opportunities for the exchange of genetic material with the host. Many viruses integrate their sequences into the genome of their host for replication. These processes may lead to the virus acquisition of host sequences. Such sequences are prone to accumulation of mutations and deletions. However, in rare instances, sequences acquired from a host become beneficial for the virus. We searched for unexpected sequence similarity among the 900,000 viral proteins and all proteins from cellular organisms. Here, we focus on viruses that infect metazoa. The high-conservation analysis yielded 187 instances of highly similar viral-host sequences. Only a small number of them represent viruses that hijacked host sequences.....


    The majority of cases it is the host getting its genes form the viruses but in small incidence it is the other way around as confirmed by these sentences: "The high-conservation analysis yielded 187 instances of highly similar viral-host sequences. Only a small number of them represent viruses that hijacked host sequences."

    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Typical Beer w/Straw.... look even an organism with 37.2 trillion cells starts off as a unicellular organism, a fertilized ovum. So what is the point, of the maths.

    Virolution was term left for Tranquille to define for she has read the book, and I haven't.
    And I did. Numerous times and explained that it is not a real word, but a made up word, to convey an idea, one that viruses played a role in evolution, which widely known. Just because you don't pay attention and instead have a 'ooh shiny' approach, and latch onto anything you think supports your hypothesis is your problem, not mine.

    I am not the one referring to it as a factual word, as though it even exists and using it in sentences like it has any definitive meaning.

    It was a bit of a knee jerk reaction admittedly. So you do think the article supports their contention?
    I'm not doing your homework for you.

    You disagreed with it because the first sentence did not support your hypothesis and it is clear from your post that you either have not read even the abstract fully or you did not understand it. Again, that's your problem and not mine. But don't expect me or anyone else to provide you with what the article says when you can't even read the abstract and instead chose to misrepresent it here.

    The fires were the first obstacle after the impact, the lack of food comes later, so both have to be survived.
    Read what you quoted and then pay particular attention to the words used. And then I want you to go back to the start of the paragraph you quoted and you might, just might, see what I was saying about the turtles.

    I called you mental if you reckoned that is what i said. So do you agree I never said:
    My apologies for misunderstanding your words:

    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1
    But could the turtles have only survived via the buried unhatched eggs? For I was thinking what sort event would a burrowed or buried or submerged animal be protected from? The only idea that came up was flash fire. Did the birds have buried nesting sites as well. It is hard to imagine birds in the air being able to out-fly a fire storm.
    And I don't think you quite understand what they mean by firestorms. But that is the subject for another thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post


    I called you mental if you reckoned that is what i said. So do you agree I never said:
    My apologies for misunderstanding your words:



    And I don't think you quite understand what they mean by firestorms. But that is the subject for another thread.
    Apology accepted.
    I could always be clearer in expressing myself. I struggle with it at times. Another thread will be required for the KT Boundary discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    So, let's see if I follow now.

    Once in a million years, there is a one in thirty seven point two trillion chance, a virus will re-write the genome of the entire human race? And all this from a virus, who's sole purpose in evolution is to aid in what an immune system will do anyway, and that is to kill itself.

    Hmmm, Now I see how our microbial ancestors migrated from the planet Mercury to Earth before they became multicellular.

    I'm liking those odds myself.
    Last edited by Beer w/Straw; December 22nd, 2013 at 05:37 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    So, let's see if I follow now.

    Once in a million years, there is a one in thirty seven point two trillion chance, a virus will re-write the genome of the entire human race? And all this from a virus, who's sole purpose in evolution is to aid in what an immune system will do anyway, and that is to kill itself.

    Hmmm, Now I see how our microbial ancestors migrated from the planet Mercury to Earth before they became multicellular.

    I'm liking those odds myself.
    That can all start from one germinal cell becoming infected with one mutated virus, and the virus becoming endogenized (as in ERV).
    Just one cell in a million years, and being very very lucky thereafter using your very precise figures.

    An endogenous virus is not a dead virus but one that has combined its genome with its host and the host's 99,999 "other" endogenous viral genes (elements). The virus lives on through the host, so it will become the virus that will travel to Mars or beyond. Yesterday Mercury, today the Earth, tomorrow the Universe.
    Last edited by Robittybob1; January 5th, 2014 at 12:03 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    The majority of the human genome is NOT viral though, and in the one instance you have found (which shows as 1% of the human population), the viral genome is NOT considered a part of the Human DNA just a splice into the DNA.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    The majority of the human genome is NOT viral though, and in the one instance you have found (which shows as 1% of the human population), the viral genome is NOT considered a part of the Human DNA just a splice into the DNA.
    Not once it becomes an endogenous virus.
    That reminds me if 2% was for coding genes and 9% of viral origin what was the 89% of the rest doing? I need to understand that.

    Your comment sounded a bit like "what is normal?" or "would Mr Average step forth".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    So, let's see if I follow now.

    Once in a million years, there is a one in thirty seven point two trillion chance, a virus will re-write the genome of the entire human race? And all this from a virus, who's sole purpose in evolution is to aid in what an immune system will do anyway, and that is to kill itself.

    Hmmm, Now I see how our microbial ancestors migrated from the planet Mercury to Earth before they became multicellular.

    I'm liking those odds myself.
    That can all start from one germinal cell becoming infected with one mutated virus, and the virus becoming endogenized (as in ERV).
    Just one cell in a million years, and being very very lucky thereafter using your very precise figures.

    An endogenous virus is not a dead virus but one that has combined its genome with its host and the host's 99,999 "other" endogenous viruses. The virus lives on through the host, so it will become the virus that will travel to Mars or beyond. Yesterday Mercury, today the Earth, tomorrow the Universe.
    I am dumbfounded that it could appear you agree with me.

    Please, no more. I'm getting light headed and need to rest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    So, let's see if I follow now.

    Once in a million years, there is a one in thirty seven point two trillion chance, a virus will re-write the genome of the entire human race? And all this from a virus, who's sole purpose in evolution is to aid in what an immune system will do anyway, and that is to kill itself.

    Hmmm, Now I see how our microbial ancestors migrated from the planet Mercury to Earth before they became multicellular.

    I'm liking those odds myself.
    That can all start from one germinal cell becoming infected with one mutated virus, and the virus becoming endogenized (as in ERV).
    Just one cell in a million years, and being very very lucky thereafter using your very precise figures.

    An endogenous virus is not a dead virus but one that has combined its genome with its host and the host's 99,999 "other" endogenous viruses. The virus lives on through the host, so it will become the virus that will travel to Mars or beyond. Yesterday Mercury, today the Earth, tomorrow the Universe.
    I am dumbfounded that it could appear you agree with me.

    Please, no more. I'm getting light headed and need to rest.
    I would really like to know what is going on in the head of yours. Are you a creationist or evolutionist? I'm an E-virolutionist for this idea that viruses drive evolution, has convinced me. What do you think?
    E for the environment (cause you can't ignore the environment).
    vir for viruses
    olution from evolution.
    Some maths for you:

    "E" + "vir" + "olution" = "E-virolution"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Forget the "Once in every million years, there is a one in thirty seven point two trillion chance..." That was me dropping a figure of the average number of cells in a human into the amalgamation of guesses you've made in this thread. For I couldn't even begin to factor in the chances of a miracle virus onto that. However, when you go on to say: "Yesterday Mercury, today the Earth, tomorrow the Universe." Hinting that all life on Earth traces it's origins to the planet Mercury. That microbial life from Mercury was a spacefaring civilization keen on terraforming Earth. I mean, what odds are you trying to calculate here?

    Please no more, I surrender.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Forget the "Once in every million years, there is a one in thirty seven point two trillion chance..." That was me dropping a figure of the average number of cells in a human into the amalgamation of guesses you've made in this thread. For I couldn't even begin to factor in the chances of a miracle virus onto that. However, when you go on to say: "Yesterday Mercury, today the Earth, tomorrow the Universe." Hinting that all life on Earth traces it's origins to the planet Mercury. That microbial life from Mercury was a spacefaring civilization keen on terraforming Earth. I mean, what odds are you trying to calculate here?

    Please no more, I surrender.
    You didn't answer my question - if you reject my guesses what do you propose? What do you believe? How do you think it could have happened?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    You're right. I didn't answer your question. But you need to take this test:

    The Ultimate Dumb Test - YouTube

    N
    o disrespect, and I may forgive you of all your sins.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    You're right. I didn't answer your question. But you need to take this test:

    The Ultimate Dumb Test - YouTube

    N
    o disrespect, and I may forgive you of all your sins.
    I would like you to forgive me. Try it and see if it works. Maybe you can't get over it, for it will more than a matter of just saying "you're forgiven" but actually feeling it from within. It is not the easiest to master.

    If that fails list my sins.
    Last edited by Robittybob1; December 22nd, 2013 at 04:41 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    The majority of the human genome is NOT viral though, and in the one instance you have found (which shows as 1% of the human population), the viral genome is NOT considered a part of the Human DNA just a splice into the DNA.
    Not once it becomes an endogenous virus.
    That reminds me if 2% was for coding genes and 9% of viral origin what was the 89% of the rest doing? I need to understand that.

    Your comment sounded a bit like "what is normal?" or "would Mr Average step forth".
    oh my F*cking g... That was already answered for you in the stupid thread that got you a three day suspension.

    And its basic biology. You are NOT serious in bringing it up again.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I would really like to know what is going on in the head of yours. Are you a creationist or evolutionist? I'm an E-virolutionist for this idea that viruses drive evolution, has convinced me. What do you think?
    E for the environment (cause you can't ignore the environment).
    vir for viruses
    olution from evolution.
    Some maths for you:

    "E" + "vir" + "olution" = "E-virolution"
    You are for something that you do not understand or can quite grasp, nor have you been able to prove your hypothesis. And you are making words up by incorporating words that do not even exist. Just for good measure, you make it up as maths.

    Do you do these things just to annoy people for attention? Is that it? You want attention?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I would really like to know what is going on in the head of yours. Are you a creationist or evolutionist? I'm an E-virolutionist for this idea that viruses drive evolution, has convinced me. What do you think?
    E for the environment (cause you can't ignore the environment).
    vir for viruses
    olution from evolution.
    Some maths for you:

    "E" + "vir" + "olution" = "E-virolution"
    You are for something that you do not understand or can quite grasp, nor have you been able to prove your hypothesis. And you are making words up by incorporating words that do not even exist. Just for good measure, you make it up as maths.

    Do you do these things just to annoy people for attention? Is that it? You want attention?
    Christmas comes early down here. No arguing today please it is "Christmas". Evirolution and evolution are only different by two measly letters "IR"and I'm sure they could be given meaning as well.
    Did you think I haven't proven my case? Others have been congratulating me on completing the hypothesis, no longer is it a question but a proven fact, viruses do drive evolution. All the steps have been covered.
    The maths was for Beer w/Straw's benefit being mathematically inclined.
    "Merry Christmas" = "Merry" + " "+ "Christ" & "Mass".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    The majority of the human genome is NOT viral though, and in the one instance you have found (which shows as 1% of the human population), the viral genome is NOT considered a part of the Human DNA just a splice into the DNA.
    Not once it becomes an endogenous virus.
    That reminds me if 2% was for coding genes and 9% of viral origin what was the 89% of the rest doing? I need to understand that.

    Your comment sounded a bit like "what is normal?" or "would Mr Average step forth".
    oh my F*cking g... That was already answered for you in the stupid thread that got you a three day suspension.

    And its basic biology. You are NOT serious in bringing it up again.
    Are you sure we covered the 89%? I'll go back and check. Thanks.
    My suspension was just a cooling down period, no reason was ever given for it. Hey it's Christmas too, so no swearing please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    It's Christmas Eve in New Zealand.

    Proven the case to who?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I would really like to know what is going on in the head of yours. Are you a creationist or evolutionist? I'm an E-virolutionist for this idea that viruses drive evolution, has convinced me. What do you think?
    E for the environment (cause you can't ignore the environment).
    vir for viruses
    olution from evolution.
    Some maths for you:

    "E" + "vir" + "olution" = "E-virolution"
    You are for something that you do not understand or can quite grasp, nor have you been able to prove your hypothesis. And you are making words up by incorporating words that do not even exist. Just for good measure, you make it up as maths.

    Do you do these things just to annoy people for attention? Is that it? You want attention?
    Christmas comes early down here. No arguing today please it is "Christmas". Evirolution and evolution are only different by two measly letters "IR"and I'm sure they could be given meaning as well.
    Did you think I haven't proven my case? Others have been congratulating me on completing the hypothesis, no longer is it a question but a proven fact, viruses do drive evolution. All the steps have been covered.
    The maths was for Beer w/Straw's benefit being mathematically inclined.
    "Merry Christmas" = "Merry" + " "+ "Christ" & "Mass".
    So your going to spawn another bullshit term?

    Provide us the peer-reviewed paper in which your fake term is fully supported, defined, and expanded upon, Until then its bullshit and will never be used in discussions of evolution.

    Its also Hanuka. Kwanzaa, and several others, so happy holidays from an atheist.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    The majority of the human genome is NOT viral though, and in the one instance you have found (which shows as 1% of the human population), the viral genome is NOT considered a part of the Human DNA just a splice into the DNA.
    Not once it becomes an endogenous virus.
    That reminds me if 2% was for coding genes and 9% of viral origin what was the 89% of the rest doing? I need to understand that.

    Your comment sounded a bit like "what is normal?" or "would Mr Average step forth".
    oh my F*cking g... That was already answered for you in the stupid thread that got you a three day suspension.

    And its basic biology. You are NOT serious in bringing it up again.
    Are you sure we covered the 89%? I'll go back and check. Thanks.
    My suspension was just a cooling down period, no reason was ever given for it. Hey it's Christmas too, so no swearing please.
    Yes, it was, and you responded and acknowledged that it was, so stop playing ignorant. Yes there was a reason given, so again, stop playing ignorant.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #243  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    The majority of the human genome is NOT viral though, and in the one instance you have found (which shows as 1% of the human population), the viral genome is NOT considered a part of the Human DNA just a splice into the DNA.
    Not once it becomes an endogenous virus.
    That reminds me if 2% was for coding genes and 9% of viral origin what was the 89% of the rest doing? I need to understand that.

    Your comment sounded a bit like "what is normal?" or "would Mr Average step forth".
    oh my F*cking g... That was already answered for you in the stupid thread that got you a three day suspension.

    And its basic biology. You are NOT serious in bringing it up again.
    Are you sure we covered the 89%? I'll go back and check. Thanks.
    My suspension was just a cooling down period, no reason was ever given for it. Hey it's Christmas too, so no swearing please.
    Yes, it was, and you responded and acknowledged that it was, so stop playing ignorant. Yes there was a reason given, so again, stop playing ignorant.
    Harold says on the thread "Let's give ourselves a vacation from Robittybob." is that a reason? No to me it was a vacation.
    Do you think http://www.thescienceforum.com/trash...tml#post498318 was the answer?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #244  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    It's Christmas Eve in New Zealand.

    Proven the case to who?
    We start celebrating early here. Not telling but I had a message.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #245  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Well, I guess this thread should be put in the trash.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #246  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Well, I guess this thread should be put in the trash.
    To save you answering the questions I asked you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #247  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Am I a creationist? No.

    Do I believe in evolution? Yes but, I don't have a good grasp of quantum mechanics or even gravity to fit them into a coherent theory with evolution. OK?


    :EDIT:

    I will, however, trump your hypothesis that you haven't explained enough with a picture.

    This drives evolution:

    Last edited by Beer w/Straw; December 23rd, 2013 at 03:03 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #248  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Am I a creationist? No.

    Do I believe in evolution? Yes but, I don't have a good grasp of quantum mechanics or even gravity to fit them into a coherent theory with evolution. OK?
    Thanks.
    No doubt there is a connection with Quantum Mechanics through Quantum Biology.

    Gravity has always being a part of the process (planet forming process involves gravity so it determine where life will form. DNA needs plenty of Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Phosphate and Sulphur, so it has to be a 2nd or 3rd generation star system. The exploding stars prior to this needed gravitational collapse to explode in order for these elements to seed other nebulae.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #249  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Start a thread on Quantum Biology then
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #250  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Start a thread on Quantum Biology then
    I don't know anything about it so where would we start? We could ask a question and see if anyone will contribute.
    "Does Quantum Biology influence Evolution?" Learn as we go.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #251  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Actually, I think through String Theory we could not only do that but, also determine the gender of God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #252  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Actually, I think through String Theory we could not only do that but, also determine the gender of God.
    So do you have a God?

    One step at a time rather than doing the whole TOE in one hit.

    Challenge: "Now solve Genesis". How much detail did I need? Would it need an understanding of String Theory and the gender of God to finish it? Wicked challenge if that was the case.
    I'd need a good teacher for I definitely couldn't do it on my own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #253  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    DNA needs plenty of Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Phosphate and Sulphur, so it has to be a 2nd or 3rd generation star system.

    There is no sulfur in a DNA molecule.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #254  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Actually, I think through String Theory we could not only do that but, also determine the gender of God.
    So do you have a God?

    One step at a time rather than doing the whole TOE in one hit.

    Challenge: "Now solve Genesis". How much detail did I need? Would it need an understanding of String Theory and the gender of God to finish it? Wicked challenge if that was the case.
    I'd need a good teacher for I definitely couldn't do it on my own.

    Um...

    Maybe, since you have little knowledge of anything, you should see a psychiatrist that can prescribe drugs. You seem to have validated everything I've said against you in that post. You wanted to reinterpret the story of Genesis in the Bible so that it has life forms on Mercury surviving the Caloris impact that would float through space to Earth and evolve into homo sapiens. This is before you even tried to seduce me with child pornography...

    No, I will not help you but drugs might.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #255  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Actually, I think through String Theory we could not only do that but, also determine the gender of God.
    So do you have a God?

    One step at a time rather than doing the whole TOE in one hit.

    Challenge: "Now solve Genesis". How much detail did I need? Would it need an understanding of String Theory and the gender of God to finish it? Wicked challenge if that was the case.
    I'd need a good teacher for I definitely couldn't do it on my own.

    Um...

    Maybe, since you have little knowledge of anything, you should see a psychiatrist that can prescribe drugs. You seem to have validated everything I've said against you in that post. You wanted to reinterpret the story of Genesis in the Bible so that it has life forms on Mercury surviving the Caloris impact that would float through space to Earth and evolve into homo sapiens. This is before you even tried to seduce me with child pornography...

    No, I will not help you but drugs might.
    You tend to take things very personally. You have never been a teacher to me. Tranquille makes more effort to teach me than you do.
    A statement like "This is before you even tried to seduce me with child pornography..." is such a lie, and it is so strange to me that you even think like that, it actually astounds me. Maybe it's you who needs the drugs!

    You were asked whether you have a "God" and didn't answer that, yet goad me by saying you might be able to determine the gender of God. One minute you say you accept evolution but then worry about the Caloris Impact! Maybe that is what is needed - some impactor. No life could have formed prior to the Moon formation if you believe the theory that Theia impacted with Earth. So if all the water had to come here why not life too?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #256  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Post the videos to me then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #257  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Post the videos to me then.
    Are you talking about that YT video everyone else thought was bad. I'm not posting that again but the threads on Physforum and Sciforums still have useful links I'd assume. What good will that do you?

    I just want to know why you seem so protective of the Biblical Genesis? Do you believe in a God like that, or what is it? Why do you seem so adverse to the idea of panspermia?
    I have put all my ideas on the forum and all and sundry have pulled holes in them, but no one tells me what they think happened. Fair's fair, a bit of debate isn't going to hurt is it?

    You wanted to reinterpret the story of Genesis in the Bible so that it has life forms on Mercury surviving the Caloris impact that would float through space to Earth and evolve into homo sapiens.
    I want to know which elements you think is so wrong? The bit about "reinterpreting the story of Genesis in the Bible" or the "life forms on Mercury surviving [an impact] that would float through space to Earth and evolve into homo sapiens" bit.

    When I heard about the black "organic material" on top of the ice on Mercury I get excited, and I just can't wait till NASA attempts to land on the craters on Mercury. Out of the direct Sunlight the machine is going to get very cold. It will have to work in temperatures maybe as low as -200 degrees Celsius. I wonder if they can do that? Once it has landed it won't have a direct line of sight for communication either. Will we ever get to know what it has found? So they will need another Messenger type craft orbiting as well as the one landing on the surface.
    This black "organic material" on top of the ice on Mercury could be like thick tar. Hopefully the water has frozen life forms in it. There is a "big hope" from me. What will you say then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #258  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Robbity, you don't even know what elements are present in, what makes you the new Darwin of evolution?

    Stop making entirely baseless assertions and go back to school for biology knowledge, I can tell you that you are seriously out of date and have such patchy information now that all of what you suggest is bunk.

    Mods, please trhash this tread, its moved beyond informative the casual readers and passed into destructive and misinformative. Rob does not want to listen but will continue to assert he is correct no matter how incorrect h is shown to be.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #259  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    [QUOTE=Robittybob1;506519

    Christmas comes early down here. No arguing today please it is "Christmas". [/QUOTE]
    It's Christmas Eve in Australia as well and it's not Christmas yet. You are the one who is arguing on Christmas, no one else is.

    Evirolution and evolution are only different by two measly letters "IR"and I'm sure they could be given meaning as well.
    Making up words does not make then true or you correct.

    Did you think I haven't proven my case?
    Not only have you not proven anything, but you have instead spent more time making things up. You have no understanding of the basic biological terms and you don't even know the very basics of evolution. All you have proven is that you are lazy and frankly, have little to no understanding on what you are trying to claim is true.
    Others have been congratulating me on completing the hypothesis, no longer is it a question but a proven fact, viruses do drive evolution. All the steps have been covered.
    Proven where exactly?

    You are so stuck on the belief that something is driving evolution, that you missed the whole point. Evolution is not driven. It happens by random chance.

    The maths was for Beer w/Straw's benefit being mathematically inclined.
    "Merry Christmas" = "Merry" + " "+ "Christ" & "Mass".
    You + are + a + dumbass = You are a dumbass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #260  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    ......
    You + are + a + dumbass = You are a dumbass.
    .....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #261  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Robbity, you don't even know what elements are present in, what makes you the new Darwin of evolution?

    Stop making entirely baseless assertions and go back to school for biology knowledge, I can tell you that you are seriously out of date and have such patchy information now that all of what you suggest is bunk.

    ....
    Butt out please. I'm trying to understand why Bw/S doesn't like certain aspects of the topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #262  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    DNA needs plenty of Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Phosphate and Sulphur, so it has to be a 2nd or 3rd generation star system.

    There is no sulfur in a DNA molecule.
    You are right. (sulphur is found in biological organisms but not in DNA) Sorry
    Organosulfur compounds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Organosulfur compounds are organic compounds that contain sulfur.[1] They are often associated with foul odors, but many of the sweetest compounds known are organosulfur derivatives, e.g., saccharin. Nature abounds with organosulfur compounds—sulfur is essential for life. Two of the 20 common amino acids are organosulfur compounds, and the antibiotics penicillin (pictured below) and sulfa drugs both contain sulfur.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #263  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post

    You are so stuck on the belief that something is driving evolution, that you missed the whole point. Evolution is not driven. It happens by random chance.
    Have you read what I've written? I have never said that random chance is not involved, but what I have been saying is because a virus goes through millions of life-cycles in the same time the MCO host does, the random chance errors are concentrated in the viral genome, so the proteins coded from the genes change faster in the viruses than they do in the host. So when the virus has perfected a protein the DNA code for that becomes available to the host (and can be inherited if germinal cell infection occurs and the virus becomes endogenized.)
    The whole process depends on random errors but they are more common in the viral genes, hence I say evolution is driven by viruses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #264  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Robbity, you don't even know what elements are present in, what makes you the new Darwin of evolution?

    Stop making entirely baseless assertions and go back to school for biology knowledge, I can tell you that you are seriously out of date and have such patchy information now that all of what you suggest is bunk.

    ....
    Butt out please. I'm trying to understand why Bw/S doesn't like certain aspects of the topic.
    No, I will not, the very poor and notably misunderstood science you are advocating needs to be corrected for those who come by and read.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #265  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Robbity, you don't even know what elements are present in, what makes you the new Darwin of evolution?

    Stop making entirely baseless assertions and go back to school for biology knowledge, I can tell you that you are seriously out of date and have such patchy information now that all of what you suggest is bunk.

    ....
    Butt out please. I'm trying to understand why Bw/S doesn't like certain aspects of the topic.
    No, I will not, the very poor and notably misunderstood science you are advocating needs to be corrected for those who come by and read.
    I have always welcomed correction, but have you done any?

    Was this correct?
    I have never said that random chance is not involved, but what I have been saying is because a virus goes through millions of life-cycles in the same time the MCO host does, the random chance errors are concentrated in the viral genome, so the proteins coded from the genes change faster in the viruses than they do in the host. So when the virus has perfected a protein the DNA code for that becomes available to the host (and can be inherited if germinal cell infection occurs and the virus becomes endogenized.)
    The whole process depends on random errors but they are more common in the viral genes, hence I say evolution is driven by viruses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #266  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post

    You are so stuck on the belief that something is driving evolution, that you missed the whole point. Evolution is not driven. It happens by random chance.
    Have you read what I've written? I have never said that random chance is not involved, but what I have been saying is because a virus goes through millions of life-cycles in the same time the MCO host does, the random chance errors are concentrated in the viral genome, so the proteins coded from the genes change faster in the viruses than they do in the host. So when the virus has perfected a protein the DNA code for that becomes available to the host (and can be inherited if germinal cell infection occurs and the virus becomes endogenized.)
    The whole process depends on random errors but they are more common in the viral genes, hence I say evolution is driven by viruses.
    This is one of the larger loads of bullshit you have come up with. That is not how viral interactions with the host go.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #267  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post

    You are so stuck on the belief that something is driving evolution, that you missed the whole point. Evolution is not driven. It happens by random chance.
    Have you read what I've written? I have never said that random chance is not involved, but what I have been saying is because a virus goes through millions of life-cycles in the same time the MCO host does, the random chance errors are concentrated in the viral genome, so the proteins coded from the genes change faster in the viruses than they do in the host. So when the virus has perfected a protein the DNA code for that becomes available to the host (and can be inherited if germinal cell infection occurs and the virus becomes endogenized.)
    The whole process depends on random errors but they are more common in the viral genes, hence I say evolution is driven by viruses.
    This is one of the larger loads of bullshit you have come up with. That is not how viral interactions with the host go.
    So you are saying those studies were wrong too? Particularly this one!
    Do Viruses drive Evolution in Multicellular organisms?
    Last edited by Robittybob1; December 24th, 2013 at 12:00 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #268  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    Evolution may happen in response to viruses, in that a species may eventually evolve a resistance to a specific type of virus, but I don't believe it would need to be any more involved than that.

    If a virus infected a gamete cell at fertilization, it seems unlikely that the viral genome would allow for the resulting zygote to be viable to survive...
    wegs likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #269  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Evolution may happen in response to viruses, in that a species may eventually evolve a resistance to a specific type of virus, but I don't believe it would need to be any more involved than that.

    If a virus infected a gamete cell at fertilization, it seems unlikely that the viral genome would allow for the resulting zygote to be viable to survive...
    They are your feelings, fair enough. In some cases you will be right and other times you will be wrong. Evolution is a matter of survival of the fittest. At times the endogenized virus will give the next generation an advantage. Well that was my feeling. The fact that we have 100,000 viral elements in our DNA suggests to me that could be right.

    But I had listened to a YT earlier about endogenous viruses causing cancers, so you are also right sometimes there is a negative side to them as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #270  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    100,000 Viral elements

    Cite and define what exactly you mean by this statement.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #271  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    100,000 Viral elements

    Cite and define what exactly you mean by this statement.
    I would like to know what Carl Zimmer means too.

    Do Viruses drive Evolution in Multicellular organisms?
    Science journalist Carl Zimmer explains how viral infections throughout history have affected the human genome. Viruses make up "about 8 or 9 percent" of our genome says Zimmer. Startlingly, human childbirth would not be possible without a viral mutation.

    -----

    The frontier of biology these days is the genetics and ecology of bacteria, and the frontier of THAT is what's being learned about viruses. "The science of virology is still in its early, wild days," writes Carl Zimmer. "Scientists are discovering viruses faster than they can make sense of them."

    The Earth's atmosphere is determined in large part by ocean bacteria; every day viruses kill half of them. Every year in the oceans, viruses transfer a trillion trillion genes between host organisms. They evolve faster than anything else, and they are a major engine of the evolution of the rest of life. Our own bodies are made up of 10 trillion human cells, 100 trillion bacteria, and 4 trillion very busy viruses. Some of them kill us. Many of them help us. Some of them are us. Viral time is ancient and blindingly fast. - The Long Now Foundation

    Carl Zimmer is the author of several popular science books and writes frequently for the New York Times, as well as for magazines including The New York Times Magazine, National Geographic, Science, Newsweek, Popular Science, and Discover, where he is a contributing editor. Carl's books include Soul Made Flesh, Parasite Rex and Evolution: The Triumph of An Idea. His latest book is A Planet of Viruses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #272  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    First things first, STOP reposting links to this thread in each of your replies, it does absolutely nothing.

    Second STOP using random youtube videos as anything remotely resembling reliable sources of information, they are NOT.

    Third, if YOU dont know what is meant by something, then you are being extremely deceitful in blithely posting snippets of that thing as absolute "PROOF" of your idea.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #273  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    First things first, STOP reposting links to this thread in each of your replies, it does absolutely nothing.

    Second STOP using random youtube videos as anything remotely resembling reliable sources of information, they are NOT.

    Third, if YOU don't know what is meant by something, then you are being extremely deceitful in blithely posting snippets of that thing as absolute "PROOF" of your idea.
    After thinking about it a "viral element' is equivalent to a "shutdown viral gene".
    I'm surprised you hadn't worked that out too.

    If less than 2% of the genome is 20,000 genes, 8-9% would be 100,000 elements or non-coding genes.

    That YT was only ever used in the introductory part of the thread. It is not important to the proof of the hypothesis that "Viruses drive evolution in MCOs".
    Links on page 2 and 3 carry the necessary proof.

    Have you heard the term, "So up yourself"? You think nothing of calling me deceitful without the slightest proof.

    Start posting links which disprove, for in my mind the argument has been won already. So I will go back to those links, I have previously posted, until you make a proper critique of them.
    Last edited by Robittybob1; December 26th, 2013 at 12:12 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #274  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post

    Start posting links which disprove, for in my mind the argument has been won already. So I will go back to those links, I have previously posted, until you make a proper critique of them.
    How about you stop expecting people to do your homework for you and you start posting links to prove your theory.

    Your mind means zilch. You have proven zilch. Posting links to your own posts as proof means zilch.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #275  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post

    Start posting links which disprove, for in my mind the argument has been won already. So I will go back to those links, I have previously posted, until you make a proper critique of them.
    How about you stop expecting people to do your homework for you and you start posting links to prove your theory.

    Your mind means zilch. You have proven zilch. Posting links to your own posts as proof means zilch.
    And that was another zilch. Thanks for the new word - zilch.
    I post back to studies which I don't get you guys saying whether you accept their findings or not.
    Even if I was able to find another 5 studies that support my theory, but you take no notice what good will it do me? Zilch!, for you will just want me to find more, for what? For more zilch!
    You are right, I do want to find more studies that support my hypothesis, but I want it to be discussed not just dismissed. It isn't going to be another "On the Origin of Species" just from what I HAVE PRESENTED SO FAR.
    Last edited by Robittybob1; December 28th, 2013 at 12:56 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #276  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    It's more that you are posting links you have not read. For at least one, you did not even bother to read the abstract properly. It is pure laziness on your part. Your research is tantamount to looking at the title. You have absolutely no right to accuse anyone of not providing anything, when we have been providing you with links that you have not read. It's not for us to do your work for you. Coupled with you claiming you have proven your hypothesis, when you clearly have not proven anything, it is as if you are trolling to try and get a response or perhaps you hope that others will do your work for you. You are lazy.

    Zilch is not exactly a new word.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #277  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    It's more that you are posting links you have not read. For at least one, you did not even bother to read the abstract properly. It is pure laziness on your part. Your research is tantamount to looking at the title. You have absolutely no right to accuse anyone of not providing anything, when we have been providing you with links that you have not read. It's not for us to do your work for you. Coupled with you claiming you have proven your hypothesis, when you clearly have not proven anything, it is as if you are trolling to try and get a response or perhaps you hope that others will do your work for you. You are lazy.

    Zilch is not exactly a new word.
    I've been working on this project for 2 weeks day and night. I'm not lazy but it is an enormous topic. At least on this thread I have read every link given to me. Well I haven't got through the text books yet. But my knowledge is increasing, and some very surprising stuff has been coming up, and not all supports the hypothesis, for it is hard to see if viruses had any role in the changes.
    I am enjoying the study.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #278  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    It isn't going to be another "On the Origin of Species" just from what I HAVE PRESENTED SO FAR.
    The truest thing you have have said thus far.

    You have not done any original research. Nothing you are doing is new research. Looking for other people to cite means those people already did much more than you ever will. Darwin went out and did an enormous amount of research and strung it all together in a very compelling framework. What you have done is formulate a very vague idea and then you come to a science forum and ask other people to help you with it, while not showing much of a grasp of what is presented. If anything, this thread is a mockery of "On the Origin of Species".

    I fear you are operating under a severe delusion about what it is you are doing here.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #279  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    .....

    You have not done any original research. What you have done is formulate a very vague idea and then you come to a science forum and ask other people to help you with it ....
    I started off asking "Do Viruses drive Evolution in Multicellular organisms?" I wasn't sure if anyone else had thought of that idea and had asked that question before and I soon found some already had. Even though the question has been explored has the hypothesis been accepted? No I don't think so.

    Darwin lived a privileged life, "born into money", I suppose, where he didn't need to work. He paid people to help him with his research, he certainly didn't sail "Beagle" single handedly. Well he definitely didn't do it all on his own. I understand there were others coming up with parallel ideas too. He looked at the animals on the Galapagos and I'm looking at the Internet, it is in my own time, I'm self motivated, that must constitute "original research" surely. I might have moments when I feel I've bitten off more than I can chew, maybe Darwin had moments like that too. I don't know but I'm definitely not mocking him. Did he start off with a vague idea to begin with too?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #280  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,243
    Bob does seem to be under the delusion that "original research" means looking for articles to misinterpret so they appear to support whatever crap he's made up. If even an undergrad student turned in half-baked, illogical, ignorant horseshit like this as a research project they would fail miserably, in fact this would probably get an F in high school.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #281  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Bob does seem to be under the delusion that "original research" means looking for articles to misinterpret so they appear to support whatever crap he's made up. If even an undergrad student turned in half-baked, illogical, ignorant horseshit like this as a research project they would fail miserably, in fact this would probably get an F in high school.
    Have I handed in my work yet? At high school I would get top of my class for all subjects. Yes, I seemed to be talented then but at home we weren't allowed to waste time reading. I have never mastered the art of reading, I have only read a couple of books in my life. But I had to learn by listening, and that might be why I am a real believer in YouTube, for it is like lectures and teachers teaching you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #282  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,049
    Charles Darwin could have been as poor as a church mouse, he still would have accomplished all he did, I have a feeling. Money can't buy tenacity, ingenuity, perseverance or determination. Natural intelligence will only get a person so far, as well. It was those other special qualities of Darwin that made him effective and successful. He also abandoned his belief in Christianity in a very thorough and systematic way, as well. Everything he set out to do, he did it with precision and purpose, and money can't buy these qualities. Other people didn't hand him anything. I haven't followed this thread too closely but that comment about Darwin caught my eye. On another note, why don't you hook up with a local university in your area and see if you receive any help, to prove your idea? Heck, you might even be given grant money if you present a good business case. Just my two cents.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #283  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,243
    Speaking as someone who regularly applies for research grants, with what Bob has presented in this thread he would be (rightly) laughed out the door.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #284  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Speaking as someone who regularly applies for research grants, with what Bob has presented in this thread he would be (rightly) laughed out the door.
    What you wouldn't fund research into the question, "Do Viruses drive Evolution in Multicellular organisms?"? That's a very important question isn't it? Prof Villarreal must have funding. That astounds me that there would be so much bias against the idea from the beginning!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #285  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,243
    No, what I wouldn't fund is your variety of pseudoscience bullshit. You have shown you don't have the knowledge or ability to make an original contribution all you have done is misrepresent the work of others to prove your preconceived ideas. Why do you think your random musings would or should be funded?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #286  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Charles Darwin could have been as poor as a church mouse, he still would have accomplished all he did, I have a feeling. Money can't buy tenacity, ingenuity, perseverance or determination. Natural intelligence will only get a person so far, as well. It was those other special qualities of Darwin that made him effective and successful. He also abandoned his belief in Christianity in a very thorough and systematic way, as well. Everything he set out to do, he did it with precision and purpose, and money can't buy these qualities. Other people didn't hand him anything. I haven't followed this thread too closely but that comment about Darwin caught my eye. On another note, why don't you hook up with a local university in your area and see if you receive any help, to prove your idea? Heck, you might even be given grant money if you present a good business case. Just my two cents.
    Firstly I must thank you for posting on the thread. The saying "as poor as a church mouse" is one we use as well. The thought of the little mouse eeking out an existence from the few crumbs of bread dropped each Sunday is cute in a thread on the survival of the fittest.
    Charles Darwin could have been as poor as a church mouse, he still would have accomplished all he did, I have a feeling. Money can't buy tenacity, ingenuity, perseverance or determination.
    That reminds me of the documentary about Bob Geldof organising the "Live Aid concert". It seems impossible but it can be done, so I won't disagree with you even though it seemingly would have made it impossible.

    Darwin would have changed his view on creation but did he abandon Christianity? I'm not sure about that, but I have wondered if this research into the "viruses driving evolution" will end up with the bizarre conclusion that the viruses have made humans religious to protect their domination of our genome? Could the symbiotic yet selfish viruses have a vested interest in seeing us live clean and moral lives so they survive as well?

    The thought of this has sort of scared me for I am a believer but what if "God" is just an expression of our endogenized viruses?

    I will be pleased enough just to come to some conclusion by the time the thread is finished.

    PS. http://www.issr.org.uk/issr-statemen...n-on-religion/
    A second reason why Darwin is difficult to pin down concerns the fluctuation of belief. In private correspondence he admitted that his beliefs often fluctuated, even within his most agnostic phases. There were times when, in his own words, he supposed he deserved to be called a theist. At other times the strength of his belief in an ultimate Creator waned. He did, however, insist that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God – a point sometimes overlooked by his fundamentalist critics and his atheistic champions.
    Last edited by Robittybob1; December 28th, 2013 at 03:17 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #287  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    No, what I wouldn't fund is your variety of pseudoscience bullshit. You have shown you don't have the knowledge or ability to make an original contribution all you have done is misrepresent the work of others to prove your preconceived ideas. Why do you think your random musings would or should be funded?
    I wasn't thinking of myself , but if someone else younger and more intelligent was to follow-on from this thread. I'm not allowed to post more YT links but the terms "Gene Instabilities/Accelerated Regions in the Human Genome" came up, and if you look at that and you must wonder what is driving those changes to the human genome. Are there viruses causing this instability? I would think it is a very good question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #288  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,049
    Relating to Darwin, he actually systemically denounced first the Old Testament then the NT, as he reconciled his own beliefs against that of Christianity. He was a pretty devout Christian, whether indoctrinated by his family of origin or not, so it probably wasn't an easy venture by any means. But, yes ... He denounced Christianity, eventually. Relating to exploring grants: you could look into it at least, but you need a legitimate case to present with solid, definable research and sources to back it up. I would heed the advice of PhDemon-he's very seasoned, as he's conveyed. No man is an island. You have nothing to lose by exploring the potential avenues before you. (But ...do your homework) I do believe there is a story to tell in terms of viruses "affecting" evolution (not driving it) As an aside, I don't believe that viruses had or have anything to do with the advent of religion. Are you perhaps suggesting that religion stemmed from altruism, which developed through evolution?
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #289  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,049
    As another aside Robittybob, I don't believe that a person's belief in a god is a byproduct of viruses; rather, the belief in a god most likely originated when mankind couldn't find answers to the unknowns of the universe. Which could explain why some scientists even today, hold an Agnostic view, they simply can't say with certainty that a god doesn't exist, but they leave their minds open to the possibility that a "higher power" may exist. Personally, I'm not seeing any relevance or correlation, between viruses and spirituality.

    Edit...

    The challenge that you have with proving if viruses affected (not drove) evolution, is that there really isn't any clear cut 'evidence' to support where viruses originated. They are parasitic in nature, and thus...aren't 'free living' organisms. There's a lot of unknowns in terms of viruses, themselves...but I don't believe they affected evolution in the way this thread is suggesting. If you do wish to explore this idea further however, a better track to get on would be in attempting to prove how viruses developed, and if they were ever free living organisms...OR...did they always require a host to 'survive?' That holds more promise than trying to prove viruses 'drove' evolution, and attempting to spin religion as an adaptive mechanism (a byproduct of viruses affecting evolution)...

    Just my two cents worth!
    Last edited by wegs; December 28th, 2013 at 07:41 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #290  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,243
    Quote Originally Posted by bob
    I wasn't thinking of myself
    So you're still expecting people to do your work for you. Either support your claims or STFU.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #291  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,049
    Definitely worth reviewing...thought I'd leave this here.

    IDSA : Infectious Diseases Society of America (the news/publications tab, in particular)
    Last edited by wegs; December 28th, 2013 at 08:17 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #292  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Do Viruses drive Evolution in Multicellular organisms?

    Taking the text from another post "The rate of evolution in viruses are so much higher than in Multicellular organisms (MCO). A concept that dawned on me was that viruses could be the factories where new protein forming DNA genes are tested in prior to their inclusion in MCO. That was my thought many years ago and now I am looking for evidence for this. I was thinking this could be a way of speeding up the evolution rate.

    This was emphasised in the YT Evolution Ep1: Darwin's Dangerous Idea (5/11) - YouTube where the Aids virus is mutating and evolving faster than new drugs are invented to fight it."

    This has been in my mind for about 6 years now so I would like to to discuss whether it is a workable hypothesis.
    Origin of Viruses | Learn Science at Scitable I'm late to this party, so I apologize if this information has already been provided, and is therefore redundant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #293  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I've been working on this project for 2 weeks day and night. I'm not lazy but it is an enormous topic. At least on this thread I have read every link given to me. Well I haven't got through the text books yet. But my knowledge is increasing, and some very surprising stuff has been coming up, and not all supports the hypothesis, for it is hard to see if viruses had any role in the changes.
    I am enjoying the study.
    You started this hypothesis with a predetermined end without having even read a single book about it and you still haven't read anything about it and you have declared your hypothesis proven...

    The words you use are those of a person who has no idea, trying to fib his way to the end. Grand gestures in the hope that others will not notice.

    Darwin lived a privileged life, "born into money", I suppose, where he didn't need to work. He paid people to help him with his research, he certainly didn't sail "Beagle" single handedly. Well he definitely didn't do it all on his own. I understand there were others coming up with parallel ideas too.
    Darwin went out and did his own research. He did not expect others to do the work for him. He risked his life on long voyages, risking disease, drowning and death to do his research. He could have had no a single penny to his name and he would still have been successful.

    He looked at the animals on the Galapagos and I'm looking at the Internet, it is in my own time, I'm self motivated, that must constitute "original research" surely.
    He went out and did his own research. You are sitting at home, watching youtube videos and reading titles of research done by others and claiming that your hypothesis is proven without having done a single bit of research or reading, let alone even looked or studied human DNA to prove your hypothesis.

    Can you see the difference between yourself and Darwin?

    I might have moments when I feel I've bitten off more than I can chew, maybe Darwin had moments like that too. I don't know but I'm definitely not mocking him. Did he start off with a vague idea to begin with too?
    You missed the point. Your whole lazy method and claiming it is your research is an insult to all those who spend years of their lives doing research.

    Have I handed in my work yet? At high school I would get top of my class for all subjects. Yes, I seemed to be talented then but at home we weren't allowed to waste time reading. I have never mastered the art of reading, I have only read a couple of books in my life. But I had to learn by listening, and that might be why I am a real believer in YouTube, for it is like lectures and teachers teaching you.
    We know you have not read anything Robi, because it is clear in this thread and others that you never read anything.
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #294  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Relating to Darwin, he actually systemically denounced first the Old Testament then the NT, as he reconciled his own beliefs against that of Christianity. He was a pretty devout Christian, whether indoctrinated by his family of origin or not, so it probably wasn't an easy venture by any means. But, yes ... He denounced Christianity, eventually. Relating to exploring grants: you could look into it at least, but you need a legitimate case to present with solid, definable research and sources to back it up. I would heed the advice of PhDemon-he's very seasoned, as he's conveyed. No man is an island. You have nothing to lose by exploring the potential avenues before you. (But ...do your homework) I do believe there is a story to tell in terms of viruses "affecting" evolution (not driving it) As an aside, I don't believe that viruses had or have anything to do with the advent of religion. Are you perhaps suggesting that religion stemmed from altruism, which developed through evolution?
    Had to do family duties - so it is a bit out of date -

    What made me think about viruses and religion was that somewhere it was stated that a retrovirus could cause schizophrenia. Religiosity and schizophrenia are somewhat similar, so could they be related through a virus?

    Altruism - "disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others" seemed to be more "Christian" in a way. It was such a raw idea I have not thought it through anymore that thinking the "what if" question, like "what if religion was the result of an endogenous virus?"
    It still wouldn't account for the paranormal would it. But it would lead to the type of religion like of the Old testament, fairly brutal towards the Heathens but community-minded toward your own group only.
    So you get the contrast "Thou shalt not kill" one of your own group, but the armies would go and kill every man woman and child of their "enemy".

    My daughter mentioned there was talk of a God gene and Richard Dawkins' "Selfish Gene".
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

    "The God Gene" interview with researcher.
    "Richard Dawkins on Altruism and The Selfish Gene"

    Had you heard of these?
    Last edited by Robittybob1; December 29th, 2013 at 02:05 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #295  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bob
    I wasn't thinking of myself
    So you're still expecting people to do your work for you. Either support your claims or STFU.
    It is a forum so all contributions are welcome.
    Weren't the studies, already linked, good enough?
    Last edited by Robittybob1; December 29th, 2013 at 01:28 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #296  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    .....
    We know you have not read anything Robi, because it is clear in this thread and others that you never read anything.
    I'm learning; right!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #297  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Relating to Darwin, he actually systemically denounced first the Old Testament then the NT, as he reconciled his own beliefs against that of Christianity. He was a pretty devout Christian, whether indoctrinated by his family of origin or not, so it probably wasn't an easy venture by any means. But, yes ... He denounced Christianity, eventually. Relating to exploring grants: you could look into it at least, but you need a legitimate case to present with solid, definable research and sources to back it up. I would heed the advice of PhDemon-he's very seasoned, as he's conveyed. No man is an island. You have nothing to lose by exploring the potential avenues before you. (But ...do your homework) I do believe there is a story to tell in terms of viruses "affecting" evolution (not driving it) As an aside, I don't believe that viruses had or have anything to do with the advent of religion. Are you perhaps suggesting that religion stemmed from altruism, which developed through evolution?
    Had to do family duties - so it is a bit out of date -

    What made me think about viruses and religion was that somewhere it was stated that a retrovirus could cause schizophrenia. Religiosness and schizophrenia are somewhat similar, so could they be related through a virus?
    How are ''religiousness'' and schizophrenia...similar? Schizophrenia is a mental disorder of which genetics and environmental factors contribute to one developing schizophrenia. (I haven't run across anything indicating a retrovirus could also be a cause, but I'm not saying that's false.) So, this causes me to wonder...why would genes such as this exist, that might increase the likelikhood of such illnesses, with respect to evolution?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #298  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Relating to Darwin, he actually systemically denounced first the Old Testament then the NT, as he reconciled his own beliefs against that of Christianity. He was a pretty devout Christian, whether indoctrinated by his family of origin or not, so it probably wasn't an easy venture by any means. But, yes ... He denounced Christianity, eventually. Relating to exploring grants: you could look into it at least, but you need a legitimate case to present with solid, definable research and sources to back it up. I would heed the advice of PhDemon-he's very seasoned, as he's conveyed. No man is an island. You have nothing to lose by exploring the potential avenues before you. (But ...do your homework) I do believe there is a story to tell in terms of viruses "affecting" evolution (not driving it) As an aside, I don't believe that viruses had or have anything to do with the advent of religion. Are you perhaps suggesting that religion stemmed from altruism, which developed through evolution?
    Had to do family duties - so it is a bit out of date -

    What made me think about viruses and religion was that somewhere it was stated that a retrovirus could cause schizophrenia. Religiosness and schizophrenia are somewhat similar, so could they be related through a virus?
    How are ''religiousness'' and schizophrenia...similar? Schizophrenia is a mental disorder of which genetics and environmental factors contribute to one developing schizophrenia. (I haven't run across anything indicating a retrovirus could also be a cause, but I'm not saying that's false.) So, this causes me to wonder...why would genes such as this exist, that might increase the likelikhood of such illnesses, with respect to evolution?
    It was just something that happens. I don't know if you have listened to Stanford's Robert Sapolsky he is pretty much onto it.

    Endogenous retroviruses and schizoph... [Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 2000] - PubMed - NCBIEndogenous retroviruses and schizophrenia.

    Yolken RH, Karlsson H, Yee F, Johnston-Wilson NL, Torrey EF.
    Author information


    Abstract


    Retroviruses are biologically complex infectious agents which are capable of cellular infection and subsequent integration into the host genome. Retroviruses can exist in an endogenous form in which viral sequences are integrated into the human germline and are vertically transmitted in a Mendelian fashion. The transcriptional activation of these viral sequences in cells within the central nervous system can affect the transcriptional regulation of adjacent genes and result in alterations of neural functioning. This report discusses evidence for a possible role of endogenous retroviruses in the etiopathogenesis of schizophrenia and other human brain diseases. Evidence of endogenous retrovirus activity is manifested by the identification of viral sequences in the brains and cerebrospinal fluids of affected individuals. In addition, affected individuals display evidence of increased activity of virally-encoded reverse transcriptase. The identification of a retroviral component of schizophrenia would be consistent with genetic, environmental, and neurodevelopmental aspects of the disease process. The delineation of a role for retroviruses in disease pathogenesis might lead to new methods for the diagnosis and treatment of schizophrenia.

    Shame the previous link didn't work! "
    "Sapolsky Religion Lecture Dissected"
    Last edited by Robittybob1; December 29th, 2013 at 03:09 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #299  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    .... How are ''religiousness'' and schizophrenia...similar? Schizophrenia is a mental disorder of which genetics and environmental factors contribute to one developing schizophrenia. (I haven't run across anything indicating a retrovirus could also be a cause, but I'm not saying that's false.) So, this causes me to wonder...why would genes such as this exist, that might increase the likelikhood of such illnesses, with respect to evolution?
    After watching two lectures from Prof Sapolsky (Stanford University) I'm left thinking schizophrenia is not a good disease to have but the relatives of the schizophrenics with a milder form of it have a strongly adaptive advantage.
    Last edited by Robittybob1; December 29th, 2013 at 05:30 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #300  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,049
    @ Robittybob;

    I think I see where you’re heading with your OP, now. You believe (?) that viruses, diseases, etc have served as catalysts with respect to evolution, thereby causing humankind to develop protective adaptive mechanisms; I’m assuming your assertion is to prove that this is why we have survived for as long as we have? (I’m shooting from the hip, but your comment on schizophrenia makes me wonder if that is the overall premise, with your OP.)
    So, how do you reconcile your faith/spiritual beliefs with this idea?

    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 58
    Last Post: December 21st, 2012, 08:55 PM
  2. Multicellular prokaryotes
    By Zwirko in forum Biology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 26th, 2010, 05:56 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 13th, 2009, 03:33 AM
  4. multicellular organisms into social organisms
    By charles brough in forum Biology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 12th, 2006, 09:05 PM
  5. EVOLUTION:WE HUMANS or viruses?
    By prasan in forum Biology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 28th, 2006, 10:48 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •