Albert Tatlock Posted October 5, 2014 Author Share Posted October 5, 2014 This Aids thing could be some kind of causal loop thing with Planet of the Apes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossRoss Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 http://www.virology.net/Big_Virology/BVretro.html this is a bit more like it I am sure the bbc guy did not do this much research. besides if your "scientific" evidence is based on statistical analysis - there are lies damned lies and government statistics. the bbc are denying top gear deliberately provoked the argies - so they are extremely trustworthy chaps who would not lie about stuff and especially not about the origin of aids surely they have some evidence that aids did not start in humans since humans are more numerous and therefore more likely to generate freaky virus - of course the bbc explantion of carniverous chimps has yet to be written but i have a contender - as good a place as any https://twitter.com/JeremyClarkson/status/514395885913255938/photo/1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 http://www.virology.net/Big_Virology/BVretro.html this is a bit more like it I am sure the bbc guy did not do this much research. besides if your "scientific" evidence is based on statistical analysis - there are lies damned lies and government statistics. the bbc are denying top gear deliberately provoked the argies - so they are extremely trustworthy chaps who would not lie about stuff and especially not about the origin of aids surely they have some evidence that aids did not start in humans since humans are more numerous and therefore more likely to generate freaky virus - of course the bbc explantion of carniverous chimps has yet to be written but i have a contender - as good a place as any https://twitter.com/JeremyClarkson/status/514395885913255938/photo/1 I get that you don't like the BBC but surely you can understand that there is a rather large difference between their reporting of the findings of academics on AIDS and the "japes" of Clarkson et al. If you don't think they are being tongue in cheek when denying they didn't realise the numberplate thing then you clearly aren't the full shilling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossRoss Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 http://www.virology.net/Big_Virology/BVretro.html this is a bit more like it I am sure the bbc guy did not do this much research. besides if your "scientific" evidence is based on statistical analysis - there are lies damned lies and government statistics. the bbc are denying top gear deliberately provoked the argies - so they are extremely trustworthy chaps who would not lie about stuff and especially not about the origin of aids surely they have some evidence that aids did not start in humans since humans are more numerous and therefore more likely to generate freaky virus - of course the bbc explantion of carniverous chimps has yet to be written but i have a contender - as good a place as any https://twitter.com/JeremyClarkson/status/514395885913255938/photo/1 I get that you don't like the BBC but surely you can understand that there is a rather large difference between their reporting of the findings of academics on AIDS and the "japes" of Clarkson et al. If you don't think they are being tongue in cheek when denying they didn't realise the numberplate thing then you clearly aren't the full shilling. Does that tongue in cheek thing apply to the jimmy savile story too? Whenever they get caught lying like cunts they pretend they were just joking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 http://www.virology.net/Big_Virology/BVretro.html this is a bit more like it I am sure the bbc guy did not do this much research. besides if your "scientific" evidence is based on statistical analysis - there are lies damned lies and government statistics. the bbc are denying top gear deliberately provoked the argies - so they are extremely trustworthy chaps who would not lie about stuff and especially not about the origin of aids surely they have some evidence that aids did not start in humans since humans are more numerous and therefore more likely to generate freaky virus - of course the bbc explantion of carniverous chimps has yet to be written but i have a contender - as good a place as any https://twitter.com/JeremyClarkson/status/514395885913255938/photo/1 I get that you don't like the BBC but surely you can understand that there is a rather large difference between their reporting of the findings of academics on AIDS and the "japes" of Clarkson et al. If you don't think they are being tongue in cheek when denying they didn't realise the numberplate thing then you clearly aren't the full shilling. Does that tongue in cheek thing apply to the jimmy savile story too? Whenever they get caught lying like cunts they pretend they were just joking. Thanks, I think you just answered my hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 The central part of this video gives a pretty good explanation of how HIV was isolated and sequenced and how doing this enabled its origins to be better understood. It also nicely explains lots of evolutionary science - ftw! http://youtu.be/hqepQGOYKZ0?list=UU_cznB5YZZmvAmeq7Y3EriQ Annoying - embedding of Youtube isn't working! Don't know why! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Evolution is nothing more than a collection of 'sleepers' created when the world was created that over a period of time 'wake up'. AIDS is one such. Awoke when it was most needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recovering Smackhead Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 AIDs is so 1980s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Evolution is nothing more than a collection of 'sleepers' created when the world was created that over a period of time 'wake up'. AIDS is one such. Awoke when it was most needed. So AIDS is just part of God's plan? Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Evolution is nothing more than a collection of 'sleepers' created when the world was created that over a period of time 'wake up'. AIDS is one such. Awoke when it was most needed. So AIDS is just part of God's plan? Gotcha. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Spook, I realize you are probably going to basically refuse to listen or learn some basic understanding of biology, but what you are saying is't true, and explaining why actually gives an insight into how life has evolved. What you are calling "sleepers" is more commonly called "front loading" and it is popular with biblical creationists. The idea is that life has hidden within its DNA a set of instructions which at first will not be used, but later become activated. It is usually speculated that these front loaded instructions are usually put there by God, or some alien designer and explain the appearance of various biological features as the front loaded sequences suddenly become activated. The only thing is this idea suffers from a big problem - the error rate in DNA as it is copied from cell to cell and generation to generation. Within (nearly)* every cell nucleus is a set of instructions - its dna genome - which can be used to make a copy not only of the cell in question, but any other cell within the organism. Which part of the DNA is active in any particular cell at any particular time depends upon the hugely complex chemistry happening in the cell at that time. If there has been an error in the copying mechanism as one cell dies and copies its DNA into another cell this chemistry might be disrupted as the DNA is no longer correct in the region where the copying error occurred. DNA is called the genotype, but the effect it has is called is the phenotype and it is phenotypical effects which effect a living organism. If, when a cell is copied, an error is made and this cell then actually uses this damaged portion of DNA the phenotype of the cell will be changed - it will function differently than before. This is often damaging and reduces the fitness of the organism - say giving it cancer, or stopping vital functions working - so the animal dies, or suffers from reduced productivity with fewer ancestors. The result is that DNA which has a bad pheonotypic effect tends to be filtered out of the gene pool - the organisms which carry it die out. So genotype which produces a working phenotype are preserved. That is basically what natural selection is. But your genes don't just contain sequences which have phenotypical effects. There are other regions where the DNA has no effect on the cells which carry it. These regions are where it is claimed front loaded functions have been put, but all the evidence we have is that these regions are junk**. These regions have no phenotypical function - that is basically the definition of both a front loaded section (information hidden away currently unused to become useful in the future), and a junk section. If something section of genotype has no phenotypical function it cannot have its errors purged by natural selection. The result is that these sections of DNA aren't conserved, but alter rapidly as copying errors build up. This is really useful for scientists as it enables them to look at these changes between species and estimate how closely related they are - the copying errors happen at a reasonably constant rate over time. But it is fatal to the idea of front loading. Any part of the genome which doesn't have a phenotypical effect will rapidly build up copying errors - while those parts which do have a phenotypical effect will tend*** to be purged of copying errors which reduce the fitness of the organism - it will die, or breed less successfully than its more able kin. The result is that there is no where for any God or designer to hide front loaded sequences for later. And guess what - all the evidence we have from actually sequencing different populations of organisms supports this view. Front loading doesn't exist, and cannot occur given the way DNA creates phenotypical effects. Any front loaded sequences will just degrade as copy errors build up. Interestingly we can see this in artificial biology - Craig Venter put his name and copyright information into the genomes of the life he created, but this information just degrades as the bacteria multiply. So front loading, what Spook calls "sleepers" doesn't work. It ignores the reality of how life works, and the evidence we have totally refutes it. But then again how has evidence and reality ever changed Spooks mind. Oh well! *some cells don't have nuclei such as red blood cells etc - these don't replicate themselves, but are made by other cells, in this case in the bone marrow. ** Please note there is a distinction between junk DNA and (useful) non-coding DNA. Lots of DNA is not used to code for proteins but is useful and provides support functions etc, but these non-coding areas make up only a tiny percentage of the genome. The majority of which is junk, a portion of which codes for proteins and an even small proportion of which has a useful non-coding function. *** There is a very important extra part to this called genetic drift where random assortment can result in minimally defective genes surviving and being fixed in a population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 It is the hight of arrogance for man to presume he knows how The Lord created the mechanisms that govern the whole of creation. We can observe what happens, we can even understand what happens in many cases but that is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Says someone telling us that the mechanisms that govern creation include "sleepers". When you observe creation and try to understand the implications of these observations we see such ideas have no evidence to back them up and in fact are refuted by the evidence. But that won't make you change your mind will it Spook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Says someone telling us that the mechanisms that govern creation include "sleepers". When you observe creation and try to understand the implications of these observations we see such ideas have no evidence to back them up and in fact are refuted by the evidence. But that won't make you change your mind will it Spook. To understand creation is both unnecessary and impossible. All that is needed is true faith in the love of the Lord and accept what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 It is the hight of arrogance for man to presume he knows how The Lord created the mechanisms that govern the whole of creation. We can observe what happens, we can even understand what happens in many cases but that is all. So you believe it, but don't know why you believe it? Emperor's new clothes... TBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.