Evolution convicts criminals

[lucaspa]

Some people wonder what evolution is good for. Here is an example. For those of you who think evolution is wrong, do you think we should set these convicted criminals free?

Scientists reveal criminal virus spreaders using evolutionary forensics | Bioscience Technology Online

"The source of HIV infection in two separate criminal cases in which men were convicted of intentionally infecting their female sexual partners was confirmed by scientists from The University of Texas at Austin and Baylor College of Medicine using evolutionary forensics. ...

"HIV evolves rapidly within infected individuals over the course of a few months, so the viruses cannot be compared between a source and a newly infected individual for an exact match. It's not as easy as directly comparing two individuals' DNA to confirm paternity.
Even two samples of HIV from the same person, taken several months apart, will be different because the virus is evolving so quickly.
"Within a given person, there is not just one strain but a population of strains because HIV mutates all the time when it makes new virions (viral particles)," said Metzker, associate professor at Baylor. "During transmission, however, there is a genetic bottleneck in which only one or two viruses get transmitted to the recipient." ...

"
In order to understand the origins of the infections of the women victims, therefore, the scientists needed to reconstruct the evolutionary history of the viruses.
To do so, Metzker's lab at Baylor College of Medicine first isolated and sequenced the HIV genes from blind blood samples taken from the accused, from the victims and from other HIV positive individuals who lived in the same area as the victims and the accused.
Metzker sent the gene sequences (still blind to identity) to the Hillis lab at The University of Texas at Austin, where they constructed evolutionary histories for the viruses by performing the phylogenetic analysis.
In each of the cases, they identified the sample from the unknown individual that shared the subsets of HIV genes that were related to the other individuals in the case.

"This individual was the only person who could have infected the others," said Hillis.

In each case, the source individual was revealed at the trial to be the defendant when the blinded code numbers on the blood sample were revealed to the court.

"We didn't know that information until the trial," said Hillis. "We just new that we had identified the only person whose HIV population was consistent as the source of the multiple infections." "

 

[juvenissun]

Some people wonder what evolution is good for. Here is an example. For those of you who think evolution is wrong, do you think we should set these convicted criminals free?

Scientists reveal criminal virus spreaders using evolutionary forensics | Bioscience Technology Online

"The source of HIV infection in two separate criminal cases in which men were convicted of intentionally infecting their female sexual partners was confirmed by scientists from The University of Texas at Austin and Baylor College of Medicine using evolutionary forensics. ...

"HIV evolves rapidly within infected individuals over the course of a few months, so the viruses cannot be compared between a source and a newly infected individual for an exact match. It's not as easy as directly comparing two individuals' DNA to confirm paternity.
Even two samples of HIV from the same person, taken several months apart, will be different because the virus is evolving so quickly.
"Within a given person, there is not just one strain but a population of strains because HIV mutates all the time when it makes new virions (viral particles)," said Metzker, associate professor at Baylor. "During transmission, however, there is a genetic bottleneck in which only one or two viruses get transmitted to the recipient." ...

"
In order to understand the origins of the infections of the women victims, therefore, the scientists needed to reconstruct the evolutionary history of the viruses.
To do so, Metzker's lab at Baylor College of Medicine first isolated and sequenced the HIV genes from blind blood samples taken from the accused, from the victims and from other HIV positive individuals who lived in the same area as the victims and the accused.
Metzker sent the gene sequences (still blind to identity) to the Hillis lab at The University of Texas at Austin, where they constructed evolutionary histories for the viruses by performing the phylogenetic analysis.
In each of the cases, they identified the sample from the unknown individual that shared the subsets of HIV genes that were related to the other individuals in the case.

"This individual was the only person who could have infected the others," said Hillis.

In each case, the source individual was revealed at the trial to be the defendant when the blinded code numbers on the blood sample were revealed to the court.

"We didn't know that information until the trial," said Hillis. "We just new that we had identified the only person whose HIV population was consistent as the source of the multiple infections." "

I am not sure what the "phylogenetic analysis" is. So I guess. If wrong, please correct me.

I think it is nothing more than "compare" and "re-order". A population of genes are examined and then they are arranged according to detectable differences into an order.

This method has nothing to do with evolution. It is simply a common scientific method. The so-called evolutional method is only an idea which is added, unnecessarily, to the method. So, you can not say that the idea of evolution "induced" this method. Although you may still say that this method is used to study evolution.

A related question: If a virus is so easy and so fast to evolve, why don't people use virus to test the idea of evolution? Given an experiment of a few years long, and see what kind of change would happen to a particular virus, after "a million generations"? I guess this kind of test must have been done. What was the result? Is it possible that a virus would evolve into something which is not a virus anymore?

 

[AV1611VET]

All this is, is a plug for evolution; and in the creationist realm, evolution needs all the PR it can get.

 

[thaumaturgy]

All this is, is a plug for evolution; and in the creationist realm, evolution needs all the PR it can get.

Dunno, AV, but when someone can use the idea of evolution to construct a technique by which rapidly changing organisms' populations can be linked and this is used to solve a pretty nasty crime, I think the PR is pretty good.

Do you see it differently?

Here's a question for you; if evolution should not be used we should throw out the convictions of these two men (based on faulty basis of establishing guilt). They will be relocated to where the majority of your female relatives live and turned loose. They'll be given jobs in the food service industry there too.

Will that be OK?

 

[Upisoft]

No creationist pointed out this has to be micro-evolution? Ah, wait... not even micro-evolution, viruses are not alive...

 

[Cabal]

All this is, is a plug for evolution; and in the creationist realm, evolution needs all the PR it can get.

Because you guys would just wheel out the ducking stool again? How accurate is that method, exactly?

 

[Cabal]

Forensics is also a good catch-22 for creationists, seeing as it's essentially the same procedure as evolution uses. Highlight the inconsistency, and lol heartily.

 

[marktheblake]

Dunno, AV, but when someone can use the idea of evolution to construct

This was not used to construct anything.

Real science was used instead.

 

[lucaspa]

I am not sure what the "phylogenetic analysis" is. So I guess. If wrong, please correct me.

I think it is nothing more than "compare" and "re-order". A population of genes are examined and then they are arranged according to detectable differences into an order.

Doesn't work that way. If the order is not related to ancestor-descendent, then it doesn't work. Remember, there were blinded samples (investigators did not know who they came from). If you were just re-ordering, then your chances of re-ordering one of the non-criminals (no sexual contact with the woman) to get a match would be as good as getting the criminal.

A related question: If a virus is so easy and so fast to evolve, why don't people use virus to test the idea of evolution? Given an experiment of a few years long, and see what kind of change would happen to a particular virus, after "a million generations"? I guess this kind of test must have been done. What was the result? Is it possible that a virus would evolve into something which is not a virus anymore?

No, because a virus is an entire Domainof life. That's a classification that encompasses millions of species. You would need thousands of speciation events to get out of the Domain of virus. Also with viruses it's especially difficult because viruses cannot live on their own, but require the machinery of a cell to replicate. To be "not a virus anymore" would require the virus to become a cell. That's not going to happen even with a million generations.

 

[lucaspa]

All this is, is a plug for evolution; and in the creationist realm, evolution needs all the PR it can get.

As I asked at the beginning of the OP AV, should we set those men free because evolution is wrong? Where is the Discovery Institute and their lawyers arguing an appeal for these convicted felons?

You haven't denied that this is an effective plug for evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

This was not used to construct anything.

What a classic example of a misquote! Let's try Thaumaturgy's entire phrase:
"when someone can use the idea of evolution to construct a technique by which rapidly changing organisms' populations can be linked and this is used to solve a pretty nasty crime,"

So, yes, something was constructed: a technique. And the technique depended on evolution being true.

Real science was used instead.

Yep. This shows that evolution is "real science". Predicts new knowledge that will be found. That's "real science".

 

[AV1611VET]

As I asked at the beginning of the OP AV, should we set those men free because evolution is wrong?

No.

You can call it 'evolutionary forensics' if you want, but all they did was match the virus of the offender to the virus of the victim.

What's so hard about that?

A bug got in this woman and acclimated itself to the environment. Then scientists came along and reverse-engineered this bug and it turns back into the bug from the offender.

That's where I think scientists are gifts from God.

The virus is still a virus, and microevolution (adaptation, acclimation) is not macroevolution.

 

[marktheblake]

What a classic example of a misquote!

Its not a misquote, i included a clickable link to the full quote. there was no need to repeat the whole text when the original was only about 3 posts proceeding, nor does it misrepresent what he said.

you were far too quick to over react, next time, take a couple of breaths and think about it a bit longer.

the technique depended on evolution being true.

It depended on the evolution that can be observed. Nothing to do with pondscum to people evolution at all.

Yep. This shows that evolution is "real science". Predicts new knowledge that will be found. That's "real science".

it shows that you cant tell the difference between your philosophy and real science.

 

[juvenissun]

Doesn't work that way. If the order is not related to ancestor-descendent, then it doesn't work. Remember, there were blinded samples (investigators did not know who they came from). If you were just re-ordering, then your chances of re-ordering one of the non-criminals (no sexual contact with the woman) to get a match would be as good as getting the criminal.

The rearrangement of blind samples into an order only used the method of comparison (on the record? of genes). Whey you do that, you do not care about the idea of ancestor-descendent. In fact, to avoid any bias, you should NOT use the concept in the process or reordering. If the gene of a non-criminal "looks" the same as the gene of the criminal, it simply says this method could not be used.

The evolution idea only applied AFTER the order is arranged. Then everyone looked at the sequence and say: AHAH ! see, evolution.

This is NOT an application of evolution.

 

[Split Rock]

Nothing to do with pondscum to people evolution at all.
.

God blew... then out came you!

 

[wanelad]

Lols the spin's the evlolutionists must try to use to try and make a point, what a joke

 

[Delphiki]

"All hail the mighty Evolution. May your wrath come down and smite all the non-believers! Blessed be Evolution and his father, Lord Charles Darwin. By his baboons we are healed!"

(the funny things that go through my head each time someone uses the word "evolutionist")

 

[Split Rock]

Lols the spin's the evlolutionists must try to use to try and make a point, what a joke

Does the joke include a woman made from a rib (maybe a McRib?) or how about a talking snake?

 

[wanelad]

Split considering man kind (science) we are able to reproduce from cells, its not so surprising that God used a rib to make woman. If your taking the stance that man should therefore have 1 less rib, just because a rib was removed fom Adam this would not be passed on to the next generation.

The Serpent the same word is used in the Old Testiment 31 times and apart from this once is translated as “to practice divination.” The Serpent was Satan or more likely one of his off siders not a snake, it was not until after the punishment that the serpent was made to crawl on the ground on his belly Gen 3:14

Satan again gets refered to in Revelations as the Serpent Rev 12:9

I was just thinking the other day how different we actually are God Created man in his own image Gen 1:27 therefore we have minds that can create and reason.

I guess though if I was an evolutionist I would be asking myself this, why is mankind so distingquished from its former relatives (apes still living in the trees). Why have they not been able to at least cotton on to some of the simpler things that man has achieved and at least be able to build a mud brick house? I mean if they were creative in the slightest surely they could just copy mans works.

The Theory of mutation leading to advancement just does not stack up, even with the bacteria's and virus's which is the only thing the evolutionists ever seem to be able to come up with. What about a more progressed form? but I guess believe what you like as in the end it is your call.

 

[Split Rock]

Split considering man kind (science) we are able to reproduce from cells, its not so surprising that God used a rib to make woman. If your taking the stance that man should therefore have 1 less rib, just because a rib was removed fom Adam this would not be passed on to the next generation.

If you are taking the stance that God cloned Eve from Adam's rib, then she would have been a man.

The Serpent the same word is used in the Old Testiment 31 times and apart from this once is translated as “to practice divination.” The Serpent was Satan or more likely one of his off siders not a snake, it was not until after the punishment that the serpent was made to crawl on the ground on his belly Gen 3:14

So, why were snakes punished by being made to crawl on their bellies? Is it just a coincidence that snakes crawl on their bellies? Is Satan crawling on his belly eating dirt right now? It hasn't seemed to slow down his progress in corrupting mankind... has it?

I was just thinking the other day how different we actually are God Created man in his own image Gen 1:27 therefore we have minds that can create and reason.

Yes, even to the point where we have created thousands of gods over the centuries.

I guess though if I was an evolutionist I would be asking myself this, why is mankind so distingquished from its former relatives (apes still living in the trees). Why have they not been able to at least cotton on to some of the simpler things that man has achieved and at least be able to build a mud brick house? I mean if they were creative in the slightest surely they could just copy mans works.

They do use tools like we do. Chimpanzees even have their own cultures that are passed down from one generation to the next.

The Theory of mutation leading to advancement just does not stack up, even with the bacteria's and virus's which is the only thing the evolutionists ever seem to be able to come up with. What about a more progressed form? but I guess believe what you like as in the end it is your call.

It was established with the adoption of the Great Synthesis and Neodarwinism that mutation alone is not sufficient a mechanism to explain evolution. Mutation produces the variation upon which Natural Selection and other mechanisms, can act. We have seen this not only in bacteria and viruses, but in plants and animals as well.