Judge rules against intelligent design

The Lady Kate · Jan 29, 2006

david_x said:
Close, i'm saying that differnt "strands of the flu virous were always around. When i vaccine kills off virouses it does not effect that one virous that has a trait to defend it's self.

So... you do believe in natural selection.

Why then haven't we stopped the flu? We've been developing flu vaccines for the better part of a century... if the virus isn't mutating, then when will we get every one?

Robert the Pilegrim · Jan 29, 2006

david_x said:
you just contridicted yourself in the first two sentences.

Making an observation about the ignorance/inexperience of a person or a group of people is not the same thing as looking down at them.

The fact is that very few 17 year olds have enough experience with learning about subjects to be able to judge how ignorant they are.

You make it sound as if the subject is complex. It's not that hard. Sure if I were simple I may have spent hours on it,

Quick aside here, could you explain what you mean by "simple"?

Do you know what a telomere is and how it comes into play when comparing our DNA to that of other great apes?

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

Can you name or describe some common mutations observed to occur in fruitflies?

Do you know what cytochrome-c is?

Ignorance is not a crime, it is in fact unavoidable.

What is a crime is when somebody fails to examine their ignorance when it is suggested that they are talking about something they know very little about.

as a matter of general interest:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chromcom.html
and the local links from it have quite a bit of good stuff on human chimp gorilla ... DNA similarities and differences. Most of it I suspect most people have seen but it is all in one place with DNA pictures (e.g. the DNA pictures from the 1982 Science article.)

shernren · Jan 30, 2006

"Don't let anyone look down on you because of your age." now that's biblical! Besides you are the one not paying attention and judging that which you have no clue about!

Hmm, it's interesting that I recently blogged about just this passage of Scripture: http://shernren.lifewithchrist.org/permalink/19880 ... goodwill is free, but respect must be earned, young or old. Learn up before you shoot off. I think the others here are doing a fine enough job in educating you and so I shall step out of this one.

david_x · Feb 12, 2006

So... you do believe in natural selection.

No, once sertain conditions end the old strand comes back to be delt with.

Can you name or describe some common mutations observed to occur in fruitflies?

I was actually going to use the 4-wing mutation later on, just haven't got there yet.

The fact is that very few 17 year olds have enough experience with learning about subjects to be able to judge how ignorant they are.

for your information i am ahead of 98% of my class(at least in my state)

Dannager · Feb 12, 2006

david_x said:
No, once sertain conditions end the old strand comes back to be delt with.

Where did the old strand go? What conditions are you talking about? It's a very well-documented fact that the flu virus mutates and is selected against.

for your information i am ahead of 98% of my class(at least in my state)

In what subject?

Athene · Feb 13, 2006

david_x said:
No, once sertain conditions end the old strand comes back to be delt with.

No that's not true, once immunity is acquired by the population to a certain viral strain then that's it, it can't survive or replicate. However during viral replication in the hosts cell mutations frequently occur,in the viral DNA (or RNA) if these mutations are in the DNA which codes for viral coat protein then a new varient of the strain occurs, a varient which is not recognised by existing vaccines or the hosts immune system.

david_x · Feb 13, 2006

No that's not true, once immunity is acquired by the population to a certain viral strain then that's it, it can't survive or replicate. However during viral replication in the hosts cell mutations frequently occur,in the viral DNA (or RNA) if these mutations are in the DNA which codes for viral coat protein then a new varient of the strain occurs, a varient which is not recognised by existing vaccines or the hosts immune system.

No thats not true, the coloney that had the ability to defend against the treatment is actually weaker than the one that can't so that the one that can't defend will retake dominence.

Where did the old strand go?

I'm sure you realize that a medicine does not entirly wipe out the population of even the susceptible viruses.

What conditions are you talking about?

Medication or treatment.

In what subject?

I'm ahead of 98% of my class overall. In science i'm ahead of 99% of my class.

shernren · Feb 13, 2006

If you're really ahead of 99% of your class you should know that you can't replicate viruses in a colony the way you can bacteria. (While we're at it, even bacteria aren't that easy to colony-replicate; one of the problems epidemiologists face is trying to grow colonies of bacteria which they have observed causing disease but just don't seem to take to any lab conditions well.) Viruses only replicate using living hosts and do not display any living activity besides their talent for nucleic hijacking. When you refer to "colonies that are able to defend against the treatment" you are therefore talking not at all about viruses and vaccines, but about bacteria and antibiotics (as I'd suspected all along). And this is nothing but a rehash of an old creationist argument, which even if it is true, has nothing to do with the argument here.

You don't understand the details of the argument, and you don't understand the general direction of the argument either.

The details:

Antibiotics work by suppressing or attacking bacterial metabolism or cell structure. Therefore any change which allows bacteria to escape antibiotic action must be a change in metabolic pathways or cell structure. True, these changes may prove maladaptive once the antibiotic pressure is removed.

When it comes to viruses however, vaccines don't directly kill viruses. Antivirals are used post-infection (if I'm not mistaken) and they are able to prevent viral replication processes. But like I said, viruses don't do much else besides replicate (causing lots of problems for us human hosts in the process). A vaccine does not at all target the metabolic workings of a virus for the simple reason that there are no "viral metabolic pathways" to target (as far as I know). A vaccine allows the body's immune system to recognize a particular virus and produce antibodies in circulation against the virus (not to "kill" it per se since it's barely alive but to prevent it from entering further cells). Antibodies are keyed against viral antigens, namely the coat proteins on a virus's capsule. And the coat proteins on a virus's capsule can change via genetic mixing (producing a new species / strain) without adversely affecting the virus's reproductive success (besides in the highly unlikely case that the virus reverts back to a set of antigens which is already recognized by the host's immune system).

Pop quiz: what are the two life cycles that viruses display?

You haven't gotten the general direction of the discussion either because the discussion hasn't been about natural selection but about speciation. In other words, the discussion has been about how / why new species emerge and if they emerge at all. Whether or not these species are "weaker" than their parent species by some arbitrary criteria is irrelevant to the fact that they are a new species. And if new species do emerge then your belief in the fixity of species (something even most modern creationists don't believe) is wrong, regardless of whether the new species that do emerge are stronger or weaker than their parent species.

If it were about accomplishments I could go on waxing lyrical about mine all day. But I'd rather show my merit by following the discussions here well and providing concrete, interesting, original arguments. Don't let anyone despise you because you are young: but make sure you read up and pay attention!

Athene · Feb 13, 2006

david_x said:
No thats not true, the coloney that had the ability to defend against the treatment is actually weaker than the one that can't so that the one that can't defend will retake dominence.

Ok, are you talking about viral strains or bacterial colonies, we don't get viral colonies. ~I think I see where you are coming from, I have vague recollections of high school biology where on a petri dish I would grow two different types of bacteria, one with a mutation which makes it resistant to antibiotic, during treatment with antibiotic the resistant species grows and dominates, and the suscepitble species all but dies off, once the antibiotic has worn off the susceptible species can grow and sometimes will regain dominance over the petri dish.

Ok forget about that, that is not a model for viral infections, they work in a completely different manner, take the flu virus, you are walking along one day and you inhale a virus particle, it manages to invade a cell in your respiratory tract where it hijaks the cells DNA replicating machinery, the viral particle replicates inside the cell and eventually causes the cell to split releasing viral particles which go on to invade other cells. You with me?

Immunity to viral strains is acquired by this process, once inside the host cell the viral particle is presented to various immune cells called lymphocytes which have antibody on their surface, there are millions of such cells in our body all carrying a different antibody, eventually the viral particle will be presented to a lymphocyte which matches, like a lock and key, this causes a reaction inside the lymphocyte resulting in the production of antibody specific to the virus, the remaining virus particles present in the body are mopped up by antibody and the cells carrying virus are killed. Do you know why you get a sore throat when you have a bad cold? It isn't the virus which causes it, its' the immune response destroying all viral infected cells. You still with me?

When we have coughs and colds we tend to sneeze and cough alot, this results in the expulsion of viral particles from our body where they are passed to a different host and the whole cycle begins again. Over the course of a viral infection in a population it is passed from many hosts, and during replication inside the host cell mutations occur, if these mutations occur in the genes which code for viral coat protein then we end up with a new varient which our immune system doesn't recognise, this is the reason why the cough/cold viruses have not been wiped out, because it keeps mutating as it is passed around a population and it comes back to infect us again and again and again.

Vaccines to a virus work on a similar prinicple to acquired immunity, we are injected with a protein which resembles viral coat protein, our body mounts an immune response to it, which is relatively weak compared to a full blown infection, our bodies produce antibody to the vaccine and therefore upon subsequent infection with the virus proper we already have immunity. Unfortunatly immunity is short lived, the flu virus mutates very quickly and the immunisation we recieve in winter 2004 will not protect us against the flu virus doing the rounds in winter 2005.

I realise that's a lot to chew over, if you managed to understand it I'll be impressed, if you would like any further explanation I'm happy to oblige, I have a degree in Medical Microbiology, and therefore I have a fair grasp on things.

I'm sure you realize that a medicine does not entirly wipe out the population of even the susceptible viruses.

Yes it does, but viruses mutate, they're very good at it as it's one of their survival mechanisms.

I'm ahead of 98% of my class overall. In science i'm ahead of 99% of my class.

Honestly, I don't think so. I have worked with 17/18 year old high school kids who were in the 90th percentile and above, you don't have the level of understanding I would expect from a top performing student.

Dannager · Feb 13, 2006

Athene said:
Honestly, I don't think so. I have worked with 17/18 year old high school kids who were in the 90th percentile and above, you don't have the level of understanding I would expect from a top performing student.

Not to mention that I expect someone in the 98th percentile of their class (in all things, English included) to be able to spell "certain", "meant", "virus" and "itself" properly. They aren't exactly big words.

david_x · Feb 14, 2006

Bad example, sorry. Flu=viral. Got it. sorry, yeah that whole argument was bacterial.

((english was my low point. Only ahead of 91%, mostly spelling errors.))

Yes it does, but viruses mutate, they're very good at it as it's one of their survival mechanisms.

That's rediculous. If they are all wiped out who mutates?

who's to say they don't just change their flag protein (or whatever the antibodies cling to) themselves, enviromental response.

Not to mention that I expect someone in the 98th percentile of their class (in all things, English included) to be able to spell "certain", "meant", "virus" and "itself" properly. They aren't exactly big words.

Good thing typing wasn't on the test.

Athene · Feb 14, 2006

david_x said:
david_x said:

That's rediculous. If they are all wiped out who mutates?

Click to expand...

Mutation occurs prior to the viral popluation being wiped out, the mutated virus survives, the non-mutated virus particles are wiped out.

who's to say they don't just change their flag protein (or whatever the antibodies cling to) themselves, enviromental response.

Click to expand...

Virus particles in general contian a strand of genetic material, a couple of enzymes, surrounded by a protein coat, they don't have the metabolic pathways to change their coat proteins at will, changes in coat protein occur as a result of mutation which occur during replication in the host cell.

david_x · Feb 14, 2006

Virus particles in general contian a strand of genetic material, a couple of enzymes, surrounded by a protein coat, they don't have the metabolic pathways to change their coat proteins at will, changes in coat protein occur as a result of mutation which occur during replication in the host cell.

They don't have the ability to change it but, they do change it.?.

If these mutations occer so regularly then most of the offspring probliy don't make it due to genetic mutations wouldn't they? Do they? Hmmm....I will ponder this perplexing mystery.

PS- Any good sites for info.

notto · Feb 14, 2006

david_x said:
They don't have the ability to change it but, they do change it.?.

It's important to ready every word - you missed the 'at will' part.

If these mutations occer so regularly then most of the offspring probliy don't make it due to genetic mutations wouldn't they? Do they? Hmmm....I will ponder this perplexing mystery.

Not much of a mystery if you understood as much as you claim to.

Why would you think that most of the 'offspring' don't make it due to mutations? What exactly do you think is going on when a virus mutates? Why wouldn't they make it?

shernren · Feb 14, 2006

If these mutations occer so regularly then most of the offspring probliy don't make it due to genetic mutations wouldn't they? Do they? Hmmm....I will ponder this perplexing mystery.

That's because somebody has been telling you that most mutations are deleterious. Which they are not, as you can see for yourself. Viruses mutate all the time. If mutations were really as bad and useless as some people claim, then viruses would've mutated themselves out of existence by now. Which would be a good thing, mind you, except that it simply hasn't happened and short of a miracle probably never will.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that you have a decent conceptual grasp of viral biology at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_(biological)

david_x · Feb 15, 2006

Why would you think that most of the 'offspring' don't make it due to mutations? What exactly do you think is going on when a virus mutates? Why wouldn't they make it?

Viral DNA carry more info than just the "protein coat" it also carries info. for the housing of the genetic code. if the DNA would mutates so commonly than there would be big problems with the cell wall as well.

notto · Feb 15, 2006

david_x said:
Viral DNA carry more info than just the "protein coat" it also carries info. for the housing of the genetic code. if the DNA would mutates so commonly than there would be big problems with the cell wall as well.

Why? Please be specific. All you did was restate your claim. You need to show why it is a problem and not just state that it is or should be.

Can you do that? Can you support your claim?

david_x · Feb 15, 2006

Why? Please be specific. All you did was restate your claim. You need to show why it is a problem and not just state that it is or should be.

It should be if you really believe that mutations in viral coats are just common accidents.

Can you do that? Can you support your claim?

This is a claim you would have to agree with to make your point plausable.

notto · Feb 15, 2006

david_x said:
It should be if you really believe that mutations in viral coats are just common accidents.

Why? Again, you are just repeating your assertions. You have done nothing to show the affects mutations would or should have on a virus that you claim they would. You are making claims based on what appears to be a limited knowledge of viruses and providing no support, research, mechanisms, or even detail on your claims.

It should be easy for you to explain to us why mutations would have th effect your are claiming. Can you do that?

shernren · Feb 15, 2006

Viral DNA carry more info than just the "protein coat" it also carries info. for the housing of the genetic code. if the DNA would mutates so commonly than there would be big problems with the cell wall as well.

Pop quiz: Do viruses even have cell walls? And how do you justify saying that the packages viruses come in are called "cells", in the first place? To be frank it seems you are quite out of your depth talking about viruses.

Judge rules against intelligent design

The Lady Kate

Guest

Senior Veteran

you are not reading this.

I So Hate Consequences!!!!

Back in Town

Grammatically incorrect

I So Hate Consequences!!!!

you are not reading this.

Grammatically incorrect

Back in Town

I So Hate Consequences!!!!

Grammatically incorrect

I So Hate Consequences!!!!

Legend

you are not reading this.

I So Hate Consequences!!!!

Legend

I So Hate Consequences!!!!

Legend

you are not reading this.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Judge rules against intelligent design