Why don't you adapt first, and mutate later?

[Ophiolite]

If they give you an advantage, and generations of your offspring pass on this advantage to their offspring, and so are more successful in producing and raising young than average, over many generations those genes may spread through the population, becoming the new successful standard. That is evolution (simplified).

Or witness the global example we have on our doorsteps. Omicron is replacing delta because it is "better" - spreads faster, spreads more easily, doesn't kill as many hosts. It's won the lottery. (And it's not even alive!)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Or witness the global example we have on our doorsteps. Omicron is replacing delta because it is "better" - spreads faster, spreads more easily, doesn't kill as many hosts. It's won the lottery. (And it's not even alive!)

It's a good example - although killing hosts is not a selective disadvantage in the short term, since it is most infectious in the period before severe illness & death occurs (even before symptoms appear). Severe illness and death typically occur in the post-viral period after the infection has subsided, as a result of immune over-reaction.

This means that this virus could evolve to be more rather than less lethal, and we've been lucky with Omicron - although I suppose it's possible that mutations for virulence and infectiousness are antagonistic for some reason.

 

[Ophiolite]

It's a good example - although killing hosts is not a selective disadvantage in the short term, since it is most infectious in the period before severe illness & death occurs (even before symptoms appear). Severe illness and death typically occur in the post-viral period after the infection has subsided, as a result of immune over-reaction.

This means that this virus could evolve to be more rather than less lethal, and we've been lucky with Omicron - although I suppose it's possible that mutations for virulence and infectiousness are antagonistic for some reason.

Agreed, but if the virus doesn't kill the host, the host is available for possible reinfection at a later date. (That's implicitly covered by your reference to the short term.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Agreed, but if the virus doesn't kill the host, the host is available for possible reinfection at a later date. (That's implicitly covered by your reference to the short term.)

Yes; the point for us today is that there appears to be no reason why a highly lethal variant, at least as infectious as Omicron, could not arise...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed, but if the virus doesn't kill the host, the host is available for possible reinfection at a later date. (That's implicitly covered by your reference to the short term.)

Or a virus could mutate to the point where it is almost harmless. HSV-1 comes to mind. Once you have that it tends to be for life but the most serious negative drawback appears to be unsightly cold sores. Between HSV-1 and HSV-2 over half of the population of the world is infected. Actually higher. 66% with HSV-1 alone and about 13% with HSV-2:

Massive proportion of world’s population are living with herpes infection

 

[tas8831]

Hi there,

So question is:
Get me?

The glass is half full after all!

Why don't you try to learn basic biology BEFORE starting all of these goofy threads?

 

[Gottservant]

If you adapt first, you are able to adapt more.

If you adapt more, you are able to adapt adaptation (Evolutionarily as is productive).

This is an irreducibly complex statement.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you adapt first, you are able to adapt more.

If you adapt more, you are able to adapt adaptation (Evolutionarily as is productive).

This is an irreducibly complex statement.

But who's to blame if you adapt? you or nature?

And who's to blame if you mutate? you or nature?

 

[Gottservant]

But who's to blame if you adapt? you or nature?

And who's to blame if you mutate? you or nature?

If you knew to adapt and you didn't, it's on your head - if anyone else suffers because of that, its on your head too.

Everyone knows judgment is coming, its people who hide behind theoretical occlusions (like "you can't do it on your own", "you can't do it for your family", "you can't do it up front") that are the most to blame.

Delusions come and go, but someone who is contrite about the power of God in that, will be saved.

 

[AV1611VET]

Put another way: multiple mutations pointing to adapting first, do not need to be adapted.

Just by way of observation on my part, it looks like you are using the term "to adapt" in the same sense as "to learn."

If you go back and read your posts and substitute "adapt" with "learn," they make more sense.

To me anyway.

 

[Gottservant]

Just by way of observation on my part, it looks like you are using the term "to adapt" in the same sense as "to learn."

If you go back and read your posts and substitute "adapt" with "learn," they make more sense.

To me anyway.

"Adapt" to me suggests, "readiness to respond".

Jesus said a scribe instructed in the things of God is like a householder who brings forth things new and old. As someone who is curious about Evolution, I have things learned and things adapted.

But yes you are right, it is better that we learn from adaptation, than adapt what we learn.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you adapt first, you are able to adapt more.

If you adapt more, you are able to adapt adaptation (Evolutionarily as is productive).

This is an irreducibly complex statement.

That's not how biology works, and definitely not how evolution works.

It's not an irreducibly complex statement. It's an igorant and insipid statement.

 

[tas8831]

Why don't you adapt first, and mutate later?

I am constantly amazed at how eager some people are to draw attention to the fact that they have not bothered - ever - to actually try to understand the things they argue against.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am constantly amazed at how eager some people are to draw attention to the fact that they have not bothered - ever - to actually try to understand the things they argue against.

I argue against LSD, and all I know about it is what the letters stand for.

 

[Ophiolite]

I argue against LSD, and all I know about it is what the letters stand for.

I know you are American, but is that really sufficiently reason to be opposed to Sterling as a currency: librae, solidi, and denarii?

 

[AV1611VET]

I know you are American, but is that really sufficiently reason to be opposed to Sterling as a currency: librae, solidi, and denarii?

 

[Ophiolite]

Pre-decimialisation in the UK our currency was pounds, shilling and pence. 20 shillings to the pound, ten pennies to the shilling. These were identified as librae, solidi, and denarii, L.s.d. thus £4 2s. 4d (My first week's wage in a summer job as a 14 year old.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Pre-decimialisation in the UK our currency was pounds, shilling and pence. 20 shillings to the pound, ten pennies to the shilling. These were identified as librae, solidi, and denarii, L.s.d. thus £4 2s. 4d (My first week's wage in a summer job as a 14 year old.)

1 Chronicles 26:18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

 

[Gottservant]

I am constantly amazed at how eager some people are to draw attention to the fact that they have not bothered - ever - to actually try to understand the things they argue against.

*SNIP*

I would rather not argue, over some thing that lacks substance.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

*SNIP*

I would rather not argue, over some thing that lacks substance.

Except that you aren't arguing. You are even listening to people.