Coronavirus could be getting weaker

OK, so you used " the virus sees" as a figure of speach to say what exactly? You describe it as having some sort of instinct, purpose or awareness... which is BS.

All life has some form of instinct.
If it completes actions- if it can't think, it must be instinct.
There is a genetic code passed from parent to child (virus). This is the template used by the next child virus. 

All life has a purpose. To survive and to reproduce. That is why it evolves to its environment, otherwise, it would just cease to exist. 

However, this is probably not compatible with the religious version of the world that does not rely on evolution. God created Earth in 7 days...

Yours are admitting evolution exists (unlike happy clappies like Beeno), but you are twisting it with your religious bias to be compatible with dogma. 

A modern-day Creationist twisting stuff to together to form the "figurative" bible, not the literal bible of old gospel.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_evolution

"A virus is a basic form of life that adapts to its environment. So for those that say mutation is totally random need to think again."

I actually can't. The word mutation is basically synonymous with random. If you remove the random element from mutation the process takes on another name.

"Mutations are random. Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs.""

" M utation is a life form adapting to make itself stronger to dominate its environment (better at reproducing than other forms of life). The better it is at reproducing, the more lethal and contagious to its host (environment)." 

No. Mutation is a random process. Life forms becoming stronger is one outcome of mutation but is by no means the definition of mutation. It's like saying the word driving means crash.

Whoosh!

Peeper trying to defend the thinking virus claim....’the virus doesn’t want it’s host to die’.....waaaaaaaaaahahahaha!

“ Posted by: sharkbok (11755 posts)

@Plum, you have watched a few YouTube videos, and you think you know much more than what you actually do. The people you watch are usually not experts, just people that have read some books.  “

Maybe, because you are such an expert, you should sit Plum down for an IQ test. 

What an insightful experience this thread turned out to be. Thanks everyone!

PS, the insights weren't  into the field of virology or evolution though.

Moffie, I've noticed that you only ever log on these days to have a little squeak at me.

I sincerely hope you're not becoming as obsessed with me as DumbAss is.

You know I think you're a pompous, childish and spiteful loser but you have some way to go before I hold you in the same contempt as DumbAss . . . but you're getting there!

Get a life. Seriously.

Sounds like  the ‘no más’ moment. Would you  like a gimp member card? 

Another plaintive little squeak. Sad really.

As for "no más", have you ever landed a single punch, loser? I mean seriously, even one . . . ever?

LMAO!

Ou Vrottie seems to be busy pointing out the second hand jalopy’s hub caps while his boss, ou Rooies, is busy trying to clinch the deal by throwing in a 5 litre fuel voucher.

“ Posted by: Rooinek (10383 posts)

Another plaintive little squeak. Sad really.

As for "no más", have you ever landed a single punch , loser? I mean seriously, even one . . . ever?  “

Uh oh. Looks like RooiBiden has arrived on the scene. 

@Draad, is that Captain Ceradynce? (minus all the medals of course...)

Ok, Shark. I'll attempt to tackle that clusterfuck of an unnecessary explanation about evolution of yours. 

If 1000 black bears were moved to the North Pole, eventually they would all become white to adapt to their environment. 

No those 1000 would NOT change colour. They'll stay exactly the same and probably die because the shift in environment is too extreme. Out of the thousand bears, I'm guessing half are male and half are female. Let's assume they are able to procreate in arctic conditions. None of their cubs would survive...Because too cold. So let's add some more grace to your party and assume that half the cubs survive to adulthood. IE Gen 2 = 1000 cubs. The cubs most likely to survive would be the the biggest ones with the thickest fur and the most fat. Unless you're talking albino, no cub will be born white. Some will be slightly lighter brown than others. Being slightly lighter brown will offer only a tiny marginal advantage over the other cubs. 

Size and fat, in a freezing environment will be a much greater advantage than being lighter in tone. So, the arc will first be towards size, heat retention and calorie storage. Gradually, and over a much longer period, the tiny incremental advantages of being lighter in tone will add up until you eventually have white bears. That process will take millions of years. 

Use some common sense. You see two bears 100m from you. One is dark brown and the other a slightly lighter brown. On a white background, are you gonna have any issues seeing either of them? Exactly, that's how tiny the advantage is. You're talking about an advantage which is a tiny fraction of a percent, and only coming about randomly through mutation, having to propagate across an entire colony. IE Millions of years.

A white bear in an area covered in snow would be a more effective hunter because it can blend in with the environment. This might take 100,000 years, but slowly the random mutation would drive the course of evolution. The white fur gene would slowly get stronger until it is the dominant gene.

Thanks for the lesson on camouflage.

100 000 years? No. Fossil records over 100 000 years don't change a great deal. 50 million years is more like it. 

So no, your scenario is bogus. What's much more likely is that polar bears mate with your group. Those cubs, then being closer to white, have a bigger advantage and push toward being pure white much more quickly than those that didn't mate with polar bears. They are bigger too, so better suited to the cold. The way they manage calories will be better suited to arctic conditions. They'll also have half the polar bear's instinct for hunting arctic game on land. Water,  not so much. Ultimately they'll have a stronger foothold in the region than those that didn't pomp the polar bears. These Grolar bears are likely to turf your bears as they're bigger and better suited to survival in the area. So, your original bears don't survive and ones that shagged the polar bear start the long arc to being the size and colour of a polar bear IE they become polar bears.

You tit.

But Shark, let's put your biology lesson to bed for now. I'll leave you with this. 

Mutation is a random process, predominantly driven by radiation.

Natural selection is a process by which the fittest survive and propagate. "Fitness" is gained in tiny increments over countless generations though the process of random mutation. 

When you grow up we start talking bout what an ESS is. 

You should really be paying me for this tutoring. 

Just saying.

Oh for Pete's sake.

1. Living things adapt to changes in their environment or else they die. If you don't believe that you're probably a Young Earth Creationist or something and shouldn't be taking part in this discussion at all.

2. A virus is a short generation organism that adapts a lot faster than other organisms to changes in its environment.

3. The virus adapts to ensure its survival. It doesn't survive if the host dies.

4. The Coronavirus could conceivably adapt to become less lethal and not kill the host.

That is all Sharkbok and I are saying.  

Because we have so many pedantic nit-picking foot-stampers on here, I have carefully avoided using the words "evolve" or "mutate". I'm simply saying "adapt" instead. Doesn't change any of the facts above.

You small-minded little Trumpanzees are so eager to disprove everything that Sharkbok and I say on any subject that you end up taking ridiculous positions and making complete and utter dicks of yourselves. That's why you're reduced to saying astoundingly stupid and simple-minded stuff like "a virus can't think" or "a virus can't see".

This silly little Trumpanzee mindset that everyone who dislikes Bozo must be stupid on every other subject as well is making you brainwashed little fools look even more stupid than ever.

Rooi

Did you just use the word pedantic when referring to others?

Surely, and for the love if God, please tell me you see how comical that is?

If one were being pedantic, you could argue that this is still the wrong way around. Let's be pedantic, shall we?

 "The virus adapts to ensure its survival. It doesn't survive if the host dies."

Different strains of Covid will be competing for the same resource. Between those strains, ESSs will be formed. Resulting in cyclical strain prevalence. 

"An evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) is a strategy (or set of strategies) which, if adopted by a population in a given environment, is impenetrable, meaning that it cannot be invaded by any alternative strategy (or strategies) that are initially rare. It is relevant in game theory, behavioural ecology, and evolutionary psychology. An ESS is an equilibrium refinement of the Nash equilibrium. It is a Nash equilibrium that is "evolutionarily" stable: once it is fixed in a population, natural selection alone is sufficient to prevent alternative (mutant) strategies from invading successfully. The theory is not intended to deal with the possibility of gross external changes to the environment that bring new selective forces to bear." wikipedia haha

Hey tit, look into what I posted there.

It's directly relevant to what you're talking about. 

"The Coronavirus could conceivably adapt to become less lethal and not kill the host."

When it does so, there is now more resource(humans) available, and so a niche is created for a more deadly strain because population(resource) numbers can support it. Over time, the prevalence of those two strains form an ESS where their(virus) population numbers increase and decrease conversely.

That dynamic is as pertinent to your point as it gets.

My pleasure.

"Hey tit, look into what I posted there."

I suspect Plumchum might have to wait a while for Tit to respond . . . he was so hammered the other day that his hangover probably has a hangover.

Bum Plum is comparing a complex form of life like a human that has evolved over millions of years with a basic virus.
With such a basic life there is less difference between mutation and evolution. Changes happen so quickly in basic forms of life.  

Plum, you can watch as many videos as you want on YouTube, the bottom line is that you are no different to the other happy clappies like Beeno who believe in Creationism. You lack the thinking ability that non-religious people have. 

The only difference is Bum Plum is younger than Beeno, so the evidence of evolution today is so convincing that many Churches accept it as fact, so you like Draad are trying to combine Creationism with Evolution to create your own reality. 

So how it is that a white polar bear is white if it is related to other bears. (e.g the brown bear). If it is related, then it must have been brown at some point. 

When I wrote my comments on this thread, I did not check any source about Bears. I just used logical deduction- something that you do not have. 

Scientists - have checked the family tree of a white bear (polar bear) and it was once a brown bear (Grizzly bear) 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rugby Legend

5953 posts

Ok, Shark. I'll attempt to tackle that clusterfuck of an unnecessary explanation about evolution of yours. 

If 1000 black bears were moved to the North Pole, eventually they would all become white to adapt to their environment. 

No those 1000 would NOT change colour. They'll stay exactly the same and probably die because the shift in environment is too extreme. Out of the thousand bears, I'm guessing half are male and half are female. Let's assume they are able to procreate in arctic conditions. None of their cubs would survive...Because too cold. So let's add some more grace to your party and assume that half the cubs survive to adulthood. IE Gen 2 = 1000 cubs. The cubs most likely to survive would be the the biggest ones with the thickest fur and the most fat. Unless you're talking albino, no cub will be born white. Some will be slightly lighter brown than others. Being slightly lighter brown will offer only a tiny marginal advantage over the other cubs. 

Size and fat, in a freezing environment will be a much greater advantage than being lighter in tone. So, the arc will first be towards size, heat retention and calorie storage. Gradually, and over a much longer period, the tiny incremental advantages of being lighter in tone will add up until you eventually have white bears. That process will take millions of years. 

Use some common sense. You see two bears 100m from you. One is dark brown and the other a slightly lighter brown. On a white background, are you gonna have any issues seeing either of them? Exactly, that's how tiny the advantage is. You're talking about an advantage which is a tiny fraction of a percent, and only coming about randomly through mutation, having to propagate across an entire colony. IE Millions of years.

A white bear in an area covered in snow would be a more effective hunter because it can blend in with the environment. This might take 100,000 years, but slowly the random mutation would drive the course of evolution. The white fur gene would slowly get stronger until it is the dominant gene.

Thanks for the lesson on camouflage.

100 000 years? No. Fossil records over 100 000 years don't change a great deal. 50 million years is more like it. 

So no, your scenario is bogus. What's much more likely is that polar bears mate with your group. Those cubs, then being closer to white, have a bigger advantage and push toward being pure white much more quickly than those that didn't mate with polar bears. They are bigger too, so better suited to the cold. The way they manage calories will be better suited to arctic conditions. They'll also have half the polar bear's instinct for hunting arctic game on land. Water,  not so much. Ultimately they'll have a stronger foothold in the region than those that didn't pomp the polar bears. These Grolar bears are likely to turf your bears as they're bigger and better suited to survival in the area. So, your original bears don't survive and ones that shagged the polar bear start the long arc to being the size and colour of a polar bear IE they become polar bears.

You tit.

Rugby Legend

5953 posts

"100 000 years? No. Fossil records over 100 000 years don't change a great deal. 50 million years is more like it. "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Humans evolved from an Ape, a Chimpanzee to be exact - around 5 million years ago. And yet you say a bear would take 50 million years to change its fur colour to white...

Pal, you can watch as many YouTube videos as you want, the bottom line is that you have reasoning ability on par with most young-earth creationists. A simpleton. 

Lots of animals and creatures have colours that blend in with backgrounds to make them better hunters. 

If your reasoning on evolution was correct- evolution would be bullshit. It would not work... You are saying because there is not immediate benefits to changing colour, it just would not happen. (YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST)

You are a below-average intelligence person that has watched some YouTube videos, when it comes to reasoning ability you are useless.

Ok, Sharkie...

Tell me again how the 1000 bears all become white bears.

If you dropped off 1000 bears in the north pole...they'll all die, you absolute twit. And even if they did manage to reproduce, their kids would die to.

"If your reasoning on evolution was correct- evolution would be bullshit. It would not work..."

By my version, you mean the scientifically accepted version?

Ok...but I'm the creationist?

hahaha

 "a Chimpanzee to be exact" - ( Edit: for Shark Vis)Neanderthal would like a word.

You absolute tool.

Rugby Legend

5955 posts

 "a Chimpanzee to be exact" - Nedrathal would like a word.

You absolute tool.

"Bum Plum is comparing a complex form of life like a human that has evolved over millions of years with a basic virus.
With such a basic life there is less difference between mutation and evolution. Changes happen so quickly in basic forms of life."

Was I comparing? 

Or was I pointing our a fundamental evolutionary tool that is directly related your point.

The tool strikes again.

Yet again, everything I said went directly over your head. 

Rugby Legend

5957 posts

Size and fat, in a freezing environment, will be a much greater advantage than being lighter in tone. So, the arc will first be towards size, heat retention and calorie storage. Gradually, and over a much longer period, the tiny incremental advantages of being lighter in tone will add up until you eventually have white bears. That process will take millions of years. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is what evolution is -  tiny changes through generations.
Like a science experiment, it will use the whole population- it is random. So there will be "some" bears that have size, heat retention and calorie storage & Lighter colour. That is what random part of mutation... and natural selection of evolution. 

--

Ok, can we be clear.

According to you, humans evolved from chimps?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the following statement...

"Humans evolved from an Ape, a Chimpanzee to be exact - around 5 million years ago."

Wanna backtrack?

You absolute spanner.

NVM, it does matter. You will only be embarrassed when I later have to explain the difference between related to and evolved from.

I can see you are getting into a rage with these little outbursts of "tool" etc. 

However, you still have not explained how a brown bear can become white...

The last common Ancestor (

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor

"Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor" is not nearly the same thing as: "Humans evolved from an Ape, a Chimpanzee to be exact - around 5 million years ago."

@Draad, Another young-earth creationist can't compete on the argument, so they just nick pick on words. The articles below use the words interchangeably. 

It is so typical of a happy-clappy Christian. As soon as they cant keep pace with the logical argument, they revert back to being a chimpanzee. Go back to Church, where your pastor can do the thinking for you. Or even Sunday school.... 

The bottom line is that human being's forefathers, ancestors, descendants, relatives etc, etc - are from a chimpanzee.

Whatever word you want to use, the closest species to human being are Chimpanzees. And like humans, Chimps are also apes. Then apes have evolved from a common ancestor.

Scientists use lots of these words, but the facts and underlying argument are the same. 

There is divergence. This is when a species start to evolve on separate paths. However, they were one and the same before this. What they evolved from, itself evolved from something else and so on. This is what evolution is from the most basic form of life, to the most complex. 

We have evolved from Apes. Evolution is a continual process, and the current human form will evolve again if it exists long enough....

Human Evolution: Our Closest Living Relatives, the Chimps ...