Do you believe in an "End of the World"

[Marvolo]

The thing about viruses is that they have shown a great ability to adapt and evolve. If we find a way to combat every known virus in the human body then some virus down the road will most likely evolve a way around that. It might change its reproduction process or infect cells in a new way, or come up with any number of ways of replicating. Then Homo Sapien and most likely every other primate on this planet would be ****ed. We have evolved to deal with viruses, but if viruses were to evolve into something else not quite a virus then bye bye everyone.

 

[Mad Love]

What is a virus, fanboiii, and how do they work?

What is pretension?

 

[Doctor Evo]

The thing about viruses is that they have shown a great ability to adapt and evolve. If we find a way to shut down a virus in the body then some virus will most likely evolve a way around that.

Most likely. There would have to be an awfully clever solution to get around this problem.

 

[Doctor Evo]

What is pretension?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretension?s=t

Your turn.

 

[Mad Love]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretension?s=t

Your turn.

http://www.google.com It's that obvious you're wrong.

 

[Marvolo]

Most likely. There would have to be an awfully clever solution to get around this problem.

I often wonder if our reliance on artificial evolution won't bite us in the ass some day. With natural evolution we stay in balance and check with our environment, but when we start artificially evolving and skipping steps we might miss something important that will creep up on us.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I often wonder if our reliance on artifical evolution won't bite us in the ass some day. With natural evolution we stay in balance and check with our environment, but when westart artificially evolving and skipping steps we might miss something important that will creep up on us.

Well, there are two sides to this. On one hand, we're preventing selection from acting upon our gene pool. On the other, we're maintaining a much greater range of diversity than we would were we subject to persistent natural selection. That maintained diversity could prove beneficial to a select few (and, consequently, to the future of our species) in the event of a large negative selection event.

 

[Doctor Evo]

http://www.google.com It's that obvious you're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

You were saying?

 

[Marvolo]

Well, there are two sides to this. On one hand, we're preventing selection from acting upon our gene pool. On the other, we're maintaining a much greater range of diversity than we would were we subject to persistent natural selection. That maintained diversity could prove beneficial to a select few (and, consequently, to the future of our species) in the event of a largenegative selection event.

That sounds fun lol

 

[Mad Love]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

You were saying?

I'm saying go back to school. So-called intense professional interest

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol3020.htm

 

[Doctor Evo]

I'm saying go back to school. So-called intense professional interest

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol3020.htm

You do understand that this site supports my position, correct? This is getting sad.

You also understand that when they say "physiology of viruses," they're speaking within the context of their control over the physiological mechanisms of the host cells?

 

[Mad Love]

You do understand that this site supports my position, correct? This is getting sad.

Don't tell me you can't read either?

 

[Doctor Evo]

Don't tell me you can't read either?

How do viruses work, fanboiii?

 

[Doctor Evo]

The answer to the question of how viruses work should help to explain why your reasoning that we can "evolve our physiology" much "better" than viruses can is hopelessly flawed, by the way, regardless of the more or less semantic argument we're having here.

 

[Mad Love]

How do viruses work, fanboiii?

Irrelevant. Your argument was that viruses do not have physiology.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Irrelevant. Your argument was that viruses do not have physiology.

They have no physiology of their own. And my reasoning for asking you the question in the first place is as follows:

The answer to the question of how viruses work should help to explain why your reasoning that we can "evolve our physiology" much "better" than viruses can is hopelessly flawed, by the way, regardless of the more or less semantic argument we're having here.

 

[Mad Love]

They have no physiology of their own. And my reasoning for asking you the question in the first place is as follows:

Instead of trying to correct me, you should correct every instance that refers to "physiology of viruses".

You're only derailing the main topic. We've already survived 2000 years alongside viruses. We can survive 2000 years more and with better results thanks to advancements in science and technology.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Instead of trying to correct me, you should correct every instance that refers to "physiology of viruses".

I do take issue with that phrase, but I also understand that it is only used for the lack of a better term. Viruses are an interesting (and special) topic in biology. Regardless, this doesn't address my larger point, the reason I asked in the first place whether you understand how viruses work.

You're only derailing the main topic. We've already survived 2000 years alongside viruses.

...how long do you think humans have been around?

We can survive 2000 years more and with better results thanks to advancements in science and technology.

I'm not arguing against this at all. But that isn't what you said, regardless of whether it is what you meant.

I'm only arguing against your initial statement that we are able to better "evolve" our physiology than are viruses. If you understood how they functioned, you couldn't possibly defend such a statement.

 

[Mad Love]

But that isn't what you said, regardless of whether it is what you meant.

It's what I said numerous times in multiple ways so you should have understood. You're too fixated on semantics to pay attention to the actual discussion.

 

[Doctor Evo]

It's what I said numerous times in multiple ways so you should have understood. You're too fixated on semantics to pay attention to the actual discussion.

Actually, I have been continuing the "actual discussion" with Marvolo. You're the one who hasn't participated outside of our little exchange.

I think that the concept of eliminating disease through artificial means comes with the danger of false security combined with an inevitable dependence upon those means in the absence of a persistently co-evolving immune system.

The point being that such "advances" could ultimately be our downfall when faced with new disease-based challenges. There will never be a cure-all. Of course, that is my humble, "needs to go back to school" opinion.

 

[Piper Maru]

Perhaps a super form of Ebola will mutate and wipe us out sometime down the road.

 

[Marvolo]

Perhaps a super form of Ebola will mutate and wipe us out sometime down the road.

There was a movie where the bad guy had a fast acting mutated Ebola virus. I can't remember what it is, and it is aggravating me. You wouldn't happen to know the name of the movie, would you?

 

[Piper Maru]

Sounds familiar. I wanna say Outbreak, but I'm not sure.

 

[Doctor Evo]

There was a movie where the bad guy had a fast acting mutated Ebola virus. I can't remember what it is, and it is aggravating me. You wouldn't happen to know the name of the movie, would you?

It wasn't Mission: Impossible 2, was it?

 

[Spider-Aziz]

It wasn't Mission: Impossible 2, was it?

Can't be that one, it has a chimera of different levels of cold virus in evolution.......

I don't know how they did it