Corona virus

Discussion in 'Health & Fitness' started by Write4U, Feb 28, 2020.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,176
    You're correct. It was a turn of phrase.

    Note, my correlation did not suggest intention, but suggested climate change as a possible unexpected causal agent.
    We do know that climate change and environmental change in general always activates the natural selection evolutionary processes. It is why we have the enormous variety of species today and the extinction of billions of ancestor species in the past.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,176
    Off course it is. Natural selection selects for survival and for non-survival. It seems the elderly (my target group) are a perfect host for the coronavirus due to our often comptomised immune system. This is the other side of the natural selection coin.
    Well, evolution by natural selection also applies to the coronavirus. If this mutation has found a ready host that insure its survival then it's the coronavirus that wins the evolutionary lottery and the host is the loser.

    This was predicted by Dr. Bartlett in his lecture on the "exponential function" and it's inevitable consequences.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2020
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,800
    Nope. Natural selection is a term that explains why beneficial mutations survive and proliferate in the gene pool. It does not explain "survival and non-survival" in old people. It happens because beneficial mutations help organisms survive - and thereby have more offspring. No offspring, no natural selection.
    Again, no. If this coronavirus only severely affects very old people, then it will be a more successful virus - because it will not kill anyone of childbearing age, and therefore we will not evolve any traits to protect us against it. A virus that killed only infants would quickly cause a proliferation of offspring that were resistant to it. Not because they evolved to defend against it - but because those organisms without the resistance would not reproduce, and thus be removed from the gene pool.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,883
    I think you know that's incomplete and misrepresentative.

    A requirement of natural section is the passing of surviving genes to offspring.

    Look up some definitions:

    "Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to..."
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,176
    Not necessarily. Universal evolution also is via a type of natural selection, but has nothing to do with "genes" .
    Types of Natural Selection
    https://schooltutoring.com/help/the-3-types-of-natural-selection/

    What are the 5 sub types of natural selection?
    http://bivalves.teacherfriendlyguide.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42&Itemid=124

    They are all part of the "evolution by natural selection" system. This is a common mistake of theists, to believe that evolution by natural selection applies only to living organism. That's not true, it applies to almost everything that interacts with its environment, except "constants".
    According to Hazen chemical polymers and patterns are already subject to Darwinian evolution, in fact physical evolution starts with the formation of chemical complexity from simpler chemical patterns.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2020
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,883
    All of which require reproduction to complete the selection process. Otherwise, it reduces to nothing more than how long it takes until the population goes extinct.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,176
    True, but that relieves the problem of overpopulation. When the population becomes small enough the best adapted survive, the problem is solved, and growth resumes.

    That's why 95% of all species are now extinct.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,883
    So ... what? seniors suddenly start having babies?

    Remember why we're having this side discussion: your claim that natural selection can act on a non-reproducing demographic.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,800
    No, no it doesn't. Even if people die very early, if each has 10 offspring, you run into a population catastrophe very quickly.
    Again, no. The best adapted always survive.
    They are extinct because a new species (often based on one of those older species) evolved to take its place.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,176
    You are applying a much to narrow definition to "natural selection" . A pandemic is a form of "natural selection" whether we like it or not . Do you think natural selection is concerned with reproduction? Reproduction is a result of natural selection, not the cause for natural selection.
    Of course it can. If half the population consists of people over 50 years of age and say a virus (coronavirus) targets that particulare age group and all perish from a pandemic, you end up with half the population in a single lifetime.
    Say the world's population is 15 billion people and half die, then you have 7.5 bilion people and users of natural resources. That makes a difference, which has nothing to do with reproduction.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,800
    You have that exactly backwards. Successful reproduction is the basis of natural selection.
    Yes. And that has nothing to do with natural selection or evolution. The next generation will have the same genone; therefore no evolution.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,176
    If, if, if you change the rules everything is "possible".
    No they don't either way. That is a generality which does not apply in each case. There are plenty species on earth which are at an evolutionary dead end but are still hanging on because they occupy a small niche.
    Yes, but at one time they were the best adapted, no? What about a "common ancestor" as in humans and apes. Which is the best adapted?
    What about our current pandemic. It selects humans and animals, but within that group it selects the most vulnerable, but also healthy specimen. Pandemics are expressions of natural selection, if only of the most sucessful viruses!

    Evolution and Natural selection cannot be generalized with a few crude examples. It is much more complicated and varied than that.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,176
    No. Natural selection is a survival selection. Reproduction is a secondary effect
    Natural select does not select for ability to reproduce. It selects for ability to survive.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,800
    Nope, sorry. You don't get to make up your own meanings just because you are losing an argument.
    Again, sorry. You're doing the sad thing where you are trying to change the definition of a word to win an argument. But here's the actual definition:

    Natural selection: the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.

    An organism that mutates and gains immortality, but can no longer reproduce, has been selected _against._
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,176
    Period.
    I know the definition. I just take in a much larger context.

    Natural selection can "select for" beneficial traits or "select against" non-beneficial traits.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,800
    Exactly. They are the best adapted organisms for that niche. The fact that you think they are at a dead end matters not at all.
    Of course. Then another species with a better adaptation came along. Or the climate changed. Or the lake basin flooded.
    The new species that arose out of the old species - through natural selection.

    Why don't we see any homo erectus any more? Because more modern versions of man out-reproduced him. If old Homo Erectus was still having lots of viable offspring they would still be around. But homo sapiens did a slightly better job at reproducing.
    Right. And which viruses survive and expand? The ones that (wait for it . . . wait for it) reproduce.
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,883

    This is wrong.


    No you don't.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,800
    Now see? When you have to change definitions to try to win an argument, your argument sucks. Sort of an admission of defeat.

    Is this going to be one of those ego things where you hang on to a failed argument for 200 posts, because you can't admit you're wrong?
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2020
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,176
    Viruses do not reproduce. They rely on their host to reproduce.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,800
    Right. They reproduce using hosts. (Like many parasites.) Which you said in your second sentence.
     

Share This Page