Evidence for entropy in virus genome

Interestingly, these ancient viruses are more complex genetic specimens than their modern counterparts.

Mollivirus sibericum contains more than 500 genes, which pales in comparison to the 2,500 genes belonging to a family of giant virus discovered in 2003. The modern flu – Influenza A – only has eight genes

Source

So a couple of ancient viruses recently discovered in the permafrost of Siberia show that their gene counts are many orders of magnitude higher than modern viruses infecting us today.

To take a quote from
Medical Microbiology. 4th edition., in order to establish the consensus on the gene count range of todays viruses,

Viruses are simple entities, lacking an energy-generating system and having very limited biosynthetic capabilities. The smallest viruses have only a few genes; the largest viruses have as many as 200.

Source

These are not from millions of years ago but the age of the permafrost, like 30,000 years approx.

So we can conclude the complexity of viruses at that time were more than today.

Since evolution goes from the simple to the complex, this contradicts the model.

Evolutionists start wringing your hands and wiping off those beads of sweat on your brows, and come up with some comical malarkey to dismiss this embarrassment.

I'm more concerned this has now been discovered and actually taken from the safety of the siberian frost..

a reply to: TinfoilTP

I don't know where you get your info but evolution is supposed to make species more "advanced", as opposed to "primitive" is a misconception.
Oh and no such word as an evolutionist.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I don't know where you get your info but evolution is supposed to make species more "advanced", as opposed to "primitive" is a misconception.
Oh and no such word as an evolutionist.

/thread

a reply to: TinfoilTP

There's a few ways you could go wrong with the hypothesis that evolution should result in more genes.
1. More genes don't translate to more effective genes or more genes "switched on".
2. Genes say nothing about epigenetics. I presume there are mechanisms not fully comprehended by science. Science as a whole has problems with science. It's an ideal, not a religion. Lines are blurred at times.
3. Genetic outcome per environment is primary. Genetic quantity might not matter.

I recall reading someplace that humans have fewer active genes than chimps. So quantity isn't the primary metric of success.

States that viruses have undergone drastic mutations over a fairly short period, comes to the conclusion that this evolution disproves evolution...

My head hurts.

a reply to: Hefficide



Oh man I missed that

Frozen for Millennia in the permafrost?

"The Thing" comes to mind.

MacReady: Yes, Garry, they dig it up, they cart it back, it gets thawed out, wakes up - probably not the best of moods -

One of these days we're going to mess with genetics the wrong way. Call it "experimentation" or "research", accidentally releasing something new. Maybe intentionally if you include weirdo cults like Aum Shinrikyo…

originally posted by: Hefficide

States that viruses have undergone drastic mutations over a fairly short period, comes to the conclusion that this evolution disproves evolution...

My head hurts.

Man, you beat me to it! Ha!

@OP More genes doesn't necessarily suggest more complexity. In fact, it is probably the reverse. Humans have 46 chromosomes. Primates have 48 chromosomes.

Human evolution is a dynamic process, becoming more efficient, discarding waste, enabling the organism to be a better fit into its environment.

Yes, we are wringing our hands, sweating bullets, pounding our collective heads against the wall - all in an effort to - GET YOU PEOPLE TO READ!!!

Actually I've seen a picture of this virus - totally amazing - the thing is huge.
Looks like a genuine alien!

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Here we go OP.
Read and learn .

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Here we go OP.
Read and learn

.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks. We'll make it viral!

a reply to: Phantom423

Been waiting to post that .
Oh and TY from a pal of mine she is going to use some of the info there in her primary school class.



Wheres the OP? ran off?.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

If we were to look at the analogy of board games, having lots of rules (analogous to genes) does not equate to the popularity of the game.

I think that the conclusions you are drawing are a fair stretch from what the data is actually showing.

As the viral 'genome' is still there, the virus is not extinct. As misterlondon suggested, it is concerning that they have unearthed this from the permafrost and potentially re-activated the virus in a modern setting.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

Interestingly, these ancient viruses are more complex genetic specimens than their modern counterparts.

Mollivirus sibericum contains more than 500 genes, which pales in comparison to the 2,500 genes belonging to a family of giant virus discovered in 2003. The modern flu – Influenza A – only has eight genes

Source

So a couple of ancient viruses recently discovered in the permafrost of Siberia show that their gene counts are many orders of magnitude higher than modern viruses infecting us today.

To take a quote from
Medical Microbiology. 4th edition., in order to establish the consensus on the gene count range of todays viruses,

Viruses are simple entities, lacking an energy-generating system and having very limited biosynthetic capabilities. The smallest viruses have only a few genes; the largest viruses have as many as 200.

Source

These are not from millions of years ago but the age of the permafrost, like 30,000 years approx.

So we can conclude the complexity of viruses at that time were more than today.

Since evolution goes from the simple to the complex, this contradicts the model.

Evolutionists start wringing your hands and wiping off those beads of sweat on your brows, and come up with some comical malarkey to dismiss this embarrassment.

Evolution isn't linear. Genes can be added or subtracted via mutation. So try again once you get a better handle on how evolution actually works.

originally posted by: boymonkey74

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How did I miss this thread??

Good work phantom, I look forward to reading and contributing to it.

Edit: it's already become a creationist pseudo-scientific sh#tshow. Mods, this thread is an educational resource, can't it be moderated accordingly? The creationists can have their own "ATS Library of Scientific Evidence for Creationism" (as empty as that would be).

a reply to: GetHyped

Yeah it's great isn't it .
Kudos to Phantom for compiling it all.

The first problem is: how do we know they are really that old?

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Since evolution goes from the simple to the complex, this contradicts the model.

This is an incorrect assumption on your part. It is a common misconception amongst creationists.

Evolution is not a ladder

The evolutionary ladder has never been a scientific concept, and Darwin talked of common descent, yet even this 1998 reprint of On The Origin Of Species shows a (rather giant) leap from a modern looking monkey to a reconstruction of a relatively recent possible human ancestor. Yet, despite the fact that the evolutionary ladder has never been a scientific theory, lay people seem to think that it is. When a fossil skull, named Touma�, was found in Chad in 2002 an article in Nature (Whitfield, 2002) which stated that the fossil prompted a rethink of human evolution was jumped on by creationists as the end of evolutionary theory altogether (Yahya, 2002). The reason was that when scientists were asked to comment about the fact that the find did not fit with the evolutionary ladder their response was that the evolutionary ladder is not a scientific theory and is baseless. The creationists jumped on this because to them the evolutionary ladder is evolution, or even if they don't think that, it's still convenient to pretend that the evolutionary ladder is the prevailing evolutionary theory when there are scientists attacking it.