Aids may have started in ancient tigers.

www.healthday.com...

SUNDAY, Dec. 6 (HealthDay News) -- Early roots of the virus that causes AIDS might be found in a tiger that lived thousands or millions of years ago, new research suggests.

It appears the virus took on a bit of a tiger's genetic material, scientists say, and a remnant of that cat remains in the virus to this day. That tiger, in fact, may have bitten a monkey, setting off an evolution of the virus that ultimately led to its infection of humans.

Tiger DNA from thousands of years ago in the HIV virus would certainly seem to suggest that HIV was not created by the government as a biological weapon would it not?

Originally posted by Doglord


Tiger DNA from thousands of years ago in the HIV virus would certainly seem to suggest that HIV was not created by the government as a biological weapon would it not?

Nah......you underestimate the imagination of conspiracy theorists.

If I had to guess, someone will simply suggest that the "government" used a time machine to infect the tiger to provide false "proof" that the viirus is indeed natural.

-Dev

Originally posted by Doglord
Tiger DNA from thousands of years ago in the HIV virus would certainly seem to suggest that HIV was not created by the government as a biological weapon would it not?

Unless they spliced a normal rhetro virus with ancient tiger DNA to create HIV.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
If I had to guess, someone will simply suggest that the "government" used a time machine to infect the tiger to provide false "proof" that the viirus is indeed natural.

-Dev

Obviuosly they didn't have to go back in time to get this tiger DNA if they are able to compare HIV to this DNA today.

Unless you are suggesting that these scientists who found this DNA match had to go back in time to aquire said DNA from the tiger?

Or would it be more like they have already had this tiger's DNA from fossils?

[edit on 12-12-2009 by Nutter]

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
If I had to guess, someone will simply suggest that the "government" used a time machine to infect the tiger to provide false "proof" that the viirus is indeed natural.

-Dev

Obviuosly they didn't have to go back in time to get this tiger DNA if they are able to compare HIV to this DNA today.

Unless you are suggesting that these scientists who found this DNA match had to go back in time to aquire said DNA from the tiger?

Or would it be more like they have already had this tiger's DNA from fossils?

[edit on 12-12-2009 by Nutter]

how do you extract and then use DNA from a fossil? as far as i understand it, we don't have the ability.

aside from requiring the above mentioned non-existent technology, how would the conspirators magically know where to look to find all these tiny little snippets of DNA, necessary to perfect their design? how do we even know if the part of the virus' DNA that they picked up from tigers (via horizontal gene transfer, i figure) is event important to its function now?

nah. it's a conspiracy theory to explain another conspiracy theory - a very colorful form of infinite regress.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
how do you extract and then use DNA from a fossil? as far as i understand it, we don't have the ability.

Maybe fossil was the wrong word.

A team led by Hendrik Poinar at McMaster University unlocked secrets of the creature's nuclear DNA by working with a well-preserved 27,000-year-old specimen from Siberia.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

That's 27,000 year old mammoth DNA.

Unfortunately the OP's link doesn't state when this tiger lived or went extinct. But, it is possible to gather DNA from things that belong in the group of "thousands of years ago".

Also, if they didn't have this tiger's DNA, how are they comparing HIV to it? Guessing?

reply to post by Nutter


You missed the "well preserved" part.

That mammoth was well preserved because it was frozen. Many mammoths have been found so well preserved that they found food in their stomachs. They aren't just fossils.

-Dev

edited, that was an insult

[edit on 12-12-2009 by angelx666]

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by TrueTruth
how do you extract and then use DNA from a fossil? as far as i understand it, we don't have the ability.

Maybe fossil was the wrong word.

A team led by Hendrik Poinar at McMaster University unlocked secrets of the creature's nuclear DNA by working with a well-preserved 27,000-year-old specimen from Siberia.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

That's 27,000 year old mammoth DNA.

Unfortunately the OP's link doesn't state when this tiger lived or went extinct. But, it is possible to gather DNA from things that belong in the group of "thousands of years ago".

Also, if they didn't have this tiger's DNA, how are they comparing HIV to it? Guessing?

Right. We have mapped out portions of some animals' DNA, but right now, we don't have the technology to do anything with it necessarily. What do we know about using which parts of which animals' DNA to do what? I thikn we're just beginning to piece this incredibly complicated process together.

What I meant by the tigers and how researchers would know... I mean, they would have had to know about the existence of things we didn't have the means to understand, let alone utilize, back before HIV hit the human scene 50-100 years ago.

Even if we did have the technology, it would take extraordinarily good luck to find just the DNA sequences you needed in a very big world. We've mapped only the tiniest fraction of earth's genetic codes....and what we know is spotty.

that's all

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


But you are missing the point altogether. Someone, somewhere has to have this tiger's DNA for these scientists to compare to.

reply to post by TrueTruth


Well, let's look at it differently then. How do we know that the original rhetrovirus used didn't have this tiger's DNA attached already? Before it was manipulated?

Not that I believe either of these points just yet (this one or my other point above). Just saying never say never.

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by TrueTruth

 

Well, let's look at it differently then. How do we know that the original rhetrovirus used didn't have this tiger's DNA attached already? Before it was manipulated?

Not that I believe either of these points just yet (this one or my other point above). Just saying never say never.

Sure. That would be one explanation for it. But more important would be proof of human manipulation. Given the age of the virus, we just didn't have the capabilities, tiger DNA or no tiger DNA.

It would be cool to know exactly what the tiger DNA did for the virus....I suppose I could look, but I'm lazy today.

oh well.