Hmmm... not a virus but a retrovirus. Well you're wrong too, it's not a retrovirus, it's a lentivirus.

The last time I checked HIV was classified as retrovirus, in the lentivirus family, which both fall under the general heading of Virus. Thus HIV IS a virus. Retrovirus merely refers to the way its genetic information is stored and processed.

HIV absolutely exists, and this has been proven. There are pretty pics like the one below, which shows HIV virions budding off from a cell, of this virus taken in thousands of labs across the world.

Not sure what this contradicting statement (first you say it isn’t a retrovirus then you say it is) is meant to accomplish but the fact is that HIV is a retrovirus and is not in the Lentivirus Family but the lentivirus genus which is a member of the Retroviridae family.

This may be true... at least according to Duesberg it's true. But... So what? There's a first time for everything. FYI, RNA viruses (retroviruses are a type of RNA virus) are known to cause lots of diseases. Off the top of my head let's see how many pathogenic RNA viruses I can think of: Hepatitis A & C, Hanta Virus, HTLV, SARS, West Nile Virus, Rabies, Measles, Ebola, Marburg (pretty sure), Mumps, parainfluenza, the entire Noro family, which includes Norwalk virus of cruise ship fame. So... yeah maybe no other known retrovirus causes disease, but lots of RNA viruses do.

Indeed RNA viruses do cause diseases but again I don’t understand what you are pushing for here. But to clarify there are currently 4 known retroviruses that cause disease; HIV 1&2 and HTLV 1&2 (Human T-lymphotropic virus)

There seems to be some confusion. The motto of ATS is DENY ignorance, not embrace ignorance. If you're going to take the time to bash scientific theories, it helps to be minimally familiar with the theories and their proposed lines of evidence. Evolutionists cite lots of alleged transitional organisms. While not my favorite site the Talk Origins site has a good description.

So you allege that Talk Origins is unbiased? The entire purpose of that site is to prove evolution.


[edit on 22-4-2005 by BlackJackal]

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Not sure what this contradicting statement (first you say it isn’t a retrovirus then you say it is) is meant to accomplish but the fact is that HIV is a retrovirus and is not in the Lentivirus Family but the lentivirus genus which is a member of the Retroviridae family.

BJ, have I offended you? I feel like you've got a personal vendetta. Sorry if I misinterpret you. I know HIV is a retrovirus. That contradictory paragraph was written in response to a post claiming that HIV wasn't a virus, it was a retrovirus. I was trying to point out, what I had thought was a poorly worded statement. In response, unfortunately, I obviously produced a post that failed to get its message across.

Indeed RNA viruses do cause diseases but again I don’t understand what you are pushing for here. But to clarify there are currently 4 known retroviruses that cause disease; HIV 1&2 and HTLV 1&2 (Human T-lymphotropic virus)

Point being retroviruses aren't generally known to cause disease, but lots of other RNA viruses are. Since retroviruses are a type of RNA virus, the point seems to be germane to the topic at hand. In addition retroviruses are known to cause diseases in animals, so there are more than 4 known retroviruses that cause disease. What's your beef with this line of logic... specifically regarding RNA viruses?

So you allege that Talk Origins is unbiased? The entire purpose of that site is to prove evolution.

TO... unbiased...LOL!!!! Hell no. I merely referred someone where to a place where there was a pro-evo discussion on transitional fossils. Not saying I support TO, but if that's the resource someone is looking for, then TO is a great place to start. Again, I will refer you to the ATS thread entitled 'creationist confusion,' where my opposition to TO as a source of general information is well defined in an exchange with the illustrious and recently honored, Nygdan.


With respect to this:

With all due respect, according to the statment you posted it sounded as if you were taking evolution as a given. If I misunderstood your intentions I apologize.

Take a look at what I emphasized

No problemo... I was not taking evo as a given, but I do stand behind my original statement: If evolution is hypothesized to be the result of a series of progressive adaptations, then SNP's, or mutations absolutely play a role in this. I think that's undeniable... at least IMO. But that's if and only if... otherwise, without mutation what have you got.

Also, isn't the inherent variation that amounts to about 3 million bases between people evidence of mutation? Or what about the sudden appearance of dominantly inherited disorders in families... isn't that evidence for both mutational events and inheritance of said mutational event?

Originally posted by labasta
I understand now. SNPs are the leading candidates for evolution.

I am not sure if that's exactly true, but for the purposes of this discussion, that's fine.

As I understand it when a person or any organism gets older, each replication of the cell is an inferior version of the last due to increased genetic damage. I take it that this genetic damage is due to mutations caused by mutagens (big word for me, I just made it up, hope it is right).

FYI, mutagen is correct. Genetic damage can be induced by mutagens, but genetic damage is a consequence of cell replication also. So lets a DNA polymerase has a corrected error rate of 1 mistake every 10^6 bases. If the human genome is roughly 3 * 10^9 bases then that's like 3000 mistakes per replication. Keep in mind that a cells like sperm, are continously produced, increasing the chances that a mistake will be made.

So, logically if a person reproduces when they are nearing the end of their reproductive age (which is happening increasingly in the West) then they will have more chance of their offspring having inferior, I mean, cells with more mutated genes and so their offspring will have more of a random chance at being superior (better looking, more gregarious personality, more intelligent etc). Or they could have more of a chance of being spasticated or having Down's syndrome maybe. Roll the dice. So evolution of the spieces goes on. The fittest survive etc.

Keep in mind that mutations to somatic cells do not affect the next generation, only mutations within cells that produce germline cells. Most mutations fall into the neutral or negative category, but occasionally mutations will provide selective advantages in certain contexts.

FYI, Down's Syndrome isn't a related to mutations at single base locations. It's an error in cell replication, but results from a chromosomal non-disjuction of one variety or another... could be mitotic and meiotic... can't remember off the top of my head and don't feel like looking it up. In any case the non-disjunction results in an extra copy of chromosome 21.

But, hang on a minute. The babies born don't have 40 year old cells. They have newborn undamaged cells. #, there goes that theory.
Mmmm. Obviously somethng happens in the placenta to stop the damage or at least what is causing the damage. I wonder what it could be. Is something filtered out perhaps?

The age of an infant cells is not relevant in this context.

With this casual layman-like observations, it would seem that a mutagen cannot get passed on to the offspring.

Mutagens, the agents that induce mutations, generally speaking are not passed on, mutations ARE though.

But the question I really need answering is will I get spidy powers after my cells have mutated from being bitten by a radioactive spider? Or will that only be my children or their children if they also happen to breed with humans that have been bitten by a radioactive spider. It's a tough one to answer.

So basically now what you're saying is that it's only the cells that are inviolved with making the sperm or the ova that pass on their mutations, right? Mmm it gets less and less probable all the time.

So the situation is that my 31 year old sperm is damaged due to age. DNAs RNAs whatever are replicating with increasing errors. This makes them older than a new born babies cells. But when my sperm makes a baby the cells repair themselves incredibly quickly to form a young cell. The age related mutations have been repaired (obviously, otherwise I'd have a 31 year old baby, eeek!) and a baby is born. I still don't see room for mutations. How are they getting passed on? How are evolutionary mutations distinguished from age related ones?
It's a tough one, is it not?
Can you specifically define an evolutionary mutation in the DNA when replicating? Can you tell the difference between an age related one?

Originally posted by labasta
So basically now what you're saying is that it's only the cells that are inviolved with making the sperm or the ova that pass on their mutations, right?

Yes. Short of cloning somatic nuclei into unfertilized ovum, only germline cells pass on mutation.

So the situation is that my 31 year old sperm is damaged due to age. DNAs RNAs whatever are replicating with increasing errors. This makes them older than a new born babies cells. But when my sperm makes a baby the cells repair themselves incredibly quickly to form a young cell. The age related mutations have been repaired (obviously, otherwise I'd have a 31 year old baby, eeek!) and a baby is born. I still don't see room for mutations. How are they getting passed on? How are evolutionary mutations distinguished from age related ones?
It's a tough one, is it not?

Not really that tough.... Your DNA is in a constant state of degradation... such is the nature of biological polymers, and polymers in general. However, mutation doesn't make DNA or a cell older. Age makes a cell older. The age of your cells is a consequence of many things, not just accumulation of mutations. No mutations are repaired from parent to child. They are simply passed on. Fertilization creates a new cell, and is not recognized as reflecting the age of the genetic material in inherited duing fusion. Mutations are mutations there is no distinction between evolutionary mutations and age-related mutations.

Can you specifically define an evolutionary mutation in the DNA when replicating? Can you tell the difference between an age related one?

I don't think people generally speak about mutations in this way. Mutation are defined on the selective advantage or disadvantage they bestow upon an individual. Mutations that have no effect for the most part escape notice.

Originally posted by mattison0922
BJ, have I offended you? I feel like you've got a personal vendetta. Sorry if I misinterpret you. I know HIV is a retrovirus. That contradictory paragraph was written in response to a post claiming that HIV wasn't a virus, it was a retrovirus. I was trying to point out, what I had thought was a poorly worded statement. In response, unfortunately, I obviously produced a post that failed to get its message across.

No you haven't offended me in the least

I was just pointing out a few discrepancies I saw but I don't see how something being a retrovirus or not and if it infects proves anything one way or the other that's all.

The 4 retro's that I pointed out are the ones which can infect humans.

But no, you did not offend me and it was not my intention to offend you. Sorry if I did I am just trying to follow your's and Labasa's argument.

Originally posted by BlackJackal

No you haven't offended me in the least

I was just pointing out a few discrepancies I saw but I don't see how something being a retrovirus or not and if it infects proves anything one way or the other that's all.

The 4 retro's that I pointed out are the ones which can infect humans.

But no, you did not offend me and it was not my intention to offend you. Sorry if I did I am just trying to follow your's and Labasa's argument.

I wasn't offended at all... sorry for misinterpreting your intentions. With respect to the retrovirus argument: I don't really see it either, but I was just trying to be thorough in my rebuttal to labasta.

Anyway... so I guess there's no problem