Another Reason to Teach Evolution

[Tenspace]

It appears that viruses and diseases like HIV can jump between non-human primates and humans. I wonder if evolutionary biology would be helpful in finding cures?

Please read this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4551085.stm) before posting comments.

Tenspace

[Little Earth Stamper]

We humans are so similar to the other primates that I honsestly don't see how someone could think there wasn't some kind of link.

[ocmpoma]

LES - I would say that we humans are primates and the only reason we are placed in a separate group is simple egotism.

[baric]

LES - I would say that we humans are primates and the only reason we are placed in a separate group is simple egotism.
I think that we have evolved sufficiently to place ourselves in a separate group from other primates.

[Little Earth Stamper]

LES - I would say that we humans are primates and the only reason we are placed in a separate group is simple egotism.
That's why I said "other primates" as in "The other primates besides us".

While we're on the subject, I vote that from now on, when used in the context of slang, the term "Monkey" shall hereby refer to all primates, not just those with tales.

I don't want to be looking at a Gorilla, and say something like "Wow, that monkey sure is smart" only to have some wise-ass say "that's not a monkey, that's an ape". It's annoying.

Actually, Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=monkey) agrees with me on my definition. So there.

[Erik]

All efforts in biology, not just evolutionary biology, can be helpful in finding cures. IIRC, one of the most hopeful areas of inquiry into HIV treatment is the fact that some primates seem to be carriers of the virus without ever developing full-blown AIDS. So ovbviously the issue would be to figure out what enzymes or proteins those primates are producing that block that development and how to reproduce that effect in humans, if at all possible. Evolutionary biology will be central, in my opinion, to producing the greatest advancements in medicine that we have ever seen, which is why the political haranguing over stem cell research is so infuriating.

Evolutionary biology can also give you the stark reality. Take Huntington's chorea, for example. You can be tested for this fairly rare malady, which is caused primarily by the excessive repeating of a gene sequence. This can tell you two things: (1) whether your children stand a chance of developing the same or perhaps worse form of it, and (2) precisely when in your lifetime you will start to lose your sanity. There is no known cure, or reallyeven a treatment for that matter. Some of the studies from Lake Maracaibo have anecdotally mentioned that more than a few people there would rather not know whether they have it.

[GaryM]

While we're on the subject, I vote that from now on, when used in the context of slang, the term "Monkey" shall hereby refer to all primates, not just those with tales.
Hmmm, the compact Oxford English Dictionary has:

1 a small to medium-sized primate typically having a long tail and living in trees in tropical countries.
2 a mischievous child.
3 Brit. informal a sum of £500.

[BadFish]

Wouldn't hominid fit better?

[Tenspace]

Looks like Erik wins the prize: Viral Shell Folds Point to Common Ancestry (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050518200805.htm)

Tenspace

[Tenspace]

This is cool, too.

To Stop Evolution: New Way Of Fighting Antibiotic Resistance Demonstrated By Scripps Scientists (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050518175350.htm)

Ten

[Coldbourne]

one of the most hopeful areas of inquiry into HIV treatment is the fact that some primates seem to be carriers of the virus without ever developing full-blown AIDS
The answer to that one could already be well established. The problem with our search for the cure for AIDS is that it is based of the assumption, yes ASSUMPTION, that HIV causes AIDS. You would think that this has been well established, yet it is yet another example of science gone wrong for the sake of money. Damn politics. AIDS Myth (http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/kmullis.htm)

It appears that viruses and diseases like HIV can jump between non-human primates and humans
This is nothing new, many virus' including Ebola are easily capable of jumping species.
Also, if I am not mistaken, I remember reading articles speculating that AIDS was originally a primate virus that jumped species to humans.

Virus' such as this one (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050514053409990001&_ccc=2&cid=842) jumped from avian, to porcine, to human. This does not provide any evolutionary correlation between birds and humans. If anything, virus' should be studied for intelligence in my opinion. Their adaptability and almost sentient qualities are absolutely intriguing. Also, nothing on earth seems to evolve as fast as they do.
Also, I do not understand the continuous comparison to humans and primates. Sure general layout and opposable thumbs are similar, but genetically pigs are just as close as "apes". Medical practice has been sticking pig parts, such as heart valves, in humans for years. Why can't we have evolved from pigs?


http://img276.echo.cx/img276/103/gamorrean1pl.jpg

[DMofD&D]

Evolving from pigs? Cooool... I wonder what would have happened if Darwin concluded that instead of monkeys. <-- I use LES' definition.

[schemanista]

Why can't we have evolved from pigs?
Assuming you're serious: you could rephrase the question from "why can't we have evolved from pigs to "why didn't we evolve from pigs?"

The answer to that, of course is: "Because we didn't (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/)."

[Tenspace]

The answer to that one could already be well established. The problem with our search for the cure for AIDS is that it is based of the assumption, yes ASSUMPTION, that HIV causes AIDS. You would think that this has been well established, yet it is yet another example of science gone wrong for the sake of money. Damn politics. AIDS Myth (http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/kmullis.htm)
Funny, the "AIDS Myth" proponents sound like Intelligent Design people. Take Matthias Rath, for example; he's being sued by a South African AIDS organization for helping spread misinformation about the current crop of AIDS drugs.

Or, look at the fight being brought by groups like the WHO, CDC, and NIAID (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm), trying to combat what they see as misinformation.

It appears that viruses and diseases like HIV can jump between non-human primates and humans
This is nothing new, many virus' including Ebola are easily capable of jumping species.
Also, if I am not mistaken, I remember reading articles speculating that AIDS was originally a primate virus that jumped species to humans.
Yes, it's pretty conclusive that HIV (not AIDS) originated from the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV). More info at NIAID.

Virus' such as this one (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050514053409990001&_ccc=2&cid=842) jumped from avian, to porcine, to human. This does not provide any evolutionary correlation between birds and humans.
Don't jump to conclusions; we do share common ancestry with reptiles and birds, and this is one path being investigated by evolutionary biologists who are looking for cures. There are several articles and papers at Science Daily and ArXiv which give details.

If anything, virus' should be studied for intelligence in my opinion. Their adaptability and almost sentient qualities are absolutely intriguing. Also, nothing on earth seems to evolve as fast as they do.
Again, an in-depth understanding of evolution would help you understand why viruses multiply rapidly, and how populations of viruses can evolve and adapt as fast as they do.


Also, I do not understand the continuous comparison to humans and primates. Sure general layout and opposable thumbs are similar, but genetically pigs are just as close as "apes". Medical practice has been sticking pig parts, such as heart valves, in humans for years. Why can't we have evolved from pigs?
Porcine circulatory systems are very similar to humans. That's about where the pig similarity ends. They have different digestive tracts, their brain structure is completely different, their body plan is nowhere near the same as ours... the list goes on and on. In addition, pigs are not genetically "just as close" to humans as members of the ape family. If you have references to back up your claim, I'd love to study them.

Of course, if your entire post was tongue-in-cheek (which I am hoping), I apologize for not catching your sarcasm.

Tenspace

[Coldbourne]

Ten, you need to take a humor hiatus.

In the odd event that my post was taken as anything but light hearted rhetoric, I posted the the corresponding picture. Thus, yes tongue in cheek.

However, since you started kicking this can around again, here we go:

Funny, the "AIDS Myth" proponents sound like Intelligent Design people.
I believe you may be in danger of converting to a conspiracy theorist. One of the founders of this particular study was Noble Laureate Keri Mullis, as you no doubt read. I can scarcely imagine him being nominated as a Creationist Poster Child, or any poster child for that matter. His exploits in this matter are chronicled in his book " Dancing Naked in the Mindfield", as well as on the web somewhere I am sure. Despite his eccentric nature, he is an extremely capable scientist and harkens back to the days of true science bereft of politics (in my opinion, anyway).

There is without a doubt evidence that HIV may be the cause of AIDS, as it is unlikely that a hypothesis would be put forth without any basis of possibility. However the point being made is that this particular theory has remained exactly that, a theory, despite the millions of dollars and years of research put into the search for a cure. This is a huge amount of resources to be devoted to an un-proven theory. Is it likely that HIV causes AIDS? Of course, but it is not definitive, and there remains a possibility that the theory is wrong. In the case of AIDS, the situation is quite grave enough to merit certainty, don't you think? In my opinion it is just another case of shabby science and total belief in a hypothesis without certainty, which condemns thousands to death. If I have to put my faith in a possibility, I will turn to a religion. Science should be certain, it was on the foundation of proof of evidence that led to the paradigm shift of the Copernican Revolution, not faith in the "most likely".

Again, an in-depth understanding of evolution would help you understand why viruses multiply rapidly, and how populations of viruses can evolve and adapt as fast as they do.
There seems to be a standard answer given in regards to any question regarding science: "if you had more understanding".
This is not an answer to any question, and statement of my lack of understanding is an assumption of my ignorance and your superiority in this matter. If I want to be ridiculed, I will talk to a Muslim. The invariable retort of "you do not understand" is an assumption that you do understand, and in such case you best be able to fax me a copy of your PhD's in molecular and cellular biology. Otherwise, you have had access to the same information that I have, and are therefore subject to the same limitations in understanding that I am apparently shackled with. Just a friendly observation.

Porcine circulatory systems are very similar to humans. That's about where the pig similarity ends.....
different digestive tracts, their brain structure is completely different, their body plan is nowhere near the same as ours... In addition, pigs are not genetically "just as close" to humans as members of the ape family....
See below:
Don't jump to conclusions; we do share common ancestry with reptiles and birds, and this is one path being investigated by evolutionary biologists who are looking for cures...
But not pigs?
http://img278.echo.cx/img278/7214/pig12pz.jpg

[Tenspace]

Ten, you need to take a humor hiatus.

In the odd event that my post was taken as anything but light hearted rhetoric, I posted the the corresponding picture. Thus, yes tongue in cheek.
Lessee... you said, The answer to that one could already be well established. The problem with our search for the cure for AIDS is that it is based of the assumption, yes ASSUMPTION, that HIV causes AIDS. You would think that this has been well established, yet it is yet another example of science gone wrong for the sake of money. Damn politics.

C'mon, with an intro like that, you think I could easily determine if your pig/ape or sentient virus comments were lighthearted? Let me recalibrate my rhetoric meter, so I can be sure to catch the next time you throw humor and wit into your post.

However, since you started kicking this can around again, here we go:

Funny, the "AIDS Myth" proponents sound like Intelligent Design people.
I believe you may be in danger of converting to a conspiracy theorist. One of the founders of this particular study was Noble Laureate Keri Mullis, as you no doubt read. I can scarcely imagine him being nominated as a Creationist Poster Child, or any poster child for that matter. His exploits in this matter are chronicled in his book " Dancing Naked in the Mindfield", as well as on the web somewhere I am sure. Despite his eccentric nature, he is an extremely capable scientist and harkens back to the days of true science bereft of politics (in my opinion, anyway).
In case you didn't notice, I don't select the works of one individual when forming my opinion. The information I read on your link is at least seven years old, and it is from one person. I took an interest in this subject before you chimed in on this thread. How do you feel about the opinions of groups like the South African AIDS awareness coalition, which is blaming the "AIDS Myth" stance, and specifically Matthias Raft for lying about this "conspiracy" by the big pharma companies? I'll read more on Mullis before I form an opinion of his work or credibility. I'm just surprised that it is so outdated, especially in such a rapidly advancing field as this.

There is without a doubt evidence that HIV may be the cause of AIDS, as it is unlikely that a hypothesis would be put forth without any basis of possibility. However the point being made is that this particular theory has remained exactly that, a theory, despite the millions of dollars and years of research put into the search for a cure. This is a huge amount of resources to be devoted to an un-proven theory. Is it likely that HIV causes AIDS? Of course, but it is not definitive, and there remains a possibility that the theory is wrong. In the case of AIDS, the situation is quite grave enough to merit certainty, don't you think? In my opinion it is just another case of shabby science and total belief in a hypothesis without certainty, which condemns thousands to death. If I have to put my faith in a possibility, I will turn to a religion. Science should be certain, it was on the foundation of proof of evidence that led to the paradigm shift of the Copernican Revolution, not faith in the "most likely".
Time for me to study up some more then. I was under the impression that the rapid and non-lethal mutations of the HIV were the primary cause of the exhaustion and failure of our immune system.

There seems to be a standard answer given in regards to any question regarding science: "if you had more understanding".
This is not an answer to any question, and statement of my lack of understanding is an assumption of my ignorance and your superiority in this matter.

If I want to be ridiculed, I will talk to a Muslim.
You are so talented with the petty jibe. Please continue. :)

The invariable retort of "you do not understand" is an assumption that you do understand, and in such case you best be able to fax me a copy of your PhD's in molecular and cellular biology. Otherwise, you have had access to the same information that I have, and are therefore subject to the same limitations in understanding that I am apparently shackled with. Just a friendly observation.
Would you like me to hold your hand as we walk through the many posts I've made on this forum where I have discussed this very topic in detail? Or would you like me to repeat everything for you? Or maybe I can take a couple of hours and create a link page for you. Do you need guidance, or maybe some help separating the signal from the noise? Obviously, since your post was tongue-in-cheek (except the AIDS part which set the tone for the rest of the post), discussing it is a moot point. I'm still trying to determine where my statement,

Again, an in-depth understanding of evolution would help you understand why viruses multiply rapidly, and how populations of viruses can evolve and adapt as fast as they do.

turned into an attack on your acquired knowledge. Someone says "viruses should be studied for intelligence", I respond with, "maybe you need to learn more about evolution.", and so I am lumped in with everyone else who must be at the same intellectual level since we don't have PhDs.

But not pigs?
http://img278.echo.cx/img278/7214/pig12pz.jpg
No. Not pigs. We are not allowed to study that which is good to eat. Plus, it freaks out all the Jewish biologists, who prefer to use lawyers in anatomy class instead of unclean pigs, since they are more plentiful and you don't get emotionally attached to them.

Tenspace

[Coldbourne]

Or maybe I can take a couple of hours and create a link page for you.
Actually that would be quite nice.
Should I expect that today, or will it be later in the week? :D

[Tenspace]

Or maybe I can take a couple of hours and create a link page for you.
Actually that would be quite nice.
Should I expect that today, or will it be later in the week? :D
I'll squeeze it into my schedule between the atheists anon meeting and our ritual baby-eating frenzy. :)