AIDS and Africa

alaskaguy · 12-06-2007, 03:44 PM

The rumor that AIDS originated in non-human primates appears to be widely accepted by the scientific community. However, the non-human primates were monkeys and not apes?

herbiedoobie · 12-06-2007, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by iceclone

I’m not sure, but I think we may be talking about two topics simultaneously: the start of life & how life may or may not have evolved afterwards. Evolution does not state anything about how life began. Indeed, from my understanding, science really has no established theory about how life started. But since that start, the theory that biological forms exhibiting favorable (fit) traits survive and multiply is consistent with all empirical evidence and produces useful predictions. The only random part of it is that mutations happen, as we can observe all around us, but the way I look at it survival of the fittest is anything but accidental.

To call the origin of life and life development "two topics" is a highly unsatisfactory division. I realize that science involves defining, limiting and categorizing, but to say "life happened" and then, in an entirely unrelated development, "life advanced" is not very elegant.

To go to your last point. What do you mean about survival of the fittest not being accidental? Are you talking some autonomous process, (But why is it autonomous?) or are you talking some kind of intrinsic design, here?

herbiedoobie · 12-06-2007, 04:07 PM

If your goal was the elimination of the AIDs virus, with the minimum loss of human life; barring a cure, you could "weaponize" the AIDs virus, so it would burn itself out, like Ebola.

Counterintuitive, way out there, flawed idea #3169.

iceclone · 12-06-2007, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by herbiedoobie

To call the origin of life and life development "two topics" is a highly unsatisfactory division. I realize that science involves defining, limiting and categorizing, but to say "life happened" and then, in an entirely unrelated development, "life advanced" is not very elegant.

To go to your last point. What do you mean about survival of the fittest not being accidental? Are you talking some autonomous process, (But why is it autonomous?) or are you talking some kind of intrinsic design, here?

I agree that it is something less than ideal, but it is a reality for all science. Even for very specific sub-disciplines, the “Theory of Everything” remains elusive. The best example is probably in physics. Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, and general relativity all work very well in their respective domains of medium size, very small, and very large objects. But when they are applied outside their domains, they either fail or even contradict each other!

It would be much more satisfying to have a Theory of Everything that would encompass all domains, and there may become a time in the future where there is a scientific theory that covers both how life starts and what happens afterwards. Such a theory might then be able replace the theory of evolution for biologists. But I suspect it won’t be anytime soon due to lack of availability of empirical evidence.

By not accidental, I mean it is a response to its environment, including both biological (other organisms) and non-biological (climate, atmosphere, etc.). I don’t assume a design, and since I don’t think the hypothesis of a design is testable, I would consider it outside the purview of science.

cmoneyr · 12-06-2007, 04:31 PM

To call the origin of life and life development "two topics" is a highly unsatisfactory division. I realize that science involves defining, limiting and categorizing, but to say "life happened" and then, in an entirely unrelated development, "life advanced" is not very elegant.

I would say they are two related topics, but not the same topic. Obviously to have evolution you have to have a starting point somewhere. If we use the Big Bang Theory to theorize about the beginning of it all, that does little to explain everything that happened after. Similarly, for evolution to have meaning we have to discuss a beginning.

To go to your last point. What do you mean about survival of the fittest not being accidental? Are you talking some autonomous process, (But why is it autonomous?) or are you talking some kind of intrinsic design, here?

Survival of the fittest is, by definition, not accidental. It's not 'survival of the lucky ones'. The ones that have the best traits to thrive in an environment, live, and create offspring that continue those traits until the environment changes again and the process continues.

Cyclonepride · 12-08-2007, 06:34 PM

The fatal flaw in evolutionary theory? Beer goggles

bostinelosd · 12-10-2007, 05:05 PM

Survival of the fittest... So if there was a war and those who ran away lived and those who were the strongest and best breeding material died, would you consider the cowards the fittest? The human race is an odd entity. We make it possible to survive in many ways. Whether it be the coward, the liar, the snakey politician, the brute, etc. Is our perception of the fittest changing?

Incyte · 12-11-2007, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by bostinelosd

Where did AIDS come from? Yes yes, I know someone started the rumor that it came from apes, but in reality where? Who was the first person to contract it and how? Seems crazy doesnt it. Its the freakiest disease out there.

I believe current research says it came as a result of eating chimps in Africa around 1930.

AIDS virus invaded U.S. from Haiti: study | Reuters

bostinelosd · 12-11-2007, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Incyte

I believe current research says it came as a result of eating chimps in Africa around 1930.

AIDS virus invaded U.S. from Haiti: study | Reuters

Crap, I grew up on that stuff. Chilled monkey brains.

Incyte · 12-11-2007, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by bostinelosd

Survival of the fittest... So if there was a war and those who ran away lived and those who were the strongest and best breeding material died, would you consider the cowards the fittest? The human race is an odd entity. We make it possible to survive in many ways. Whether it be the coward, the liar, the snakey politician, the brute, etc. Is our perception of the fittest changing?

It also seems that in today's world the poorest communities are the one's that produce the most offspring.

bostinelosd · 12-11-2007, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by Incyte

It also seems that in today's world the poorest communities are the one's that produce the most offspring.

The human population thrives by sheer numbers. Its not survival of the fittest anymore. We just populate and dominate. We seem to be the only organism that is off balance in nature.

cmoneyr · 12-11-2007, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by bostinelosd

The human population thrives by sheer numbers. Its not survival of the fittest anymore. We just populate and dominate. We seem to be the only organism that is off balance in nature.

Kind of comes with the territory of being at the top of the food chain. Nothing to keep our numbers in check, aside from us killing ourselves in fun and creative ways like we do.

bostinelosd · 12-11-2007, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by cmoneyr

Kind of comes with the territory of being at the top of the food chain. Nothing to keep our numbers in check, aside from us killing ourselves in fun and creative ways like we do.

Or Aliens and the occasional Godzilla

cmoneyr · 12-11-2007, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by bostinelosd

Or Aliens and the occasional Godzilla

Godzilla is obviously going to be too busy fighting Mothra, get your evolutionary theory right.

iceclone · 12-11-2007, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by bostinelosd

The human population thrives by sheer numbers. Its not survival of the fittest anymore. We just populate and dominate. We seem to be the only organism that is off balance in nature.

I'm curious, why is that not survival of the fittest? Several species seem to have evolved to survive through very rapid population. (The rabbits in my backyard come to mind.)