Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 May 2000 16:37:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
763 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> I think I was mixing the way that I was using the phrase "in the interest of."
> Obviously organisms don't know what's in their species' "best interest" in
> terms of adaptability. I'd revise my statement above to be something like: It
> is probably in the interest of the species to slow down reproduction, but
> there's no clear genetic basis for believing that that will happen.
I understood that, I have probably been influenced/corrupted by Richard Dawkins...
> Or were you disagreeing that infection could wipe a species?
> ?Hmm, maybe drift has a different meaning to you, given your background. To
> me,
> ?drift is thought of as a random, unguided event. You seem to state that
>
> OK, I was perhaps misusing jargon. Your description of what I meant is
> correct. I simply meant the gradual change of gene frequency due to selection
> (or random, if we think that really exists).
>
> ?I understand what you are saying in regard to the # of offspring produced.
> ?However infected males can produce a lot of offspring with no parental
> ?investment. females can reproduce at least every 10-11 months... it
> ?will spread long before the 'abstience gene' can reach high proportions
> ?in the population.
>
> Could be. How does our ability to detect the disease factor in? Unlike most
> organisms, we can test for it and make judgements based on the results.
> Mightn't that boost the speed a bit?
perhaps. I guess that would fall under artificial selection. I think we may
be bordering on eugenics here, which has its own set of problems.
> OK, right. I hadn't thought about comparing the speed at which the infection
> adapts to the speed at which the host adapts. On the other hand, the virus
> won't have any strong pressure to adapt as long as there's some a substantial
> host population still passing it around.
true, but there are several strains of the virus that exist now, probably as a
result of selection pressure and random drift. In a few years we may see many
more strains. Our species mobility also throws in a confounding factor.
> By the way, how is it that the virus mutates effectively more than we do? Our
> genes have basically the same structure, so is it based on the method of
> reproduction, or the simplicity of their life form?
Mainly because it's generation time is so short compared to our own. several days
to months for HIV versus at least 12 years for us. We do have a pretty high
somatic cell mutation rate, but remember for evolution to work it has to be able
to be passed to the next generation(maybe if we start asexual budding :). I
think it also depends on the size of their genome. I'll have to look this one up.
> Yeah. Do you mean that hearing a lecture about the diversity in the rift lakes
> was facinating and so you pursued it, or do you mean that you kept cichlids and
> wanted to study them?
I started raising cichlids before I really got into evolutionary ecology, so I
learned about them as an example of adaptive radiation. Later on they were used
as examples in lectures/classes. I didn't do many studies with them. Do you
know if the _Psuedotropheus zebra_ variety that has a purple/blue body with orange
fins evolved in some sort of riverine or high current system? I had a few of them
that were always just sit in front of the power filter outlets.
> Unfortunately, they'll all be gone in 20 years. Tilapia
> introduced as a food source are quickly outcompeting them in the three big
> lakes and many small ones.
Man... that's so frustrating... why can't people leave things alone? What feeding
niche do the Tilapia occupy?
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) I don't know. That explanation seems plausible especially given how SEAsian river fish behave given the option of a current. You have to be a pretty hard-core cichlidiot to keep track of all the different P.zebra strains. But I raised (...) (25 years ago, 15-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) I think I was mixing the way that I was using the phrase "in the interest of." Obviously organisms don't know what's in their species' "best interest" in terms of adaptability. I'd revise my statement above to be something like: It is probably (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
