Genetic Entropy

Which brings us back to the matter of the figure you cite. In actuality, there is no extinction of viruses, just evolution. Which does not seem to jibe with your use of the figure.

2 Likes

I asked Dr. Carter the same thing. This is very interesting and complicated, but his layman-level explanation was (and this is my fallible paraphrase) “These viruses are relatively inactive and benign (perhaps even symbiotic?) in their respective animal hosts, but when they jump to humans they burn fast and hot.”

Mutations are heritable changes in DNA sequence, and this applies to all parts of the genome. If mutations occur in a transcription factor of promoter then they can affect gene expression.

That’s a tough one to answer because the function of a protein can alter the gene expression of many other genes. Mutations other than substitutions also play an important role, such as recombination mutations that can duplicate genes or put a new promoter in front of a gene. Biology is rarely black and white, and this certainly applies to evolution.

1 Like

That still doesn’t explain how they are so well preserved in the pigs. The mutation rates are similarly high.

1 Like

Those inactive and benign viruses would still be mutating and reproducing. So why hasn’t GE taken them out?

1 Like

That’s a question I don’t have an answer for. It was my understanding that the mutation rates in the benign state (in the animal host) were not as high as in the pathogenic state. If that is not true, then I personally don’t know the answer. Dr. Carter might, but I know this is a very mysterious topic where more research is needed.

EDIT:
I should have realized this, but Dr Carter did already address this question in the box at the bottom of creation.com/fitness (he wrote that box part!); he is saying that the waterfowl apparently have regulatory mechanisms in place to maintain the integrity of the virus, which is beneficial for them.

2 Likes

As I said to Dr Swamidass, it was my understanding that in the benign state they were not mutating as much, though I don’t understand all the reasons. This is an interesting topic for sure.

EDIT:
I should have realized this, but Dr Carter did already address this question in the box at the bottom of creation.com/fitness (he wrote that box part!); he is saying that the waterfowl apparently have regulatory mechanisms in place to maintain the integrity of the virus, which is beneficial for them.

1 Like

A whole lot is known about flu viruses, replication in different hosts, mutation and reassortment, etc. etc. These matters may be mysteries to Dr. Carter, but not to the flu virus community.

@Mercer’s head is going to fairly explode, I fear …

5 Likes

I’m conversing with YOU, Paul, and trying in good faith to correct YOUR misunderstandings. That was an evasion.

Have you looked?

Will you swear on a Bible that you look into the primary literature on DI particles?

I’m not seeing any curiosity. I’m just seeing a frantic attempt to deflect and obfuscate.

Because the authors are not only looking at FIXED mutations, as what was in the graph you grossly misrepresented and promised to correct. You don’t know what you are talking about; you are only looking for language that you can twist to win, and you’re not looking at evidence.

[quote=“PDPrice, post:53, topic:8253”]

Mercer: More importantly, the virus never became extinct. If you disagree, please explain how you think they measured extinction.

Carter and Sanford wrote:
“We provided data that more than suggests that the various influenza viruses that infect humans cannot survive long term, and we were the first to notice the disappearance of the human version of the H1N1 influenza virus in mid-2009.”

Note that they didn’t use the terms “subtype” or “strain.”

Why does the CDC show an arrow extending to the present day?

If the H1N1 subtype went extinct in 2009, how do you explain all of the following outbreaks?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-h1n-idUSKBN1AC1XZ

https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/north-africa/2019/02/02/Swine-flu-outbreak-kills-9-in-Morocco.html

Given that you clearly don’t even understand the virology on the most basic, Wikipedia level, it is very difficult to see your response as anything but naked deception, Paul. The fact that you may deceiving yourself first in the process does not excuse misinforming innocent people.

Your spreading of misinformation in this matter, deliberate or not, has the potential to kill people if they take your uninformed opinion over the CDC’s. You have an ethical obligation to know what you are writing about.

1 Like

It isnt deception. He is freely admiting he doesn’t understand.

3 posts were split to a new topic: Questions about flagging

That is, very clearly, not what they are talking about in their paper, and the CDC graph I posted also makes it abundantly clear what they were talking about. (Spanish Flu only)

We know the mutation rates. RNA replicases have extremely high ones. Did you ever bother to look that up?

It is not true.

I’d say that more study of what is already known is needed on your part before pontification.

Huh? What is the antecedent of “they”? Please try to write more clearly.

How do you explain at least 6 H1N1 outbreaks since 2009?

Your heroes, who are not virologists, are using both “virus” and “strain” incorrectly. H1N1 is a subtype and new genomic reassortments (the genome is segmented), like the “swine flu” or “bird flu,” are called strains.

1 Like

It is the strain (Spanish Flu) they are obviously talking about. I encourage anybody concerned to go read the paper for themselves and see if they can figure out whether Carter and Sanford are arguing that all strains of H1N1 disappeared in 2009 (as Mercer here is suggesting), or whether they were only talking about Spanish Flu.

They are new combinations caused by what is analogous to horizontal gene transfer. It’s all still influenza virus.

And influenza recombination is turbocharged because its genome is segmented.

1 Like

@Faizal_Ali it is clear he is repeating what he has heard from others. That isn’t lying. Science reporters do it all the time.

1 Like

Perhaps worse still, numerous of the creationistic articles Price have linked, contain some pretty strong claims and insinuations that it is biologists who are being deceptive and misleading.

I am willing to grant that Price really does believe that Sanford and Carter are being correct in their discussions of these issues.

1 Like

For what it’s worth, I’ve seen you make quite a few very honest and open statements here disagreeing with some of your colleagues on inaccurate claims they made. I appreciate when I see that, even though we don’t agree on a lot.

1 Like

Thanks but I have to say that when you say I’m being honest in correcting what I see as simplifications or misconceptions, that implies those simplifications or misconceptions are dishonest.

None of the things I have said are any sort of secret or not-spoken-about issue. One problem I have with some of your output is that it seems like you are actively working to paint such a picture. Let’s just take the case of the possibility of “degenerative” evolution coinciding with fitness gains.

When I say I have no problem with this being a real possibility, I am not somehow opening the lid to some sort of trade secret being whispered about in smoke-filled backrooms. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who would really disagree with that.

The problem is that this isn’t the kind of evidence you think, or are trying to make it appear, that it is.

2 Likes