• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The Dive's Covid Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yea it is a weird nonlife version of life but due to the fact that it is subject to selective pressures and needs to be replicated, even if that replication happens with the machinery of a host cell, mistakes in replication happen and the more fit versions go on to survive

Mutations happen at the same rate as with other replication, but again the fit versions go on to survive and its not like all viruses shed by the same organism will all be mutated in the same way. The change of that is next to impossible so if there are less fit versions then of course those won't survive but that doesn't mean the others somehow magically vanish
You must surely concede though that at face value the hypothesis is pretty ridiculous though, right? How likely is it that through nothing but chance mutation viruses continue to exist at all, let alone how they came to be in the first place. I mean evolutionary theory struggles enough as it is with trying to explain the origins of life/living organisms, but viruses fall right into that same trap but with the added frustration of having absolutely no 'motivation' at all, unlike all other living organisms. There is no internal pressure coming from within them to continue existing, it literally revolves around blind chance and nothing else.

It also makes little sense because, being non-living, it has no intelligent adaptability unlike every other living organism. Living organisms continue to evolve their defences and processes, yet somehow a non-living zombie entity is somehow able to continually do better than the living entities? That to me is utterly preposterous.

It becomes truly farcical when you understand that 'viruses', due to their size, can only be seen in-vitro under special preparation. And also that the methodology for proving their existence doesn't even fulfil the Koch postulates because you can't 'grow' viruses without the use of the cell-line technology (unlike bacteria and fungi).. which in itself is ridiculous because this requires the use of living cells taken out of the context of a living organism and then treated with chemicals.

EDIT: A thought just occurred to me. How is it that a species of bacteria or fungi hasn't evolved to eat/clean up viruses when just about every substance on this planet has at least one species that targets it? We have species that can eat oil, plastics, even radioactive waste. We are full/covered in bacteria ourselves.. surely there should be at least one species that gobbles up rogue floating zombie code. It's a free lunch after all.
 
Last edited:
Yea it is a weird nonlife version of life but due to the fact that it is subject to selective pressures and needs to be replicated, even if that replication happens with the machinery of a host cell, mistakes in replication happen and the more fit versions go on to survive

Mutations happen at the same rate as with other replication, but again the fit versions go on to survive and its not like all viruses shed by the same organism will all be mutated in the same way. The change of that is next to impossible so if there are less fit versions then of course those won't survive but that doesn't mean the others somehow magically vanish

:rolleyes:
 
You must surely concede though that at face value the hypothesis is pretty ridiculous though, right? How likely is it that through nothing but chance mutation viruses continue to exist at all, let alone how they came to be in the first place. I mean evolutionary theory struggles enough as it is with trying to explain the origins of life/living organisms, but viruses fall right into that same trap but with the added frustration of having absolutely no 'motivation' at all, unlike all other living organisms. There is no internal pressure coming from within them to continue existing, it literally revolves around blind chance and nothing else.

It also makes little sense because, being non-living, it has no intelligent adaptability unlike every other living organism. Living organisms continue to evolve their defences and processes, yet somehow a non-living zombie entity is somehow able to continually do better than the living entities? That to me is utterly preposterous.

It becomes truly farcical when you understand that 'viruses', due to their size, can only be seen in-vitro under special preparation. And also that the methodology for proving their existence doesn't even fulfil the Koch postulates because you can't 'grow' viruses without the use of the cell-line technology (unlike bacteria and fungi).. which in itself is ridiculous because this requires the use of living cells taken out of the context of a living organism and then treated with chemicals.

EDIT: A thought just occurred to me. How is it that a species of bacteria or fungi hasn't evolved to eat/clean up viruses when just about every substance on this planet has at least one species that targets it? We have species that can eat oil, plastics, even radioactive waste. We are full/covered in bacteria ourselves.. surely there should be at least one species that gobbles up rogue floating zombie code. It's a free lunch after all.
I think you're confused. Why would any life continue to exist if the weakest ones survive while the fittest do not? Do you understand how many virus particles are created when they replicate inside a host?

According to this paper it's anywhere between 10^9 to 10^11. That's 10,000,000,000. Imagine now there are 3 mutations within that group where one mutation makes it harder to enter cells, one mutation makes it survive longer on surfaces, and one mutation that made no functional change. How many of the virus particles have each of those mutations? Which one will be transmitted more frequently? Which less frequently?

Did you not google your own question?

Also your question seems to assume that humans have somehow characterized and fully understand all microbes to ever exist, which is completely laughable. We barely know shit and you're making assumptions based on thinking we know everything?

Also "intelligent adaptability" is not a phrase that means anything, you made it up. All that matters is selective pressure and changes in DNA/protein structure and function
 
Also your question seems to assume that humans have somehow characterized and fully understand all microbes to ever exist, which is completely laughable. We barely know shit and you're making assumptions based on thinking we know everything?
Have you tried applying that same logic to the field of virology? Have you ever even considered the possibility that it might be wrong?
Also "intelligent adaptability" is not a phrase that means anything, you made it up. All that matters is selective pressure and changes in DNA/protein structure and function
The point is that living organisms can respond and adapt, viruses can not. You might believe that adaption is blind and according to Darwinian theory, but that is your belief. Personally I think there is more intelligence within the biological realm than just our own peculiar human intelligence. Anyway, again the point is that living organisms should by default be at a massive advantage over a non-living entity that can't adapt. If viruses were really a thing I fail to see how living entities would not have adapted and evolved to mitigate what is essentially a static, one-dimensional approach by viruses that never really changes in its approach. Especially at the cellular level, given we live symbiotically with numerous strains of bacteria that can adapt and evolve very quickly.
 
Adaptation is not based on considered being alive or not, its about the mechanism of DNA and protein structure and function. I'm not sure how you don't understand that.

Are you genuinely trying to suggest that the entire field of virology is nonsense because we don't have some microorganisms characterized? Are you serious 😂



 
Last edited:
Adaptation is not based on considered being alive or not, its about the mechanism of DNA and protein structure and function. I'm not sure how you don't understand that.
Err, yes it is [insult removed]. It is literally in the dictionary definition for 'adaptation'; "the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment"

No where else in physical reality do we see 'things' changing their underlying function in response to changing environmental variables. Only living organisms adapt, because only living organisms have the 'motivation' to need to adapt in the first place.

The only exception to that rule is... viruses. What a surprise :rolleyes:
 
Err, yes it is [insult removed]. It is literally in the dictionary definition for 'adaptation'; "the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment"

No where else in physical reality do we see 'things' changing their underlying function in response to changing environmental variables. Only living organisms adapt, because only living organisms have the 'motivation' to need to adapt in the first place.

The only exception to that rule is... viruses. What a surprise :rolleyes:
So you'll take a definition from a dictionary but not a biology textbook because it fits your narrative better? 😂


You seem to think microbes have some sort of "motivation"? What does that even mean, they're conplex biochemical machines
 
Last edited:
"Viruses have been able to continue their infectious existence due to evolution. Their rapid mutation rates and natural selection has given viruses the advantage to continue to spread."


What I really don't understand is how you guys come up with these ridiculous theories and write these long diatribes yet somehow never even bother to take a second to google these incredibly basic concepts that underlie all of this
 
Last edited:
I know you don’t like to publicly identify as a righty Krinks but I see you as one of us, your to logical thinking…the old school democrat is the modern republican

Lol yea im not very progressive

But hey, I gotta leave this thread for a while, I'm getting warnings from upper management that I'm a little outta control and they're gonna give me a point even tho they have the ability to just remove my privileges from posting here which was the original rule - right @mal3volent ?
 
I think they're still having a hard time deciphering what's what in CEP and The Dive

no that's not it.

pretty simply. No bullshit in CEP. Like bare minimum.
in the Dive bullshit is ok in small doses or until it starts being a problem.

Its really basic stuff, and adults should be able to understand this framework.
but for those who need more detail we wrote guidelines.

removal from cep and/or the dive is something we can use at our discretion.
Wouldn't it be better if we just didn't have to worry about that shit though?
 
w9NoMLvjb1i3cMd_.jpg:large
 
We're having fun... Just because you or anybody else thinks it isn't, well that's on you

it's definitely not on me. I'm more than fair. The staff as a whole are more lenient right now than at any point in our history. If you get infracted these days, you are objectively a prick. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top