I have been reading a book about Charles Darwin, "Darwin's Origin of Species" by Janet Browne. I recommend it.
Darwin's most brilliant idea, natural selection, was strong evidence for the idea that the Magic Man didn't do it. This was the god fairy's most important job, the magical creation of species. Darwin proved the fairy had nothing to do with it. It was a natural process, no magic required.
To fix the problem religious fucktards had to throw out the science or stick the Magic Jeebus Man into the science. They can't do that, but they did it anyway because reality makes them cry.
Charles Darwin killed the ridiculous Magic Man.
Why do billions of people still think the magic fairy is real? That's easy, it's because they're uneducated morons.
Showing posts with label Natural Selection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Natural Selection. Show all posts
Monday, June 14, 2021
Saturday, May 29, 2021
This is one my favorite Charles Darwin quotes. It's about natural selection.
When we no longer look at an organic being as a savage looks at a ship, as something wholly beyond his comprehension; when we regard every production of nature as one which has had a long history; when we contemplate every complex structure and instinct as the summing up of many contrivances, each useful to the possessor, in the same way as any great mechanical invention is the summing up of the labour, the experience, the reason, and even the blunders of numerous workmen; when we thus view each organic being, how far more interesting - I speak from experience - does the study of natural history become!
— Charles Darwin
This blog has 393 posts about Charles Darwin at Charles Darwin.
— Charles Darwin
This blog has 393 posts about Charles Darwin at Charles Darwin.
Friday, April 23, 2021
Some science stuff from the New York Times
April 23, 2021
“We together flew at Mars, and we together now have this Wright brothers moment.” — MiMi Aung, the project manager for NASA’s Ingenuity copter on Mars, to her team celebrating the first powered flight on another world. (A second test flight on Thursday was also successful.) |
“It is unusual for me to read a paper and say, ‘Wow, this is really a major advance.’ But this is a major advance.” — Valerie Horsley, a biologist at Yale, on a Stanford study showing that an existing drug can prevent scars from forming in mice. |
Singularities seeking pluralities: Astronomers are debating what to call a bunch of black holes. A crush? A sieve? A riddle? See what other readers are proposing, and add your own candidate.
|
Sunday, April 11, 2021
Saturday, March 27, 2021
I found some interesting stuff about Charles Darwin in this New York Times article, February 11, 2009.
Opinion
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Origin of Darwin
By Olivia Judson
February 11, 2009
London
MY fellow primates, 200 years ago today, Charles Darwin was born. Please join me in wishing him happy birthday!
Unlike many members of the human species, Darwin makes an easy hero. His achievements were prodigious; his science, meticulous. His work transformed our understanding of the planet and of ourselves.
At the same time, he was a humane, gentle, decent man, a loving husband and father, and a loyal friend. Judging by his letters, he was also sometimes quite funny. He was, in other words, one of those rare beings, as likeable as he was impressive.
For example, after his marriage, Darwin worked at home, and his children (of the 10 he fathered, seven survived to adulthood) remembered playing in his study. Later, one of his sons recounted how, after an argument, his father came up to his room, sat on his bed, and apologized for losing his temper. And although often painted as a recluse, Darwin served as a local magistrate, meting out justice in his dining room.
Moreover, while many of his contemporaries approved of slavery, Darwin did not. He came from a family of ardent abolitionists, and he was revolted by what he saw in slave countries: “Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have stayed in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty.”
He practiced a kind of ideal, dream-like science. He examined the minutiae of nature shells of barnacles, pistils of flowers but worked on grand themes. He corresponded with lofty men of learning, but also with farmers and pigeon breeders. He observed, questioned, experimented, constantly testing his ideas.
Could plants from the mainland colonize a newly formed island? If so, they would need a way to get there. Could they survive in the ocean? To find out, he immersed seeds in salt water for weeks, then planted them to see how many could sprout. He reported, for example, that “an asparagus plant with ripe berries floated for 23 days, when dried it floated for 85 days, and the seeds afterwards germinated.” The Atlantic current moved at 33 nautical miles a day; he figured that would take a seed more than 1,300 miles in 42 days. Yes, seeds could travel by sea.
He published important work on subjects as diverse as the biology of carnivorous plants, barnacles, earthworms and the formation of coral reefs. He wrote a travelogue, “The Voyage of the Beagle,” that was an immediate best seller and remains a classic of its kind. And as if that was not enough, he discovered two major forces in evolution natural selection and sexual selection and wrote three radical scientific masterpieces, “On the Origin of Species” (1859), “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex” (1871) and “The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals” (1872).
The “Origin,” of course, is what he is best known for. This volume, colossal in scope yet minutely detailed, laid the foundations of modern biology. Here, Darwin presented extensive and compelling evidence that all living beings — including humans have evolved from a common ancestor, and that natural selection is the chief force driving evolutionary change. Sexual selection, he argued, was an additional force, responsible for spectacular features like the tail feathers of peacocks that are useless for (or even detrimental to) survival but essential for seduction.
Before the “Origin,” similarities and differences between species were mere curiosities; questions as to why a certain plant is succulent like a cactus or deciduous like a maple could be answered only, “Because.” Biology itself was nothing more than a vast exercise in catalog and description. After the “Origin,” all organisms became connected, part of the same, profoundly ancient, family tree. Similarities and differences became comprehensible and explicable. In short, Darwin gave us a framework for asking questions about the natural world, and about ourselves.
He was not right about everything. How could he have been? Famously, he didn’t know how genetics works; as for DNA — well, the structure of the molecule wasn’t discovered until 1953. So today’s view of evolution is much more nuanced than his. We have incorporated genetics, and expanded and refined our understanding of natural selection, and of the other forces in evolution.
But what is astonishing is how much Darwin did know, and how far he saw. His imagination told him, for example, that many female animals have a sense of beauty that they like to mate with the most beautiful males. For this he was ridiculed. But we know that he was right. Still more impressive: he was not afraid to apply his ideas to humans. He thought that natural selection had operated on us, just as it had on fruit flies and centipedes.
As we delve into DNA sequences, we can see natural selection acting at the level of genes. Our genes hold evidence of our intimate associations with other beings, from cows to malaria parasites and grains. The latest research allows us to trace the genetic changes that differentiate us from our primate cousins, and shows that large parts of the human genome bear the stamp of evolution by means of natural selection.
I think Darwin would have been pleased. But not surprised.
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Origin of Darwin
By Olivia Judson
February 11, 2009
London
MY fellow primates, 200 years ago today, Charles Darwin was born. Please join me in wishing him happy birthday!
Unlike many members of the human species, Darwin makes an easy hero. His achievements were prodigious; his science, meticulous. His work transformed our understanding of the planet and of ourselves.
At the same time, he was a humane, gentle, decent man, a loving husband and father, and a loyal friend. Judging by his letters, he was also sometimes quite funny. He was, in other words, one of those rare beings, as likeable as he was impressive.
For example, after his marriage, Darwin worked at home, and his children (of the 10 he fathered, seven survived to adulthood) remembered playing in his study. Later, one of his sons recounted how, after an argument, his father came up to his room, sat on his bed, and apologized for losing his temper. And although often painted as a recluse, Darwin served as a local magistrate, meting out justice in his dining room.
Moreover, while many of his contemporaries approved of slavery, Darwin did not. He came from a family of ardent abolitionists, and he was revolted by what he saw in slave countries: “Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have stayed in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty.”
He practiced a kind of ideal, dream-like science. He examined the minutiae of nature shells of barnacles, pistils of flowers but worked on grand themes. He corresponded with lofty men of learning, but also with farmers and pigeon breeders. He observed, questioned, experimented, constantly testing his ideas.
Could plants from the mainland colonize a newly formed island? If so, they would need a way to get there. Could they survive in the ocean? To find out, he immersed seeds in salt water for weeks, then planted them to see how many could sprout. He reported, for example, that “an asparagus plant with ripe berries floated for 23 days, when dried it floated for 85 days, and the seeds afterwards germinated.” The Atlantic current moved at 33 nautical miles a day; he figured that would take a seed more than 1,300 miles in 42 days. Yes, seeds could travel by sea.
He published important work on subjects as diverse as the biology of carnivorous plants, barnacles, earthworms and the formation of coral reefs. He wrote a travelogue, “The Voyage of the Beagle,” that was an immediate best seller and remains a classic of its kind. And as if that was not enough, he discovered two major forces in evolution natural selection and sexual selection and wrote three radical scientific masterpieces, “On the Origin of Species” (1859), “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex” (1871) and “The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals” (1872).
The “Origin,” of course, is what he is best known for. This volume, colossal in scope yet minutely detailed, laid the foundations of modern biology. Here, Darwin presented extensive and compelling evidence that all living beings — including humans have evolved from a common ancestor, and that natural selection is the chief force driving evolutionary change. Sexual selection, he argued, was an additional force, responsible for spectacular features like the tail feathers of peacocks that are useless for (or even detrimental to) survival but essential for seduction.
Before the “Origin,” similarities and differences between species were mere curiosities; questions as to why a certain plant is succulent like a cactus or deciduous like a maple could be answered only, “Because.” Biology itself was nothing more than a vast exercise in catalog and description. After the “Origin,” all organisms became connected, part of the same, profoundly ancient, family tree. Similarities and differences became comprehensible and explicable. In short, Darwin gave us a framework for asking questions about the natural world, and about ourselves.
He was not right about everything. How could he have been? Famously, he didn’t know how genetics works; as for DNA — well, the structure of the molecule wasn’t discovered until 1953. So today’s view of evolution is much more nuanced than his. We have incorporated genetics, and expanded and refined our understanding of natural selection, and of the other forces in evolution.
But what is astonishing is how much Darwin did know, and how far he saw. His imagination told him, for example, that many female animals have a sense of beauty that they like to mate with the most beautiful males. For this he was ridiculed. But we know that he was right. Still more impressive: he was not afraid to apply his ideas to humans. He thought that natural selection had operated on us, just as it had on fruit flies and centipedes.
As we delve into DNA sequences, we can see natural selection acting at the level of genes. Our genes hold evidence of our intimate associations with other beings, from cows to malaria parasites and grains. The latest research allows us to trace the genetic changes that differentiate us from our primate cousins, and shows that large parts of the human genome bear the stamp of evolution by means of natural selection.
I think Darwin would have been pleased. But not surprised.
Friday, March 12, 2021
Sunday, January 31, 2021
Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809, 212 years ago. This New York Times article was published on February 11, 2009. Click the link to see the whole thing.
The Origin of Darwin By OLIVIA JUDSON February 11, 2009
Some paragraphs from Olivia Judson's article:
MY fellow primates, 200 years ago today, Charles Darwin was born. Please join me in wishing him a happy birthday!
Unlike many members of the human species, Darwin makes an easy hero. His achievements were prodigious; his science, meticulous. His work transformed our understanding of the planet and of ourselves.
He was not right about everything. How could he have been? Famously, he didn’t know how genetics works; as for DNA — well, the structure of the molecule wasn’t discovered until 1953. So today’s view of evolution is much more nuanced than his. We have incorporated genetics, and expanded and refined our understanding of natural selection, and of the other forces in evolution.
But what is astonishing is how much Darwin did know, and how far he saw. His imagination told him, for example, that many female animals have a sense of beauty — that they like to mate with the most beautiful males. For this he was ridiculed. But we know that he was right. Still more impressive: he was not afraid to apply his ideas to humans. He thought that natural selection had operated on us, just as it had on fruit flies and centipedes.
As we delve into DNA sequences, we can see natural selection acting at the level of genes. Our genes hold evidence of our intimate associations with other beings, from cows to malaria parasites and grains. The latest research allows us to trace the genetic changes that differentiate us from our primate cousins, and shows that large parts of the human genome bear the stamp of evolution by means of natural selection.
He published important work on subjects as diverse as the biology of carnivorous plants, barnacles, earthworms and the formation of coral reefs. He wrote a travelogue, “The Voyage of the Beagle,” that was an immediate best seller and remains a classic of its kind. And as if that was not enough, he discovered two major forces in evolution — natural selection and sexual selection — and wrote three radical scientific masterpieces, “On the Origin of Species” (1859), “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex” (1871) and “The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals” (1872).
Some paragraphs from Olivia Judson's article:
MY fellow primates, 200 years ago today, Charles Darwin was born. Please join me in wishing him a happy birthday!
Unlike many members of the human species, Darwin makes an easy hero. His achievements were prodigious; his science, meticulous. His work transformed our understanding of the planet and of ourselves.
He was not right about everything. How could he have been? Famously, he didn’t know how genetics works; as for DNA — well, the structure of the molecule wasn’t discovered until 1953. So today’s view of evolution is much more nuanced than his. We have incorporated genetics, and expanded and refined our understanding of natural selection, and of the other forces in evolution.
But what is astonishing is how much Darwin did know, and how far he saw. His imagination told him, for example, that many female animals have a sense of beauty — that they like to mate with the most beautiful males. For this he was ridiculed. But we know that he was right. Still more impressive: he was not afraid to apply his ideas to humans. He thought that natural selection had operated on us, just as it had on fruit flies and centipedes.
As we delve into DNA sequences, we can see natural selection acting at the level of genes. Our genes hold evidence of our intimate associations with other beings, from cows to malaria parasites and grains. The latest research allows us to trace the genetic changes that differentiate us from our primate cousins, and shows that large parts of the human genome bear the stamp of evolution by means of natural selection.
He published important work on subjects as diverse as the biology of carnivorous plants, barnacles, earthworms and the formation of coral reefs. He wrote a travelogue, “The Voyage of the Beagle,” that was an immediate best seller and remains a classic of its kind. And as if that was not enough, he discovered two major forces in evolution — natural selection and sexual selection — and wrote three radical scientific masterpieces, “On the Origin of Species” (1859), “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex” (1871) and “The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals” (1872).
Friday, January 15, 2021
One more time to help morons understand.
Evolution by natural selection killed the ridiculous god fantasy.
If the god fairy wasn't necessary for the development of new species, then why pretend it would be necessary for anything else?
If the god fairy wasn't necessary for the development of new species, then why pretend it would be necessary for anything else?
Saturday, December 26, 2020
Here in Idiot America our Christian assholes, aka creationist morons, like to say "microevolution, not macroevolution." They have used this bullshit millions of times to defend their breathtaking stupidity.
I looked it up.
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:
mutation
migration
genetic drift
natural selection
I also found this:
For biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:
mutation
migration
genetic drift
natural selection
For biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.
Thursday, December 10, 2020
I adding this to my list of favorite quotes. It's about how natural selection works.
"Most genetic mutations are neutral, not fatal or debilitating. Most of the remaining mutations are deleterious, though not necessarily fatal. A few are beneficial. Mutations that are neutral or beneficial tend to be passed along to the next generation."
-- Bulldog redux
-- Bulldog redux
Tuesday, November 24, 2020
There is a lot of extreme stupid in Idiot America. What I wrote for a fucking moron.
"Does it really matter if we evolved or were instantly created?"
Being completely wrong about everything really does matter.
Evolution by natural selection or magical creationism? In other words, science or a childish ridiculous supernatural fantasy?
Anyone who can't figure this out has got a serious insanity problem.
"a point of arguing and bickering and division."
There is no argument. Evolution is how the world works. There is no debate about this obvious fact which is supported by thousands of evidences from DNA sequencing and other branches of science.
A person either understands reality or the person is insane.
Being completely wrong about everything really does matter.
Evolution by natural selection or magical creationism? In other words, science or a childish ridiculous supernatural fantasy?
Anyone who can't figure this out has got a serious insanity problem.
"a point of arguing and bickering and division."
There is no argument. Evolution is how the world works. There is no debate about this obvious fact which is supported by thousands of evidences from DNA sequencing and other branches of science.
A person either understands reality or the person is insane.
Monday, November 23, 2020
What someone else wrote: A very good explanation about how evolution works.
Will cows evolve to be intelligent like humans?
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Whales are close relatives of cows and hippos. Yet toothed whales (i.e. dolphins) are smarter than chimps, our closest living relatives. The dolphins are the next smartest living things on earth besides humans. In fact, before humans evolved, dolphins were the smartest animals that ever lived. Therefore it is certainly possible that the descendants of cows can evolve to be very smart, perhaps not as smart as humans but very smart nevertheless.
If it is possible, then is it probable that cows can give rise to descendants that are very smart. The answer is may be. The reason humans evolved to be so smart is because without our brains, we probably would have become extinct. That is because our ape ancestors were forced to live on the African savanna by stronger apes, when African forests started to shrink due to climate change. To survive on the savanna, where there are lots of dangerous predators but little food, our ancestors needed to evolve traits such as walking on 2 legs, and they have to evolve almond shaped eyes so they can have better peripheral vision than apes. They also needed big brains to figure out where to find food. With our big brains, we have found food that apes do not eat. For example, humans have learned to dig clams during low tide. We learned to dig tubers such as yam and potato out from below the ground. We even eventually learned to grow our own crops. The big brain comes at a cost, however, because it requires a lot of energy to maintain. Our brain weighs less than 3 pounds and yet it consumes 20% of our daily energy. As a result humans have to eat a lot and an energy rich diet just to stay alive. Cows feed mainly on grasses, which have very little calories. in fact it is because we cannot digest grasses which forced us to evolve a big brain to find food. In contrast cows evolved a 4 chambered stomach to eat digest grasses so they did not need a big brain to survive. Different solutions for the same problem by different organisms. That is common in evolution.
In evolution, good enough is good enough. The relatively low intelligence of cows is good enough for them. If they need a big brain to survive, they either evolve one or they become extinct. So, unless there is a real good reason for them to evolve a big brain, chances are that they won't, because it does not do them any good to have a brain that is more costly to maintain but that does not help them survive better. It will force them to eat a lot more in order to maintain a useless organ that consumes a lot of energy. To give you a sociological example, it is like putting a bus sized engine in a small car so that it will consume a lot of gasoline even though it won't get you from point a to point b any faster nor can it transport the same number of passengers as a bus. That is why humans do not put bus sized engines in small cars. It is just wasteful without doing us any good.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Whales are close relatives of cows and hippos. Yet toothed whales (i.e. dolphins) are smarter than chimps, our closest living relatives. The dolphins are the next smartest living things on earth besides humans. In fact, before humans evolved, dolphins were the smartest animals that ever lived. Therefore it is certainly possible that the descendants of cows can evolve to be very smart, perhaps not as smart as humans but very smart nevertheless.
If it is possible, then is it probable that cows can give rise to descendants that are very smart. The answer is may be. The reason humans evolved to be so smart is because without our brains, we probably would have become extinct. That is because our ape ancestors were forced to live on the African savanna by stronger apes, when African forests started to shrink due to climate change. To survive on the savanna, where there are lots of dangerous predators but little food, our ancestors needed to evolve traits such as walking on 2 legs, and they have to evolve almond shaped eyes so they can have better peripheral vision than apes. They also needed big brains to figure out where to find food. With our big brains, we have found food that apes do not eat. For example, humans have learned to dig clams during low tide. We learned to dig tubers such as yam and potato out from below the ground. We even eventually learned to grow our own crops. The big brain comes at a cost, however, because it requires a lot of energy to maintain. Our brain weighs less than 3 pounds and yet it consumes 20% of our daily energy. As a result humans have to eat a lot and an energy rich diet just to stay alive. Cows feed mainly on grasses, which have very little calories. in fact it is because we cannot digest grasses which forced us to evolve a big brain to find food. In contrast cows evolved a 4 chambered stomach to eat digest grasses so they did not need a big brain to survive. Different solutions for the same problem by different organisms. That is common in evolution.
In evolution, good enough is good enough. The relatively low intelligence of cows is good enough for them. If they need a big brain to survive, they either evolve one or they become extinct. So, unless there is a real good reason for them to evolve a big brain, chances are that they won't, because it does not do them any good to have a brain that is more costly to maintain but that does not help them survive better. It will force them to eat a lot more in order to maintain a useless organ that consumes a lot of energy. To give you a sociological example, it is like putting a bus sized engine in a small car so that it will consume a lot of gasoline even though it won't get you from point a to point b any faster nor can it transport the same number of passengers as a bus. That is why humans do not put bus sized engines in small cars. It is just wasteful without doing us any good.
Thursday, November 19, 2020
Somebody answered a question about evolution. I learned something today: The definition of GFY - Go fuck yourself.
Did God guide or invent or use evolution? Or is evolution a natural process and God had nothing to do with it?
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Good gravy, no.
No god anywhere has anything to do with the passing down of inheritable traits over generations. It's not magic or woo or some supernatural anything.
Clearly, some of you can't look up what evolution actually is. I don't get the deliberate arrogance in not knowing this basic science but GFY. Just slither away. Oh and the next time you get sick, thoughts and prayers only. You don't get to diss evolution then use the products of evolution to cure or help your slack asses. Denied.
-- Madam Sin Bin
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Good gravy, no.
No god anywhere has anything to do with the passing down of inheritable traits over generations. It's not magic or woo or some supernatural anything.
Clearly, some of you can't look up what evolution actually is. I don't get the deliberate arrogance in not knowing this basic science but GFY. Just slither away. Oh and the next time you get sick, thoughts and prayers only. You don't get to diss evolution then use the products of evolution to cure or help your slack asses. Denied.
-- Madam Sin Bin
Thursday, October 29, 2020
Wednesday, September 23, 2020
Some interesting science.
| |||||||||||||
|
Washington Post
Health
Massive genetic study shows coronavirus mutating and potentially evolving amid rapid U.S. spread
The largest U.S. genetic study of the virus, conducted in Houston, shows one viral strain outdistancing all of its competitors, and many potentially important mutations
By Chris Mooney , Joel Achenbach and Joe Fox
September 23, 2020
PLEASE NOTE
The Washington Post is providing this important information about the coronavirus for free. For more free coverage of the coronavirus pandemic, sign up for our Coronavirus Updates newsletter where all stories are free to read.
Scientists in Houston on Wednesday released a study of more than 5,000 genetic sequences of the coronavirus, which reveals the virus’s continual accumulation of mutations, one of which may have made it more contagious.
That mutation is associated with a higher viral load among patients upon initial diagnosis, the researchers found.
The new report, however, did not find that these mutations have made the virus deadlier. All viruses accumulate genetic mutations, and most are insignificant, scientists say.
The new study, which has not been peer-reviewed, was posted Wednesday on the preprint server MedRxiv. It appears to be the largest single aggregation of genetic sequences of the virus in the United States thus far. A larger batch of sequences was published earlier this month by scientists in the United Kingdom, and, like the Houston study, concluded that a mutation that changes the structure of the “spike protein” on the surface of the virus may be driving the outsized spread of that particular strain.
Coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV-2 are relatively stable as viruses go, because they have a proofreading mechanism as they replicate. But every mutation is a roll of the dice, and with transmission so widespread in the United States — which continues to see tens of thousands of new, confirmed infections daily — the virus has had abundant opportunities to change, potentially with troublesome consequences, said study author James Musser of Houston Methodist Hospital.
“We have given this virus a lot of chances,” Musser told The Washington Post. “There is a huge population size out there right now.”
Scientists from Weill Cornell Medicine, the University of Chicago, Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Texas at Austin also contributed to the study.
[Get a free briefing on the latest pandemic developments in your inbox with our Coronavirus Updates newsletter]
David Morens, a virologist at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, reviewed the new study and said the findings point to the strong possibility that the virus, as it has moved through the population, has become more transmissible, and that this “may have implications for our ability to control it.”
Morens noted that this is a single paper, and “you don’t want to over-interpret what this means.” But the virus, he said, could potentially be responding — through random mutations — to such interventions as mask-wearing and social distancing, Morens said Wednesday.
“Wearing masks, washing our hands, all those things are barriers to transmissibility, or contagion, but as the virus becomes more contagious it statistically is better at getting around those barriers,” said Morens, senior adviser to Anthony S. Fauci, the director of NIAID.
This has implications for the formulation of vaccines, he said. As people gain immunity, either through infections or a vaccine, the virus could be under selective pressure to evade the human immune response.
“Although we don’t know yet, it is well within the realm of possibility that this coronavirus, when our population-level immunity gets high enough, this coronavirus will find a way to get around our immunity,” Morens said. “If that happened, we’d be in the same situation as with flu. We’ll have to chase the virus and, as it mutates, we’ll have to tinker with our vaccine.”
Peter Thielen, a molecular biologist at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, added that other studies have similarly found that one particular strain coronavirus strain seems to be outdistancing others. As for additional mutations found in the new study, he commented that it will be important to test them in animal models “to see if the virus fitness is impacted, and if SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility is truly increased as a result of these mutations.”
At Houston Methodist, whose main hospital is part of the Texas Medical Center in central Houston but also includes hospitals around the city, scientists have been sequencing the 30,000-character genome of the coronavirus since early March, when the virus first appears to have arrived in the metropolitan area of 7 million. The paper documents 5,085 sequences.
The research shows that the virus disseminated across Houston neighborhoods in two waves, first striking wealthier and older individuals but then spreading, in the second wave, to younger people and lower income neighborhoods — affecting many Latino city residents.
At the same time, as the virus spread Zip code by Zip code, it also compiled a catalogue of mutations, many affecting the spike protein. That structure on the surface of the virus, which resembles a tree decked with curled ribbons, enables the virus to enter cells.
The genetic data show the virus arrived in Houston many times, presumably at first by air travel. Notably, 71 percent of the viruses that arrived initially were characterized by a now famous mutation, which appears to have originated in China, that scientists increasingly suspect may give the virus a biological advantage in how it spreads. It is called D614G, referring to the substitution of an amino acid called aspartic acid (D) for one called glycine (G) in a region of the genome that encodes for the spike protein.
By the second wave of the outbreak in Houston, the study found that this variant had leaped to 99.9 percent prevalence — completing its domination of the outbreak. The researchers found that people infected with the strain had higher loads of virus in their upper respiratory tracts, a potential factor in making the strain spread more effectively.
Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at the Scripps Research Institute in California, who was not involved in the new research, downplayed the significance of the new study. He said it “just confirms what has already been described — G increased in frequency over time.” As for the numerous other mutations the study finds, “they just catalogue them, but we don’t know if any of them have any functional relevance.”
Musser said his interpretation is that D614G has been increasingly dominant in Houston and other areas because it is better adapted to spreading among humans. He acknowledged that the scientific case is not closed on this matter.
“This isn’t a murder trial,” Musser said. “We’re not looking for beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a civil trial, and clearly, it’s the preponderance of the evidence that I think forces all of us into the same conclusion, which is there’s something biologically different about that strain, that family of strains.”
Recently, the even larger study of the spread of the coronavirus in the United Kingdom, based on some 25,000 genomes, also found evidence that this variant of the virus outdistances its competitors “in a manner consistent with a selective advantage.”
In general, scientists would expect natural selection to favor mutations that help the virus spread more effectively — since that allows it to make more copies of itself — but not necessarily ones that make it more virulent. Killing or incapacitating the host would generally not help the virus spread to more people.
The study found 285 separate mutation sites that actually change a physical building block of the spike protein, which is the most important part of the coronavirus in the sense that it is what allows it to infect and harm humans. Forty-nine of the changes at these sites had not been seen before in other genomes sequenced around the world.
The study characterizes some of the spike protein mutations as “disconcerting.” While the paper does not present strong proof that any additional evolution of the spike protein is occurring, it suggests that these repeated substitutions provide a hint that, as the virus interacts with our bodies and our immune systems, it may be learning new tricks that help it respond to its host.
“I think there’s pretty good evidence that’s consistent with immunologic selection acting on certain regions of the spike protein,” Musser said.
The actual mutations in the virus occur randomly as it makes mistakes trying to copy its genome within our cells. But every new case gives a chance for more mutations to occur, which in turn increases the chance that one of these mutations will be useful to the virus, just as D614G apparently already has been.
Sarah Kaplan and Aaron Steckelberg contributed to this report. This is a developing story.
Sunday, September 13, 2020
I have lots of time to waste so I wrote this for some god-soaked morons.
We exist thanks to evolution by natural selection and God had nothing to do with it. So why pretend God was required for anything else?
Saturday, September 12, 2020
What a biologist wrote about natural selection and genetic drift.
Natural selection is NOT random. It is directional. For example, there is nothing random about the evolution of walking on 2 legs. When the ancestors of humans needed to walk on 2 legs, any mutations that arise that help them walk better on 2 legs would be adaptive, and any mutation that makes them worse would be deleterious. Deleterious mutations are eliminated but adaptive ones are retained and may even spread. Natural selection allows an adaptive trait to evolve fairly quickly because they give an individual and its descendants a big advantage in survival or reproduction.
Selectively neutral traits (traits that do not affect survival) evolve randomly and their evolution is called genetic drift. Genetic drift is random and depends entirely on chance. For example, serum albumin is selectively neutral, and that is why it can evolve randomly through genetic drift. Genetically neutral mutations are most often found in the 3rd nucleotide of a codon, since a change in that nucleotide usually does not change the amino acid that is being encoded. Because neutral mutations are random, they can be used as molecular clocks. Adaptive traits however are poor candidates for the molecular clock.
If you have some special talents and you inherited it, then it is probably because the genes you have allowed your ancestors to survive better than the average person. And that is why those genes passed down through to you over many generations.
-- Anonymous
Selectively neutral traits (traits that do not affect survival) evolve randomly and their evolution is called genetic drift. Genetic drift is random and depends entirely on chance. For example, serum albumin is selectively neutral, and that is why it can evolve randomly through genetic drift. Genetically neutral mutations are most often found in the 3rd nucleotide of a codon, since a change in that nucleotide usually does not change the amino acid that is being encoded. Because neutral mutations are random, they can be used as molecular clocks. Adaptive traits however are poor candidates for the molecular clock.
If you have some special talents and you inherited it, then it is probably because the genes you have allowed your ancestors to survive better than the average person. And that is why those genes passed down through to you over many generations.
-- Anonymous
Friday, August 28, 2020
What I wrote at the Wall Street Journal about Idiot America's "Liberty University". I made one know-nothing science denier cry. The stupid, it burns.
"its reputation for training champions for Christ."
This disgusting university teaches magical creationism. Evolution makes them cry.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
The fucktard for Jeebus dishonestly says scientists believe in his god fairy. What he wrote is typical Christian stupid. He doesn't understand natural selection, and his stupidity is overwhelming. "Duh, duh, the Magic Man did it, duh."
"So you believe we all come from lightning striking water followed by a series of lucky happenstance? Man, that's crazy talk. It's much more likely a higher being made this happen. Even most scientists believe in God."
This disgusting university teaches magical creationism. Evolution makes them cry.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
The fucktard for Jeebus dishonestly says scientists believe in his god fairy. What he wrote is typical Christian stupid. He doesn't understand natural selection, and his stupidity is overwhelming. "Duh, duh, the Magic Man did it, duh."
"So you believe we all come from lightning striking water followed by a series of lucky happenstance? Man, that's crazy talk. It's much more likely a higher being made this happen. Even most scientists believe in God."
Sunday, August 23, 2020
I wrote this for one of the Christian retards who infest the Wall Street Journal.
"The Bible says that we were created in the image of God"
These days we know that's wrong. We have something called evolution by natural selection.
These days we know that's wrong. We have something called evolution by natural selection.
Monday, July 27, 2020
Human Apes are a big fucking deal according to Jerry Coyne.
This quote is from "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne.
"We are the one creature to whom natural selection has bequeathed a brain complex enough to comprehend the laws that govern the universe. And we should be proud that we are the only species that has figured out how we came to be."
"We are the one creature to whom natural selection has bequeathed a brain complex enough to comprehend the laws that govern the universe. And we should be proud that we are the only species that has figured out how we came to be."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)