Lung cell images show how intense a coronavirus infection can be

[the54thvoid]

Way to keep a thread like this open ... you just have to suck in the moderator into the conversation.

In fairness, in threads, in conversation, I'm a member. I just have a hall pass to boot. Sometimes, metaphorically, to boot.

Edit: though I'm out of this thread now. Unless required to return...

 

[Space Lynx]

Much of evolutionary biology (which viral mutation comes into) is played out on an accidental stage. A virus does not choose to adapt to it's host. A whole meaure of mutations occur and one might work. That's not intentional. Mutation is random. Yes, there are environmental factors which can influence mutation (normally on very sort term scales) but in general, it is random. 1000 mutations are worthless to that organsim at that time but if one works - presto - evolution.

As for the Mendel Darwin issue - what the latter explained is not diminished by the discovery of genetics - if anything, the genetic field helps support Darwin's theory of the diversification of a species.

Adaptation is a deliberate process (to adapt to overcome) - mutations, by and large, are not deliberate. But as R-T-B says, this isn't a thread on evolutionary biology. Nor are many of us skilled enought to discuss it omn the genetic level, except perhaps for @xkm1948.

the thing I find most fascinating is why does the virus mutate to begin with, i mean it had millions and millions of copying itself itself just fine, minks, cats, dogs, humans all had it and no mutation until now, what was the trigger, why did it mutate, i honestly don't think there is an answer, I understand the argument 'well cells change billions of times over time bla bla bla and your bound to get an error eventually' like I get that... but still i just don't see why it took so long to mutate if it was capable of it to begin with, i dunno

 

[R-T-B]

what was the trigger, why did it mutate

It mutates all the time. One just helped it out majorly, resulting in that variant being more "fit" so it exploded in size.

 

[mtcn77]

why did it mutate

It is not a mutation, only DNA integrating viruses mutate. They are called oncoviruses for this specific reason.
This one has tropism, its infectivity(host persistence) is by repeat infection. It just persists by it, thus it has to be fit. By the way, the difference between Sars and Sars-2(Covid-19) is just this much of adaptations at its docking mechanism.
Originally Sars didn't have a large docking anchor, Sars-2 extended the range of its folding pleats, rearranging its docking mechanism helped in its adaptation.

 

[R-T-B]

Of course it's mutating. You don't need DNA to mutate. You only need RNA replication, which is precisely what viruses do. How do you think there are a many variants of the common cold, AKA coronavirus?

@xkm1948 , back me up here Man (or correct me).

 

[mtcn77]

You don't need DNA to mutate.

You do, they are called oncoviruses. They are all DNA viruses, or negative strand viruses. Then some smart person will state hiv, not knowing what a retrovirus is.

 

[R-T-B]

You do, they are called oncoviruses. They are all DNA viruses, or negative strand viruses. Then some smart person will state hiv, not knowing what a retrovirus is.

Thats why I called on @xkm1948, he actually works this field for a living. I'm not here to argue with you, only get at the truth.

Maybe it's not doing the mutation, as it relies on other cells to transcribe the RNA in the end, but it's still having a muation occur during that transcription. That I remember, pretty sure.

 

[mtcn77]

Thats why I called on @xkm1948, he actually works this field for a living. I'm not here to argue with you, only get at the truth.

You guys just have a dogma. You cannot call it genetic inheritence.

 

[R-T-B]

You guys just have a dogma. You cannot call it genetic inheritence.

As I said, I'm waiting on an expert opinion. I'm not presenting anything as fact, just what I remember from highschool biology. Would love some insight.

And I'm not calling it "genetic inheritance." I'm calling it a mutation.

 

[mtcn77]

but it's still having a mutation occur during that transcription.

It has an error correction mechanism. Quite the opposite of what evolution ideologists think what the virus is doing, it just lives its genetic inheritance, not to evolve and establish your self reinforcing "life without a cause" belief. To you, the virus cannot have an inheritance because it lives by chance while you folks are specially made(believe me, it defies my logic how a darwinist also carries a nested creationist special exception just for itself).
It seems evolutionists are the actual miracle proponents while mendel has no special clauses.

 

[R-T-B]

It has an error correction mechanism.

I am aware (at least for DNA), but it's not perfect (and also only in DNA virus types, not RNA based), hence mutations.

The error-prone ways of RNA synthesis | Virology Blog

Now that we have examined influenza viral RNA synthesis, it's a good time to step back and look at a very important property of this step in viral repl ...

www.virology.ws

Even though DNA polymerases have proofreading abilities, they still make mistakes – on the order of about one misincorporation per 107 to 109 nucleotides polymerized. But the RNA polymerases of RNA viruses are the kings of errors – these enzymes screw up as often as one time for every 1,000 – 100,000 nucleotides polymerized. This high rate of mutation comes from the lack of proofreading ability in RNA polymerases. These enzymes make mistakes, but they can’t correct them. Therefore the mutations remain in the newly synthesized RNA.

Please don't try and make this political.

 

[Space Lynx]

All I know is, I wish I had a remote stable job.

 

[mtcn77]

I am aware (at least for DNA), but it's not perfect (and also only in DNA virus types, not RNA based), hence mutations.

The error-prone ways of RNA synthesis | Virology Blog

Now that we have examined influenza viral RNA synthesis, it's a good time to step back and look at a very important property of this step in viral repl ...

www.virology.ws

Please don't try and make this political.

I'm sorry to say this hot potato is not for debate.
RNA viri aren't as a whole error prone, it is the 'retroviruses' that are because they cannot proofread. This virus has a quarter the rate of error that hiv has. For it to have mutations, it must continue to function with imperfect copies of itself. This one doesn't, it only is infective when it synthesizes perfect copies of itself. You cannot have what you are suggesting in a virus with NO latency.

 

[yotano211]

All I know is, I wish I had a remote stable job.

Youtube is hiring, I made $7 in adsense last month from youtube.

 

[xkm1948]

It is RNA virus. So far it does not seem to integrate itself into human cells’ genome so it is not a retrovirus, yet.

It needs host cell protein synthesis machinery to make new viral RNA and capsules.

Also you do not need DNA to mutate. Viral RNA replication relies on RNA directed RNA polymerase. It is a protein and it makes errors, that is the source of mutation.

A genetic mutation that enables better survivalism is technically an error. That it's beneficial to the organism is secondary. Genetic mutation is a natural but 'random' process. We don't hear about failed mutations. Only those that provide a beneficial outcome.

Adaptation is a human retrospective of hindsight. The virus didn't adapt. It just mutated.

Virus needs to adapt to a wide variety of hosts’ immune system. That is why larger infected population tends to give super spreaders viral strain

 

[kapone32]

Regardless those images are eye watering in the reality of why people end up on respirators. I will be wearing a mask full time in public now too. If there is a vaccine that can clear that up I plan on taking that too. One thing I would suggest to everyone is to try to run a mile a day and do a mucinex flush.

 

[R-T-B]

It is RNA virus. So far it does not seem to integrate itself into human cells’ genome so it is not a retrovirus, yet.

It needs host cell protein synthesis machinery to make new viral RNA and capsules.

Also you do not need DNA to mutate. Viral RNA replication relies on RNA directed RNA polymerase. It is a protein and it makes errors, that is the source of mutation.




Virus needs to adapt to a wide variety of hosts’ immune system. That is why larger infected population tends to give super spreaders viral strain

That's what I thought, thanks.

 

[mtcn77]

Also you do not need DNA to mutate.

Yes, you do. Mutation is a confounding term with no place in biology. It is found in oncology(cancer biology) and such viruses are called oncoviruses.

Virus needs to adapt to a wide variety of hosts’ immune system.

Even you had to say it properly: it is called an 'adaptation'.
Viri are different. They are both obligate parasites, but more than that, they have no external free living lifecycle: when they lose the potential to infect - if they wouldn't have a progeny even when interacted with its host cell due to being malfunct, it is literally dead, the end, for such virus bodies, they can no longer progress in life.
This is different than a mutated cell which continues to operate with faulty genes. These viri aren't it.

 

[Aquinus]

It has an error correction mechanism.

So does the human genome, but errors still occur when when the genes that code the gene checks are the ones that mutate. This is how cancer begins.

 

[dragontamer5788]

So does the human genome, but errors still occur when when the genes that code the gene checks are the ones that mutate. This is how cancer begins.

Cancer cells happen all the time in healthy... everybody. Children, adults, etc. etc. Everyone has cancer cells. Cancer becomes deadly when your own body is unable to kill off cancel cells, and the errors propagate across your body.

The ultimate error correction: kill it before it spreads.

 

[mtcn77]

So does the human genome, but errors still occur when when the genes that code the gene checks are the ones that mutate. This is how cancer begins.

Like I told you, those are called oncoviruses.

A chicken with a dud egg is not hatching mutated eggs, they are infertile.

 

[Aquinus]

Like I told you, those are called oncoviruses.

A chicken with a dud egg is not hatching mutated eggs, they are infertile.

RNA viruses are susceptible to mutation as well, be it a favorable or unfavorable change. We can't control chaos.

 

[mtcn77]

RNA viruses are susceptible to mutation as well, be it a favorable or unfavorable change. We can't control chaos.

There is nothing chaotic. It is an expense to run machinery, proofreading mechanisms are no different. The virus kingdom just by default has less live offspring. A bacteria always has 2 progeny in each replication, a virus has less than 100% effective replication rate. That has nothing to do with genetics. They first have to make it to be statistically significant. Virus bodies are fragile, they don't always do. Think of 0 safety checks, if it even had 'some' like a silent infection, or turned itself into a sleeper gene inside your host genome, it would categorically classify with a potential to mutate. So there is a stark difference between a virus and an oncovirus.

 

[R-T-B]

There is nothing chaotic. It is an expense to run machinery, proofreading mechanisms are no different. The virus kingdom just by default has less live offspring. A bacteria always has 2 progeny in each replication, a virus has less than 100% effective replication rate. That has nothing to do with genetics. They first have to make it to be statistically significant. Virus bodies are fragile, they don't always do. Think of 0 safety checks, if it even had 'some' like a silent infection, or turned itself into a sleeper gene inside your host genome, it would categorically classify with a potential to mutate. So there is a stark difference between a virus and an oncovirus.

Dude you are literally arguing with someone infinitely more qualified than you now. That tells me all I need to know.

 

[mtcn77]

Dude you are literally arguing with someone infinitely more qualified than you now. That tells me all I need to know.

How do you judge that?
Basically, this is what happens when you don't use genetic inheritance and try to stick with your old ways. When you say evolution/mutation, you don't get whether the variant virus can or cannot 'inherit' its genes.
You have the wrong perspective.