5 ms·

How are we sure it is a dead end and how sure are we? It sounds as if this would put extraordinary selective pressures on the virus, if we are wrong I’d fear we

• stefs 4y ago
  if all oxygen in the air was suddenly (by magic) replaced by carbon dioxide it would put extraordinary selective pressure on humans to evolve something other than oxygen-depending lungs. the most likely outcome would be that we'd all die instantly though.
  • jjcon 4y ago
    I like the metaphor! I'd suggest two points, if humans evolved as fast as viruses and we couldn't replace all the oxygen on earth at once (and likely not at all in some places just as we can't get vaccine everywhere at once and not in some places at all) I would think it far more likely for human evolution to figure it out. Unlikely still, but maybe not outside the realm of possibility? In keeping with the metaphor though and as others have pointed out in the thread - non oxygen lungs wouldn't make humans super humans, just different and if anything more likely to be weaker than their oxygen breathing counterparts as they adapt to a new environment? I think that is the running idea I'm getting at least.
• hoffs 4y ago
  Well if it isn't then you just make other antibodies that treat the one that you can't deal with. Like it's a dead end at current time with current understanding. And as for making things worse, well it could or it could make things better by becoming lesser variant.
• robbiep 4y ago
  How are we sure and how are we sure This is basic evolutionary theory that has been subsequently played out in both the lab and in the wild. You can't prove a negative but your requirement for reassurance will only be assuaged by furthering your own understanding of evolution on a molecular level, it doesn't seem like anything I could say to you in a reply to an internet post would make the slightest bit of difference to your skepticism and you'd have to get the basic grounding in yourself. The full answer would require 3-4 years of fulltime study, the shorter answer could be arrived at by reading the blind watchmaker and climbing mount improbably, two highly accessible books on evolutionary biology
  • jjcon 4y ago
    I actually asked ‘how sure are we’ - you’re right though, just saying - learn more about it - isn’t exactly helpful. If it is as ‘basic’ as you say maybe you could explain it rather than just appeal to authority.
    • robbiep 4y ago
      I’m sorry but I can’t state this any more plainly without this turning into a lecture. It is basic evolutionary biology, in as much as gravity keeps your feet attached to the ground. It is not an appeal to authority, it is simply a statement of fact and an underlying premise of a complex field. You seem like the sort of person who likes doing your own research - I’ve given you the key to the door now you just have to walk through it
      • DubiousPusher 4y ago
        Is this a statistical reality? As in it would take a 1/1,000,000 chance to evolve out of this local maxima? Or is it a logical reality? i.e. we know the possible permutations of the RNA and from its current state it could not reach an escape branch? Edit: FYI, my biology is weak but it has occured to me that there must be a topology of evolution.
        • jjcon 4y ago
          This is what I was getting at - almost nothing in my scientific field is 100% and I find that true of most things. Thus my question- how sure are we. If we are at six sigma levels great, but I find that at odds with the little I do know.
      • jjcon 4y ago
        So it is 100% certainty then? Not just very unlikely? The quantification of certainty among experts is what I am wondering
        • robbiep 4y ago