Viruses are not alive,motile,self aware ,or prescient.They are packets of protein and nucleic acid entirely and absolutely dependant on their host cell to reproduce.To do so they fuse with a specific site on the target cell wall. This specificity is critical and why ,as a example, we don't get tobacco mosaic virus and tobacco doesn't get the flu.So how does it manage to kill just the "adults"? Let's suppose ( this is science fiction so we are allowed some arm waving) the cells comprising the human central nervous system (CNS) undergo some kind of change during puberty which leaves them with a differently configured cell wall. This different cofiguration would be the target receptor.Infection of the CNS would account for the blackouts, dementia and quick experation of the victims. The children would be getting a massive and continous exposure to the virus which would not be able to touch them, but which would be recognised dealt with, and "remembered" by their immune systems.. which would protect the post puberty. Actually if what was said about the the virus being passed by touch and the corpses only being infective for a few days after death were true, then all would be clear a few days after the last adult croaked. Any residual virus would be degraded UV,oxidation) or eaten (tasty packets of protein and nucleic acid) by the bacteria which cover every suface in sight. (even more abundant with all those putrefying parents lying around)The idea about the eccrine glands was an sharp one except that they are excretory in function and a non motile bug would be hard pressed to go against the flow. So 15 years later there should be no virus around (with the excepion of the girl in isolation at TM ),unless the group which spread the virus so well and completely in the first case becomes disenchanted with the results of their work and hits the reset button on humanity again.
-
The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.
Virus
- Thread starter grendel
- Start date
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
The big posibility is it was a virus made in a lab. Thats what we all pretty much believe
capt
capt
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CaptDS9E:
<font color=yellow>The big posibility is it was a virus made in a lab. Thats what we all pretty much believe
capt</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
Modified in a lab is probably more accurate.
<font color=yellow>The big posibility is it was a virus made in a lab. Thats what we all pretty much believe
capt</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
Modified in a lab is probably more accurate.
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
Because the virus works with Human cells and Human proteins and Human nucleic acids (without killing any other species) it cannot easily be extraterrestial. Anything of extraterrestial origin would split between two scenarios:
1. Harmless to everything on Earth due to incompatibility.
2. Very dangerous to everything on Earth.
The first scenario is more likely.
As for the virus disappearing from environment: one should not count on that. In suitable conditions (cool, no sunlight, no bacteria) viruses can last very long. Secondly, if we were to assume that it behaved like an ordinary virus, we should have some more typical scenarios.
1. Adults with no target marker - survived the disease.
2. People who "knew" its natural form - fought it off.
3. People with half-expressed marker - fell ill but lived.
4. People in intermediate age groups - passed it to others.
5. People with weak immune systems - live but carry infection.
6. Virus itself - adapts to become milder and more infectious.
1. Harmless to everything on Earth due to incompatibility.
2. Very dangerous to everything on Earth.
The first scenario is more likely.
As for the virus disappearing from environment: one should not count on that. In suitable conditions (cool, no sunlight, no bacteria) viruses can last very long. Secondly, if we were to assume that it behaved like an ordinary virus, we should have some more typical scenarios.
1. Adults with no target marker - survived the disease.
2. People who "knew" its natural form - fought it off.
3. People with half-expressed marker - fell ill but lived.
4. People in intermediate age groups - passed it to others.
5. People with weak immune systems - live but carry infection.
6. Virus itself - adapts to become milder and more infectious.
Because the virus works with Human cells and Human proteins and Human nucleic acids
Once you go subcellular the distinctions disappear and become more generic, not human nucleic acids as such but nucleic acids in a human sequence.And considering we differ from chimpanzes by only 3% not much of one at that.
1. Harmless to everything on Earth due to incompatibility.
Most likely the real case,but you could make a argument from the concept of "convergent evolution",in short similar recipes give similar products, and mayby similar succeptibilities. I believe this was posted as a possible explanation for Markab virus jumping species
2. Very dangerous to everything on Earth.
Not if we are talking about a infectious agent, a toxin mayby but it's mode of action would have to more caustic than specific.
The first scenario is more likely.
Yep.
As for the virus disappearing from environment: one should not count on that. In suitable conditions (cool, no sunlight, no bacteria) viruses can last very long.
Viruses are dependant on the habits of the host and the vagaries of the enviorment to 'get around' bacteria on the other hand, being independant life forms ,are found from 5 miles up in the atmosphere to 2 miles below the surface and everywhere in between.And even if the BD virus were to find such a place there is still good ole' Mr.Entropy to deal with.
Secondly, if we were to assume that it behaved like an ordinary virus, we should have some more typical scenarios.
1. Adults with no target marker - survived the disease
Adults without the target configuration would not be infected in the first place..
2. People who "knew" its natural form - fought it off.
?With what?Ribavirin?immune sera taken from adults in #1?
3. People with half-expressed marker - fell ill but lived
Again either you have the receptor or you don't
4. People in intermediate age groups - passed it to others
As above
5. People with weak immune systems - live but carry infection
This virus kills so very quickly, Dr Marcus had expired before his wife's body had even started to bloat.(unless he was infected before he left TM) Anyway the patency of the victims immune sytem would not really matter, the host would simply be overwhelmed and dead before a significant response was mounted.
6. Virus itself - adapts to become milder and more infectious.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
For many viruses, humans are(no pun intended) a deadend host. Due to the fact that we are not part of the natural cycle(host/s) that the virus reproduces in and through.So while Hantavirus could be mild in it's rodent host it can and does infect and kill humans.and it does not matter how many.
Lastly,In general lifeforms do not "adapt", preexisting characteristics extant in the species as a group allow the members possesing them to take advantage or survive some change in their enviorment and thereby prosper.
Evolution ,or mutation for that matter, has no intent or linearity
Once you go subcellular the distinctions disappear and become more generic, not human nucleic acids as such but nucleic acids in a human sequence.And considering we differ from chimpanzes by only 3% not much of one at that.
1. Harmless to everything on Earth due to incompatibility.
Most likely the real case,but you could make a argument from the concept of "convergent evolution",in short similar recipes give similar products, and mayby similar succeptibilities. I believe this was posted as a possible explanation for Markab virus jumping species
2. Very dangerous to everything on Earth.
Not if we are talking about a infectious agent, a toxin mayby but it's mode of action would have to more caustic than specific.
The first scenario is more likely.
Yep.
As for the virus disappearing from environment: one should not count on that. In suitable conditions (cool, no sunlight, no bacteria) viruses can last very long.
Viruses are dependant on the habits of the host and the vagaries of the enviorment to 'get around' bacteria on the other hand, being independant life forms ,are found from 5 miles up in the atmosphere to 2 miles below the surface and everywhere in between.And even if the BD virus were to find such a place there is still good ole' Mr.Entropy to deal with.
Secondly, if we were to assume that it behaved like an ordinary virus, we should have some more typical scenarios.
1. Adults with no target marker - survived the disease
Adults without the target configuration would not be infected in the first place..
2. People who "knew" its natural form - fought it off.
?With what?Ribavirin?immune sera taken from adults in #1?
3. People with half-expressed marker - fell ill but lived
Again either you have the receptor or you don't
4. People in intermediate age groups - passed it to others
As above
5. People with weak immune systems - live but carry infection
This virus kills so very quickly, Dr Marcus had expired before his wife's body had even started to bloat.(unless he was infected before he left TM) Anyway the patency of the victims immune sytem would not really matter, the host would simply be overwhelmed and dead before a significant response was mounted.
6. Virus itself - adapts to become milder and more infectious.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
For many viruses, humans are(no pun intended) a deadend host. Due to the fact that we are not part of the natural cycle(host/s) that the virus reproduces in and through.So while Hantavirus could be mild in it's rodent host it can and does infect and kill humans.and it does not matter how many.
Lastly,In general lifeforms do not "adapt", preexisting characteristics extant in the species as a group allow the members possesing them to take advantage or survive some change in their enviorment and thereby prosper.
Evolution ,or mutation for that matter, has no intent or linearity
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
Some remarks:
In certain conditions, given a limited number of practical options, evolution has some "typical" courses. When two species meet and start affecting each other, the result can often be guessed by imagining the relevant optimality models.
When viruses of similar strands (can be targeted with the same antibodies) compete for infecting host cells, and host immune systems counteradapt to defend against them, the optimality model tends to favour quick infection and distribution with limited harm to the host organism.
<font color=yellow>I will now commit the offense of personalizing evolution. It has no person. It obtains a direction only in meaningful interaction between different evolving agents. What I am really trying to do is describing a good evolutionary strategy from the point of view of a virus.</font color=yellow>
Get quickly to the next host. If you wait, others will reach the next host before you. Killing your host harms your ability to spread. Making him/her cough and sneeze makes spreading easier. If you can maintain infection while the host lives, you are a very efficient virus. But counting on this is a short-sighted strategy. If the host dies or the immune system eliminates you, fast spreading will have ensured that your copies will live on.
Therefore upon contacting a new species, try to avoid becoming the black death. Instead strive to become the common cold. Your first epidemic may fail, becoming the black death. You may drive the species extinct, and die with your host population. But if you (and your host) survive the first outbreak, it is imperative that you become milder and maximize your population. Killing the host population does not maximize your population.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Adults without the target configuration would not be infected in the first place.. <hr></blockquote> Sorry for imprecise wording. That was exactly what I meant. There should be adults out there whom the virus does not touch.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>With what? Ribavirin? Immune sera taken from adults in #1?<hr></blockquote> My assumption was that the virus was engineered from a natural variety. Some people must have had antibodies against this natural variety. Upon contacting virus antigens, their bodies could have immediately activated all defense mechanisms, thus fighting off the infection.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Again either you have the receptor or you don't.<hr></blockquote> Not that simple. With an age-specific virus, some cells would have the receptor, others would not. If you belong to the age group in between, the virus can kill only some of your cells. While it infects you, you will have a chance to develop immunity.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>This virus kills so very quickly...<hr></blockquote> It all depends on how the immune system responds. If the immune system is "experieced" enough to fight, but not strong enough to destroy, a balance is likely. The host lives and the virus lives. Hiding in DNA and sleeping, then reactivating and checking if the immune system is still there. Then hiding again. Indefinitely.
---------
To sum it up, that virus is unlikely to have disappeared while people still walk the Earth. Nature is not black and white. There are plenty of grey areas. <font color=yellow>Viruses do not live to kill. Killing is their side effect. They live to live.</font color=yellow>
In certain conditions, given a limited number of practical options, evolution has some "typical" courses. When two species meet and start affecting each other, the result can often be guessed by imagining the relevant optimality models.
When viruses of similar strands (can be targeted with the same antibodies) compete for infecting host cells, and host immune systems counteradapt to defend against them, the optimality model tends to favour quick infection and distribution with limited harm to the host organism.
<font color=yellow>I will now commit the offense of personalizing evolution. It has no person. It obtains a direction only in meaningful interaction between different evolving agents. What I am really trying to do is describing a good evolutionary strategy from the point of view of a virus.</font color=yellow>
Get quickly to the next host. If you wait, others will reach the next host before you. Killing your host harms your ability to spread. Making him/her cough and sneeze makes spreading easier. If you can maintain infection while the host lives, you are a very efficient virus. But counting on this is a short-sighted strategy. If the host dies or the immune system eliminates you, fast spreading will have ensured that your copies will live on.
Therefore upon contacting a new species, try to avoid becoming the black death. Instead strive to become the common cold. Your first epidemic may fail, becoming the black death. You may drive the species extinct, and die with your host population. But if you (and your host) survive the first outbreak, it is imperative that you become milder and maximize your population. Killing the host population does not maximize your population.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Adults without the target configuration would not be infected in the first place.. <hr></blockquote> Sorry for imprecise wording. That was exactly what I meant. There should be adults out there whom the virus does not touch.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>With what? Ribavirin? Immune sera taken from adults in #1?<hr></blockquote> My assumption was that the virus was engineered from a natural variety. Some people must have had antibodies against this natural variety. Upon contacting virus antigens, their bodies could have immediately activated all defense mechanisms, thus fighting off the infection.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Again either you have the receptor or you don't.<hr></blockquote> Not that simple. With an age-specific virus, some cells would have the receptor, others would not. If you belong to the age group in between, the virus can kill only some of your cells. While it infects you, you will have a chance to develop immunity.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>This virus kills so very quickly...<hr></blockquote> It all depends on how the immune system responds. If the immune system is "experieced" enough to fight, but not strong enough to destroy, a balance is likely. The host lives and the virus lives. Hiding in DNA and sleeping, then reactivating and checking if the immune system is still there. Then hiding again. Indefinitely.
---------
To sum it up, that virus is unlikely to have disappeared while people still walk the Earth. Nature is not black and white. There are plenty of grey areas. <font color=yellow>Viruses do not live to kill. Killing is their side effect. They live to live.</font color=yellow>
As preface, and to muddle the waters further, the orginal quip about a non terrestrial origin for BD was more to the idea that the BD is just a kind of terraforming ,removing the pesky dominant lifeform from a world to be utilized.
Secondly finding a bug, viral or otherwise that can infect and kill so a large portion of our phenotypicly varient species is nil.We stick our nose everywhere, come into contact with agents our immune system has not met before, lose individuals but our immune spectrum becomes stronger for it.
In any case, once more into the breach!
In certain conditions, given a limited number of practical options, evolution has some "typical" courses. When two species meet and start affecting each other, the result can often be guessed by imagining the relevant optimality models.
Practical options?So the species think about it?
When viruses of similar strands (can be targeted with the same antibodies) compete for infecting host cells, and host immune systems counteradapt to defend against them, the optimality model tends to favour quick infection and distribution with limited harm to the host organism.
Again viruses do not move under their own power, they are not little drills equipped with jetpacks.In the above example the sucessful (but potentially suicidal) course would be to produce as many copies of the viron as possible, breakout of the cell thus killing it and out compete by numbers the milquetoast version of itself.The fate of the host is irrelavent as long as the virus can infect new ones.Humans have been encountering hydrophobia for millenia but we have yet to see a kinder/gentler version thereof.
<font color=yellow>I will now commit the offense of personalizing evolution. It has no person. It obtains a direction only in meaningful interaction between different evolving agents. What I am really trying to do is describing a good evolutionary strategy from the point of view of a virus.</font color=yellow>
Get quickly to the next host. If you wait, others will reach the next host before you. Killing your host harms your ability to spread.
But in this case killing the host in wholesale lots thereby collapsing their infrastruture would prevent them from using quarantine and other means to stop you.
Making him/her cough and sneeze makes spreading easier. If you can maintain infection while the host lives, you are a very efficient virus. But counting on this is a short-sighted strategy. If the host dies or the immune system eliminates you, fast spreading will have ensured that your copies will live on.
Good enough
Therefore upon contacting a new species, try to avoid becoming the black death.
Again, they don't think, plan ,or get e-mail for that matter.
Instead strive to become the common cold. Your first epidemic may fail, becoming the black death. You may drive the species extinct, and die with your host population. But if you (and your host) survive the first outbreak, it is imperative that you become milder and maximize your population. Killing the host population does not maximize your population.
True enough if we are talking about the natural reservior but for a dead end host it does not matter if it kills none, one ,or all.
Beside it appears to be a weapon of sorts and as such you would wan't it to burn through the target population as quickly as possible and then disappear completely so as not to threaten you or your plans.
Sorry for imprecise wording. That was exactly what I meant. There should be adults out there whom the virus does not touch.
No need to apologize at any level whatsoever, this is way to much fun.
My assumption was that the virus was engineered from a natural variety. Some people must have had antibodies against this natural variety. Upon contacting virus antigens, their bodies could have immediately activated all defense mechanisms, thus fighting off the infection
And this doesn't even address the people who (a minium of 1:20,000 ) because of congenital, pathological,or accidental misadventure lack the wherewithal to reach puberty!
Not that simple. With an age-specific virus, some cells would have the receptor, others would not. If you belong to the age group in between, the virus can kill only some of your cells. While it infects you, you will have a chance to develop immunity.
Again ,it kills too quick.Or to put it another way if the "few"cells its killing comprise the vagal pressure sensors in the aorta the host is still going to be taking a dirt nap.
It all depends on how the immune system responds. If the immune system is "experieced" enough to fight, but not strong enough to destroy, a balance is likely. The host lives and the virus lives. Hiding in DNA and sleeping, then reactivating and checking if the immune system is still there. Then hiding again. Indefinitely.
----
-----Ok .. they don,t have drills, jet packs or tiny sensor arrays either. They have no way of "determining" the patency of the immune system.But to be fair the causitive agent for chicken pox exibits a behavior like this , being locked in the host cells and only freed in the subject suffers trauma, but it does not free itself for a lookround.
To sum it up, that virus is unlikely to have disappeared while people still walk the Earth. Nature is not black and white. There are plenty of grey areas. <font color=yellow>Viruses do not live to kill. Killing is their side effect. They live to live.</font color=yellow></font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
But this does not preclude behavior that on the face of it is suicidal (lemmings attempting to migrate across a land bridge that isn't there anymore comes to mind)
As an aside, and not to bepresumptuous, where but the works of JMS would you find a didactic such as this ,albeit more than a little retentive?
Secondly finding a bug, viral or otherwise that can infect and kill so a large portion of our phenotypicly varient species is nil.We stick our nose everywhere, come into contact with agents our immune system has not met before, lose individuals but our immune spectrum becomes stronger for it.
In any case, once more into the breach!
In certain conditions, given a limited number of practical options, evolution has some "typical" courses. When two species meet and start affecting each other, the result can often be guessed by imagining the relevant optimality models.
Practical options?So the species think about it?
When viruses of similar strands (can be targeted with the same antibodies) compete for infecting host cells, and host immune systems counteradapt to defend against them, the optimality model tends to favour quick infection and distribution with limited harm to the host organism.
Again viruses do not move under their own power, they are not little drills equipped with jetpacks.In the above example the sucessful (but potentially suicidal) course would be to produce as many copies of the viron as possible, breakout of the cell thus killing it and out compete by numbers the milquetoast version of itself.The fate of the host is irrelavent as long as the virus can infect new ones.Humans have been encountering hydrophobia for millenia but we have yet to see a kinder/gentler version thereof.
<font color=yellow>I will now commit the offense of personalizing evolution. It has no person. It obtains a direction only in meaningful interaction between different evolving agents. What I am really trying to do is describing a good evolutionary strategy from the point of view of a virus.</font color=yellow>
Get quickly to the next host. If you wait, others will reach the next host before you. Killing your host harms your ability to spread.
But in this case killing the host in wholesale lots thereby collapsing their infrastruture would prevent them from using quarantine and other means to stop you.
Making him/her cough and sneeze makes spreading easier. If you can maintain infection while the host lives, you are a very efficient virus. But counting on this is a short-sighted strategy. If the host dies or the immune system eliminates you, fast spreading will have ensured that your copies will live on.
Good enough
Therefore upon contacting a new species, try to avoid becoming the black death.
Again, they don't think, plan ,or get e-mail for that matter.
Instead strive to become the common cold. Your first epidemic may fail, becoming the black death. You may drive the species extinct, and die with your host population. But if you (and your host) survive the first outbreak, it is imperative that you become milder and maximize your population. Killing the host population does not maximize your population.
True enough if we are talking about the natural reservior but for a dead end host it does not matter if it kills none, one ,or all.
Beside it appears to be a weapon of sorts and as such you would wan't it to burn through the target population as quickly as possible and then disappear completely so as not to threaten you or your plans.
Sorry for imprecise wording. That was exactly what I meant. There should be adults out there whom the virus does not touch.
No need to apologize at any level whatsoever, this is way to much fun.
My assumption was that the virus was engineered from a natural variety. Some people must have had antibodies against this natural variety. Upon contacting virus antigens, their bodies could have immediately activated all defense mechanisms, thus fighting off the infection
And this doesn't even address the people who (a minium of 1:20,000 ) because of congenital, pathological,or accidental misadventure lack the wherewithal to reach puberty!
Not that simple. With an age-specific virus, some cells would have the receptor, others would not. If you belong to the age group in between, the virus can kill only some of your cells. While it infects you, you will have a chance to develop immunity.
Again ,it kills too quick.Or to put it another way if the "few"cells its killing comprise the vagal pressure sensors in the aorta the host is still going to be taking a dirt nap.
It all depends on how the immune system responds. If the immune system is "experieced" enough to fight, but not strong enough to destroy, a balance is likely. The host lives and the virus lives. Hiding in DNA and sleeping, then reactivating and checking if the immune system is still there. Then hiding again. Indefinitely.
----
-----Ok .. they don,t have drills, jet packs or tiny sensor arrays either. They have no way of "determining" the patency of the immune system.But to be fair the causitive agent for chicken pox exibits a behavior like this , being locked in the host cells and only freed in the subject suffers trauma, but it does not free itself for a lookround.
To sum it up, that virus is unlikely to have disappeared while people still walk the Earth. Nature is not black and white. There are plenty of grey areas. <font color=yellow>Viruses do not live to kill. Killing is their side effect. They live to live.</font color=yellow></font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
But this does not preclude behavior that on the face of it is suicidal (lemmings attempting to migrate across a land bridge that isn't there anymore comes to mind)
As an aside, and not to bepresumptuous, where but the works of JMS would you find a didactic such as this ,albeit more than a little retentive?
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Ok .. they don,t have drills, jet packs or tiny sensor arrays either. They have no way of "determining" the patency of the immune system. But to be fair the causitive agent for chicken pox exibits a behavior like this...<hr></blockquote> This was exactly why I stated that I would commit the offense of personalizing evolution. Viruses do not calculate or plan, but when affected by competition and randomness in large number, they sure leave that impression.
To build on your example, a virus can malfunction and get inserted into host DNA without activation. Such a virus did not plan for that course, but took this course anyway. When after some time, something makes the cell synthesize proteins from the region where the virus is located, the virus activates and destroys the cell. It did not consciously stick its head out to measure immune reaction, but served the same purpose anyway.
Given that such hidden viruses can reside in countless cells, and random events trigger them at random times, it creates the equivalent of "checking for immune response". If the person has aged or fallen ill, making him/her more susceptible, this tiny "test launch" would yield a full infection. One infected person would infect another, and the virus would develop and immune systems would conteradapt, and so forth until the end of time...
Perhaps not until the end of time. I am unsure about the longterm evolutionary perspective of viruses... go ask the associates, it is their specialty.
To build on your example, a virus can malfunction and get inserted into host DNA without activation. Such a virus did not plan for that course, but took this course anyway. When after some time, something makes the cell synthesize proteins from the region where the virus is located, the virus activates and destroys the cell. It did not consciously stick its head out to measure immune reaction, but served the same purpose anyway.
Given that such hidden viruses can reside in countless cells, and random events trigger them at random times, it creates the equivalent of "checking for immune response". If the person has aged or fallen ill, making him/her more susceptible, this tiny "test launch" would yield a full infection. One infected person would infect another, and the virus would develop and immune systems would conteradapt, and so forth until the end of time...
Perhaps not until the end of time. I am unsure about the longterm evolutionary perspective of viruses... go ask the associates, it is their specialty.
yellow]
To build on your example, a virus can malfunction and get inserted into host DNA without activation. Such a virus did not plan for that course, but took this course anyway. When after some time, something makes the cell synthesize proteins from the region where the virus is located,
More likely the DNA polymerase would skip right over it.
the virus activates and destroys the cell. It did not consciously stick its head out to measure immune reaction, but served the same purpose anyway.
I like it but are the neutrophils and monocytes going to stand around and do nothing when this defective viron emerges?
Given that such hidden viruses can reside in countless cells, and random events trigger them at random times,
Whoa. exactley how is this a given, either the number of cells or viruses.a viral core that does not immediately take over the host is going to be treated as waste and excreated remember this varient is going to do the same as it's predecessor.
it creates the equivalent of "checking for immune response". If the person has aged or fallen ill, making him/her more susceptible, this tiny "test launch" would yield a full infection
Of defective virons which get hung up indefinitley inside the host.
. One infected person would infect another, and the virus would develop and immune systems would conteradapt, and so forth until the end of time...
Perhaps not until the end of time. I am unsure about the longterm evolutionary perspective of viruses... go ask the associates,
What Associates?
it is their specialty.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
To build on your example, a virus can malfunction and get inserted into host DNA without activation. Such a virus did not plan for that course, but took this course anyway. When after some time, something makes the cell synthesize proteins from the region where the virus is located,
More likely the DNA polymerase would skip right over it.
the virus activates and destroys the cell. It did not consciously stick its head out to measure immune reaction, but served the same purpose anyway.
I like it but are the neutrophils and monocytes going to stand around and do nothing when this defective viron emerges?
Given that such hidden viruses can reside in countless cells, and random events trigger them at random times,
Whoa. exactley how is this a given, either the number of cells or viruses.a viral core that does not immediately take over the host is going to be treated as waste and excreated remember this varient is going to do the same as it's predecessor.
it creates the equivalent of "checking for immune response". If the person has aged or fallen ill, making him/her more susceptible, this tiny "test launch" would yield a full infection
Of defective virons which get hung up indefinitley inside the host.
. One infected person would infect another, and the virus would develop and immune systems would conteradapt, and so forth until the end of time...
Perhaps not until the end of time. I am unsure about the longterm evolutionary perspective of viruses... go ask the associates,
What Associates?
it is their specialty.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>What Associates?<hr></blockquote>
The associates... the ones Mr. Morden used to have. It was quite obvious that viruses were their fourth favourite thing in the universe, so they should know...
The associates... the ones Mr. Morden used to have. It was quite obvious that viruses were their fourth favourite thing in the universe, so they should know...
Lyta
Moderator
Originally posted by CaptDS9E:
<font color=yellow>The big posibility is it was a virus made in a lab. Thats what we all pretty much believe</font color=yellow>
I agree but as I was bookmarking all the recent interview clips, I found one from Sam Egan where he says:
<font color=orange>The core premise of Jeremiah is 15 years after an apocalyptic event has taken place in the year 2006, in which a virus is unleashed upon the world through something that was beyond man's ability to control it. It wasn't malevolent, it was something that happened and it claimed the life of everyone over the age of puberty.</font color=orange>
The full clip is available here: (RealVideo format)
rtsp://showtime.fplive.net/showtime/jeremiah/interviews/segan/segan702.rm
Do we believe Egan? Is he trying to lead us down the wrong path or was it indeed an accident and no malicious intent was involved?
<font color=yellow>The big posibility is it was a virus made in a lab. Thats what we all pretty much believe</font color=yellow>
I agree but as I was bookmarking all the recent interview clips, I found one from Sam Egan where he says:
<font color=orange>The core premise of Jeremiah is 15 years after an apocalyptic event has taken place in the year 2006, in which a virus is unleashed upon the world through something that was beyond man's ability to control it. It wasn't malevolent, it was something that happened and it claimed the life of everyone over the age of puberty.</font color=orange>
The full clip is available here: (RealVideo format)
rtsp://showtime.fplive.net/showtime/jeremiah/interviews/segan/segan702.rm
Do we believe Egan? Is he trying to lead us down the wrong path or was it indeed an accident and no malicious intent was involved?
