Sociopath Community

Evolutionary Biology: The evolutionary case for SARS-COV-2 being a man made bio-weapon.

https://nerdhaspower.weebly.com/ratg13-is-fake.html

first the conclusion :The most plausible explanation: the Wuhan coronavirus is a bio-weapon made using ZC45/ZXC21 as a template.

"The E protein of β coronaviruses is a structural protein that is tolerant of mutations as evidenced both in SARS and in bat coronaviruses. However, on the amino acid level, E protein of the Wuhan coronavirus identified at the beginning of the outbreak is 100% identical to those of the suspected templates, ZC45 and ZXC21 (Figure 4). What is striking is that, after a short two-months spread of the virus in humans, the E protein is already mutating. Sequence data obtained within the month of April indicate that mutations have occurred to four different locations (Figure 4). Note that the E protein makes very limited interactions with host proteins and thus is not under evolutionary pressure to adapt to a new host. Not only the E protein can tolerate mutations but also its mutational rate is held constant across different coronavirus species. The fact that the E protein of the Wuhan coronaviruses is already mutating in the short period of human-to-human transmission is consistent with its evolutionary feature. In stark contrast, while ZC45/ZXC21 and the Wuhan coronavirus are more distant evolutionarily, the E proteins within them are 100% identical. In no way this could be a result of natural evolution.

Figure 4. Alignment of E proteins of bat and human coronaviruses shatters the notion that the Wuhan coronavirus came from nature. While the early copies of Wuhan coronavirus share 100% identity of the E protein with ZC45, ZXC21, and RaTG13, sequence data of most recent Wuhan coronaviruses indicates that mutation has been observed in four different locations. Accession numbers of viruses (not including the ones listed in Figure 3): Feb_11: MN997409, April_9: MT300186, Apr_13: MT326139, Apr_15_A: MT263389, Apr_15_B: MT293206, Apr_17: MT350246."

Evolutionary biology makes it impossible for the mutation tolerant E protein to be a 100% copy of another distant relative virus (ZC45). The only explanation is that this SARS-CoV-2 virus is man made using the ZC45 as a backbone. Nothing is 100% in evolving nature.

Major Major said: 

No I didn't go to high school because I didn't want to waste my time becoming indoctrinated to a school of thinking that would be utterly useless in my life.

 Why are you even in this discussion if you have no idea what is going on?

Sven said:

Corona virus is man-made because the E-protein is 100% similar to a lab-created virus.

Why is the source a weebly post? By the way, I had no trouble following anything you said. Kudos for that.

PastelPink said: 

Major Major said: 

No I didn't go to high school because I didn't want to waste my time becoming indoctrinated to a school of thinking that would be utterly useless in my life.

 Why are you even in this discussion if you have no idea what Alice is saying?

So that I can understand what Alice is saying, and teach her.

Major Major said: 

Sven said:

Corona virus is man-made because the E-protein is 100% similar to a lab-created virus.

Why is the source a weebly post? By the way, I had no trouble following anything you said. Kudos for that.

 I have no idea why its a weebly post. Looks Chinese to me. The english is a little odd in places.

"Corona virus is man-made because the E-protein is exactly 100% similar to a natural bat virus used as the backbone."

Major Major said: 

No I didn't go to high school because I didn't want to waste my time becoming indoctrinated to a school of thinking that would be utterly useless in my life.

It doesn't matter if one person understands what you're talking about. Clearly someone secret nor Blanc understood... Or wanted to waste the time required to wade through all those details.

Your response isn't helpful at all. Let me... Waste some more time and explain my thought process. There are a few options I can see right now...

1. You just proved evolution through natural selection wrong on a sociopath forum even though you have no professional expertise in evolution theory. You can now fly to Sweden to get your nobel prize.
2. You are wrong.
3. You didn't explain what the fuck you're talking about.

Seeing as there are plenty of scientists who are much smarter and better educated on this topic than you, who've looked at this problem for decades... without some pretty clear evidence I'm inclined to rule out number one.

And there are many good scientists who are skeptical. 

Where does that leave us?

Clearly evolution happens in bacteria. You can even see that in laboratories... As far as I know, it happens through natural selection. So probably your calculation is wrong if it contradicts that.. But since you went "exactly", full-stop, there isn't much more to discuss.

Very interesting, lets slow things down for you. 

I am not taking a stance against evolution, I am point out inconsistencies in Dawrnism. 

Point 1 - 

An evolutionary theory is a theory of change. There is cosmic evolution. Systems evolution. Many things change in time, so there are many evolutionary theories. I experience time, space, and causality. Given that experience I believe in changing systems aka Systems that Evolve. 

Point 2 - 

I believe biological systems are best described via a theory of change, therefore I believe in biological evolution. 

Point 3 -  

I do not believe Dawrnism, one formulation of a evolutionary theory of biology, is tenable because its major claims do not hold up to scrutiny. The fundamental claim of Darwinism, that evolution is derived from two processes: random heritable mutation and natural selection. 

My claim is that the heritable mutations cannot be random.

Support for Claim - 

• The probability of a stable functional protein coming into existence via random mutation is 1/10^77. 
  • This is so unlikely that you could treat it as a 0% chance
• The probability of a single stable functional protein coming into existence over in the earths bacteria population over its entire existence is 1/10^37
  • In other words over the existence of all bacteria ever a mutation might have happened 1 time. Not per a bacteria, 1 time in the entire populations existence. 
• If you treat Protein synthesis as a computation in information system you get an exponential time complexity.
  • This means it takes a really long time to come up with a stable functional protein.

Why did I say exactly? 

I said exactly because we do observe mutations and we observe mutations often. Random mutations that lead to stable functional proteins demand extremely large populations and time scales. We observe such mutations in very small populations and small timescales. Hence the mutations are extremely unlikely to be random and at the least should not dogmatically be seen as THE explanation. 

That was a bit easier to read.

How can can you compute the probability of a stable mutation occurring in the first place...? The only evidence you have contradicts your calculus.. Or are you just assuming that all random states are equally probable and then get that number from the total number of configurations?

Evolution through natural selection doesn't really state that.

The mutations are random, but nowhere does it say that all configurations must occur at an equal probability... We've developed all sorts of sexual selection and what-not to survive as a species. Why can't you do that on a microscopic level as well?

If our children randomly mutated into literally another completely random genetic pile of piss, our next generation would look like this

Why do you think that natural selection couldn't create bacteria that evolved to mutate more favorably towards stable proteins?

Major Major said: 

That was a bit easier to read.

How can can you compute the probability of a stable mutation occurring in the first place...? The only evidence you have contradicts your calculus.. Or are you just assuming that all random states are equally probable and then get that number from the total number of configurations?

You cannot just random sample as you'd never reach an estimate.

Instead you can reduce your search space by knowing what your looking for. In this case what you are looking for is protein with a stable shape and function, and that 'function' is actually a chemical reaction that occurs when there is an interaction between what is called an active site (located on the protein) and some outside molecule. So to find these you look for those active sites which are denoted by a reaction. That's the basic idea. So from these reactions you can infer the different probabilities associated with different types of proteins. 

Luckily a lot microbiologists work on this exact issue because proteins folding is one of the most troubling problems in microbiology so I had a lot to work with. 

So no you do just pick a protein of some length and morph it into a combinatorial expression and assume equal probabilities, if that's what held my argument together you'd be right to doubt its conclusion. 

Evolution through natural selection doesn't really state that.

The mutations are random, but nowhere does it say that all configurations must occur at an equal probability...

Right and I do not assume that it does. 

In my example I utilized a protein chain of 150 because its modest and actually gives Darwin a better chance, same reason I also used bacteria for the population dynamics (steel man situation). 

In reality a protein length of approximately 250 elements is the widely agreed on average and if I used that the probability would be different, it would be lower in fact. 

We've developed all sorts of sexual selection and what-not to survive as a species. Why can't you do that on a microscopic level as well?

Perhaps there is a sort of selection bias that has been established at the microscopic scale that 'selects' possible mutations, but then those mutations would not be random. 

TPG and I were actually discussing a similar idea this morning in which that selector is a thermodynamic phenomena.  

If our children randomly mutated into literally another completely random genetic pile of piss, our next generation would look like this

Yeah, Turq. 

Sorry, really couldn't resist. 

But yes I agree, that would be outrageous. New body types can't just spring up because mutations that sever would have to occur very early on in the offsprings life and would effectively always kill them - evidence of this can be seen in a lot of genetic disorders.

Why do you think that natural selection couldn't create bacteria that evolved to mutate more favorably towards stable proteins?

Because when we look at bacteria today, or any other kind of life form, we find that the majority of all mutations lead to none stable structures that do nothing. 

Having said this, I wish to be clear.

As stated previously I do believe in natural selection.

AliceInWonderland said: 

 

Yeah, Turq. 

Sorry, really couldn't resist. 

 

 Pig and whale and cow make sense while I still have some extra weight on me, but literally of all animals a squirrel? lmao

..........................like, and look at that hand it looks more like the hand of palepeach butterface crackhead, you're likely projecting again. Again, you're the one that chose the relationship you're in so if you're that disgusted by your partner you need therapy instead of attempting to project onto others things that in reality have nothing to do with them :)

That squirrel looks sooo much like a crackhead. Coincidence? I think not ;)

AliceInWonderland said: 

You cannot just random sample as you'd never reach an estimate.

Instead you can reduce your search space by knowing what your looking for. In this case what you are looking for is protein with a stable shape and function, and that 'function' is actually a chemical reaction that occurs when there is an interaction between what is called an active site (located on the protein) and some outside molecule. So to find these you look for those active sites which are denoted by a reaction. That's the basic idea. So from these reactions you can infer the different probabilities associated with different types of proteins. 

Luckily a lot microbiologists work on this exact issue because proteins folding is one of the most troubling problems in microbiology so I had a lot to work with. 

So no you do just pick a protein of some length and morph it into a combinatorial expression and assume equal probabilities, if that's what held my argument together you'd be right to doubt its conclusion. 

Now I have no idea what you're talking about again....You say you don't assume equal probability, and then you say that if it isn't equal probability it's not random. It's really difficult to parse whatever you're trying to say here.

I won't quote the rest because I have no idea what you're talking about.... I'll just quote this instead

Perhaps there is a sort of selection bias that has been established at the microscopic scale that 'selects' possible mutations, but then those mutations would not be random. 

If you have two mutations with 90% and 10% chance of occurring.... Is it not a random process?

Why do you think evolution through natural selection says that every protein mutation must occur at an equal probability? Humans don't evolve through equally probable mutations to random configurations..... Making babies is a messy procedure even if the underlying components that make up people are simple... That's because of emergent properties... Simple shit making complicated shit when they come together through aeons of selection.

There's nothing that contradicts evolution through natural selection there.

If humans can have emergent properties... then why do you assume bacteria can not have them? Why do you think evolution theory insists that all possible protein mutations must occur at an equal probability?