So is it safe to say we can blame AIDS on Africa?

[bmacd]

excellent thread. Some interesting theories...but mostly a handful of kids who post up nonsense.

-=bmacd=-

 

[PowerMac4Ever]

Originally posted by: bmacd
excellent thread. Some interesting theories...but mostly a handful of kids who post up nonsense.

-=bmacd=-

you must be new here...

 

[AIWGuru]

Originally posted by: vtqanh

Originally posted by: AIWGuru
There are indications that AIDS is actually the result of modern medicine.
I'll try to explain the theory with the assumption that you have a basic understanding of Darwin's Theory.
HIV is a parasitic virus. Normally, such viruses don't evolve to be fatal to their host since obviously the longer the host lives, the more likely is their reproduction which is where the "selfish gene" ALWAYS draws the line.
HIV has probably been around for millions of years in a non-lethal form.
This is a good conclusion because NO parasite would select for genes which kill the host. That would always be selected for out of necessity.
So what could cause for that kind of selection?

Competition.

We've seen viruses within mice select for more agressive behaviour within only a few thousand generations (days) because of the introduction of a more agressive virus/bacteria competing for the host's resources.

This is kind of oversimplified but the common conception is that AIDS came out of Africa sometime in the 80s and that it came from Monkeys.

This is a little silly.

More than likely, the mutation of HIV into AIDS is a result of evolutionary adaptation to compete against medicine which became widely used between 1950-1980. The way it attacks the immune system and blood HIGHLY suggests this and it's similar to sicle cell anemia.

The fact that simians have a similar virus (not the same as most people think) called SIV (simian imunodeficiency virus) which is not lethal to them and never mutates into AIDS, suggests that HIV was once the same.

Unfortunately, modern medicine and today's understanding of biology/evolution is woefully lacking and we're probably in for a lot more of this...

At least 'the new science of darwinian medicine' (neese, williams) is required reading for most biology and zoology courses in Universities across Canada.

First of all. The conception that AIDS came out of Africa sometime in the 80s and it came from Monkey is actually not common. If by common you mean the general public, then it's wrong because 50% of the general public had no idea about where it came from (they may know Africa has a lot of HIV-infected people). If by common you mean the scientists community, then it's also wrong.
I would rather use the term of HIV than AIDS, since AIDS refers to a state that a person is in, and not really a disease. And there are also some other situations (where a patient's immune system is compromised due to some special medical treatment) that may put a person into the AIDS state.
HIV is commonly believed (by the scientists community) to originate from Africa for several reasons. First of all, Africa is the only place where all of the known clays (subtypes) of HIV are found. Secondly, it is believed that HIV is transmitted from simians to human during hunting/eating process dated back long ago (during those possible processes, the blood may got into their eyes, and/or wounds). Maybe HIVs have been in Africa a long time ago, but haven't had a chance to spread itself around the world due to the lack of intercontinential travel back in that time.

The fact that SIV is not lethal to simians implies that either SIV or simians have evolved to live with each other. Humans and HIV have not quite gotten to this state yet. Maybe we never will. Smallpox has been around for a long long time yet we have not been able to live peacefully with the virus. There are several reasons why HIV is lethal to humans, but not simians. One well-researched reason is that the vif protein of HIV effectively "balanced" one of the antiviral proteins commonly found in humans cell (APOBEC3G). This antiviral protein, if not balanced out by the vif protein, will packaged the HIV virion and prevent it from replicating. Simians have a similar protein as well, but it's different by the human protein only by a single amino acid. And with this seemingly-negligible different, HIV are ineffective against Simians. There is another possible reason that involves some protein called TRIM5 as well.
"The mutation of HIV into AIDS" : There is no such thing as a mutation of a virus into a state/disease. HIV causes AIDS, HIV does not mutate into AIDS.

Damn me and my need for sleep!

Anyway, I'll address some of your points.

- I think this thread demonstrates quite effectively that it is a common misconception.

- "There is no such thing as a mutation of a virus into a state/disease. HIV causes AIDS, HIV does not mutate into AIDS" - Here I wasn't referring to the life-cycle of the virus in the host but the evolutionary path of the virus. The theoretical mutation I was referring to was of HIV from being beniegn to harmful (aids) in a broader evolutionary sense, not within the host.

- I don't believe that your suggestion that simians have evolved to adapt to siv (or visa versa) could be correct. Selection would move in the opposite direction. It would never (ever) start with a selection that harms the host and them move to a more beneign relationship. The only way this could ever happen is if there were a Novel factor long ago which necessitated AIDS rather than HIV (let's accept the distinction) and now that this Novel factor isn't with us any longer, AIDS has been/is being selected against amongst simians. This would be much the same way that sicle cell anemia is being selected against in African Americans living in North America. This is the only way your scenario can hold any water in my eyes but frankly I think it's quite a stretch.

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: rubix
answer here

that's one scary book cover

Wow. Just. Wow.

I want to wrap my hands around the author's neck and squeeze some sense into him. People of his sort are so frustrating.

Disappointed with fame and fortune, Lanoo left Europe and escaped to Los Angeles, where he became homeless for several months.

And who the hell escapes to LA???

 

[AIWGuru]

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: rubix
answer here

that's one scary book cover

Wow. Just. Wow.

I want to wrap my hands around the author's neck and squeeze some sense into him. People of his sort are so frustrating.

Disappointed with fame and fortune, Lanoo left Europe and escaped to Los Angeles, where he became homeless for several months.

And who the hell escapes to LA???

HAHAAHAH!
Wow, that's an impressive book!

-From November 1978 to October 1979, 1083 New York homosexuals were vaccinated against Hepatitis B, under the supervision of Dr. Wolf Szmuness. Today, most of these gay men are dead. They died of AIDS. Coincidence?

Well, now. That depends. Did they already have AIDS and injecting them with a vaccine which is basically a tiny bit of Hep B kill them because of their weakend immune system?

Did it have something to do with rampant homosexual non-use of condoms at the time?

Wait, MOST of them are dead? Meaning more than 50%. And I guess these gay men who all saw the same doctor are all part of the same community and shared the same nightlife and probably many partners...

Yeah, the Doctor probably injected them with the AIDS. Great conclusion...

 

[cquark]

I don't believe that your suggestion that simians have evolved to adapt to siv (or visa versa) could be correct. Selection would move in the opposite direction. It would never (ever) start with a selection that harms the host and them move to a more beneign relationship. The only way this could ever happen is if there were a Novel factor long ago which necessitated AIDS rather than HIV (let's accept the distinction) and now that this Novel factor isn't with us any longer, AIDS has been/is being selected against amongst simians. This would be much the same way that sicle cell anemia is being selected against in African Americans living in North America. This is the only way your scenario can hold any water in my eyes but frankly I think it's quite a stretch.

Selection can be for increased or decreased virulence. If host density is high, then the parasite spread easily and so can afford to kill hosts rapidly, but if host density is low, any parasite that kills its host will have a smaller chance of reproduction, and in such environments, selection favors low virulence parasites. Human population density is much higher than simian population density today and humans travel far more widely, offering HIV a much wider selection of hosts than SIV has, and so HIV can afford to be more virulent.

It's been too long since I read the book to be sure, but I believe William McNeill's classic Plagues and Peoples discusses this topic. Even if it doesn't, it's a great read, one of the first global examinations of how disease changed human history.

 

[rickn]

I blame US gov't. Many people believe it was hatched from within US gov't laboratories

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: rickn
I blame US gov't. Many people believe it was hatched from within US gov't laboratories

Unfortunately those same people wear tinfoil hats to prevent the government satellites from reading their thoughts.

 

[AIWGuru]

Selection can be for increased or decreased virulence. If host density is high, then the parasite spread easily and so can afford to kill hosts rapidly,

That's not how selection works.
HIV is not any more virulent because of AIDS. In fact, AIDS manifests itself long after infection.
AIDS, if anything, prevents reproduction since infected people (and AIDS starts to show outward signs) are less likely to have partners.
Even if none of the above were true,
Have you heard of 'kin selection?'
There had to be a better reason than, "there were more people so it could afford to kill some of them" for it to select to be lethal.

 

[Linux23]

kittens.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Selection can be for increased or decreased virulence. If host density is high, then the parasite spread easily and so can afford to kill hosts rapidly,

That's not how selection works.
HIV is not any more virulent because of AIDS. In fact, AIDS manifests itself long after infection.

What definition of virulence are you using here? Virulence is the capacity or degree to which a parasite causes disease. As AIDS is the disease caused by HIV, of course its an indicator of virulence.

AIDS, if anything, prevents reproduction since infected people (and AIDS starts to show outward signs) are less likely to have partners.

Yes, that's what I said in my original post. Parasites evolve to become less virulent in order to increase their chances of finding new hosts. Of course, HIV, like most STDs, isn't a terribly virulent parasite, taking years to kill its victims.

There had to be a better reason than, "there were more people so it could afford to kill some of them" for it to select to be lethal.

You missed my point. I explained why parasites would evolve to be less virulent over time, not why they would become more virulent. Most pathogens have their highest virulence when they first gain the ability to infect their host population, then decrease over time.

Of course, selection is not a steady progress towards a final result, and sometimes mutations arise which increase virulence, like the poisons of toxic E.Coli, but they quickly disappear after killing too much of the host population too quickly. The initial emergence of Black Plague in the time of Justinian followed by an absence of centuries until Medieval times is an example of this.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Selection can be for increased or decreased virulence. If host density is high, then the parasite spread easily and so can afford to kill hosts rapidly,

That's not how selection works.
HIV is not any more virulent because of AIDS. In fact, AIDS manifests itself long after infection.
AIDS, if anything, prevents reproduction since infected people (and AIDS starts to show outward signs) are less likely to have partners.
Even if none of the above were true,
Have you heard of 'kin selection?'
There had to be a better reason than, "there were more people so it could afford to kill some of them" for it to select to be lethal.

AIDS and HIV are the same thing. You are correct their is no reason for a virus to be deadly but a deadly virus can be transmitted faster because being deadly may be a side effect of the virus have a higher virus count and/or being more resistant to the immune system. Another possible advantage of being deadly is an increased chase of others catching the deasisses from carring for the sick person.

 

Isnt aids that gay disease?

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: AIWGuru
There are indications that AIDS is actually the result of modern medicine.
I'll try to explain the theory with the assumption that you have a basic understanding of Darwin's Theory.
HIV is a parasitic virus. Normally, such viruses don't evolve to be fatal to their host since obviously the longer the host lives, the more likely is their reproduction which is where the "selfish gene" ALWAYS draws the line.
HIV has probably been around for millions of years in a non-lethal form.
This is a good conclusion because NO parasite would select for genes which kill the host. That would always be selected for out of necessity.
So what could cause for that kind of selection?

Competition.

We've seen viruses within mice select for more agressive behaviour within only a few thousand generations (days) because of the introduction of a more agressive virus/bacteria competing for the host's resources.

This is kind of oversimplified but the common conception is that AIDS came out of Africa sometime in the 80s and that it came from Monkeys.

This is a little silly.

More than likely, the mutation of HIV into AIDS is a result of evolutionary adaptation to compete against medicine which became widely used between 1950-1980. The way it attacks the immune system and blood HIGHLY suggests this and it's similar to sicle cell anemia.

The fact that simians have a similar virus (not the same as most people think) called SIV (simian imunodeficiency virus) which is not lethal to them and never mutates into AIDS, suggests that HIV was once the same.

Unfortunately, modern medicine and today's understanding of biology/evolution is woefully lacking and we're probably in for a lot more of this...

At least 'the new science of darwinian medicine' (neese, williams) is required reading for most biology and zoology courses in Universities across Canada.

The bolded section is presicely what I think of your diatribe.

AIDS is not a seperate disease. It is what we call the symptoms of HIV infection. AIDS was once called GRID (Gay Related Immuno-Deficiency).

Once a disease crosses the species barrier, it can have disasterous results. IF HIV has been around for millennia then we would all be immune to it by now. The reality is it jumped the species barrier and is no longer behaving as it would in its normal environment.

Modern medicine didn't create it.

Your post is a perfect example of the saying - A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[AIWGuru]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Selection can be for increased or decreased virulence. If host density is high, then the parasite spread easily and so can afford to kill hosts rapidly,

That's not how selection works.
HIV is not any more virulent because of AIDS. In fact, AIDS manifests itself long after infection.
AIDS, if anything, prevents reproduction since infected people (and AIDS starts to show outward signs) are less likely to have partners.
Even if none of the above were true,
Have you heard of 'kin selection?'
There had to be a better reason than, "there were more people so it could afford to kill some of them" for it to select to be lethal.

AIDS and HIV are the same thing. You are correct their is no reason for a virus to be deadly but a deadly virus can be transmitted faster because being deadly may be a side effect of the virus have a higher virus count and/or being more resistant to the immune system. Another possible advantage of being deadly is an increased chase of others catching the deasisses from carring for the sick person.

I've already addressed this. I've made the distinction between HIV and AIDS as (IHV has shown us) HIV probably once existed without AIDS and I needed the distinction to discruss the two states.

Three people have now pointed out that AIDS and HIV are the same (even though they're not) and I've already addressed (a long time ago) why I refer to them seperately.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Selection can be for increased or decreased virulence. If host density is high, then the parasite spread easily and so can afford to kill hosts rapidly,

That's not how selection works.
HIV is not any more virulent because of AIDS. In fact, AIDS manifests itself long after infection.
AIDS, if anything, prevents reproduction since infected people (and AIDS starts to show outward signs) are less likely to have partners.
Even if none of the above were true,
Have you heard of 'kin selection?'
There had to be a better reason than, "there were more people so it could afford to kill some of them" for it to select to be lethal.

AIDS and HIV are the same thing. You are correct their is no reason for a virus to be deadly but a deadly virus can be transmitted faster because being deadly may be a side effect of the virus have a higher virus count and/or being more resistant to the immune system. Another possible advantage of being deadly is an increased chase of others catching the deasisses from carring for the sick person.

I've already addressed this. I've made the distinction between HIV and AIDS as (IHV has shown us) HIV probably once existed without AIDS and I needed the distinction to discruss the two states.

Three people have now pointed out that AIDS and HIV are the same (even though they're not) and I've already addressed (a long time ago) why I refer to them seperately.

So your claim is we have two virus, I added a number to create more of a distinction
HIV-1 which doesn't cause AIDS
HIV-2 which does cause AIDS and is the result of a mutation of HIV-1

If HIV-1 ever existed in humans then the strain would still be found in people as far as I know there isn't such a virus.

 

[AIWGuru]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Selection can be for increased or decreased virulence. If host density is high, then the parasite spread easily and so can afford to kill hosts rapidly,

That's not how selection works.
HIV is not any more virulent because of AIDS. In fact, AIDS manifests itself long after infection.
AIDS, if anything, prevents reproduction since infected people (and AIDS starts to show outward signs) are less likely to have partners.
Even if none of the above were true,
Have you heard of 'kin selection?'
There had to be a better reason than, "there were more people so it could afford to kill some of them" for it to select to be lethal.

AIDS and HIV are the same thing. You are correct their is no reason for a virus to be deadly but a deadly virus can be transmitted faster because being deadly may be a side effect of the virus have a higher virus count and/or being more resistant to the immune system. Another possible advantage of being deadly is an increased chase of others catching the deasisses from carring for the sick person.

I've already addressed this. I've made the distinction between HIV and AIDS as (IHV has shown us) HIV probably once existed without AIDS and I needed the distinction to discruss the two states.

Three people have now pointed out that AIDS and HIV are the same (even though they're not) and I've already addressed (a long time ago) why I refer to them seperately.

So your claim is we have two virus, I added a number to create more of a distinction
HIV-1 which doesn't cause AIDS
HIV-2 which does cause AIDS and is the result of a mutation of HIV-1

If HIV-1 ever existed in humans then the strain would still be found in people as far as I know there isn't such a virus.

That's not so.
It's very common for entire strains of viruses to become extinct.
Its evolutionary cousin, SIV, however doesn't cause AIDS.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Selection can be for increased or decreased virulence. If host density is high, then the parasite spread easily and so can afford to kill hosts rapidly,

That's not how selection works.
HIV is not any more virulent because of AIDS. In fact, AIDS manifests itself long after infection.
AIDS, if anything, prevents reproduction since infected people (and AIDS starts to show outward signs) are less likely to have partners.
Even if none of the above were true,
Have you heard of 'kin selection?'
There had to be a better reason than, "there were more people so it could afford to kill some of them" for it to select to be lethal.

AIDS and HIV are the same thing. You are correct their is no reason for a virus to be deadly but a deadly virus can be transmitted faster because being deadly may be a side effect of the virus have a higher virus count and/or being more resistant to the immune system. Another possible advantage of being deadly is an increased chase of others catching the deasisses from carring for the sick person.

I've already addressed this. I've made the distinction between HIV and AIDS as (IHV has shown us) HIV probably once existed without AIDS and I needed the distinction to discruss the two states.

Three people have now pointed out that AIDS and HIV are the same (even though they're not) and I've already addressed (a long time ago) why I refer to them seperately.

So your claim is we have two virus, I added a number to create more of a distinction
HIV-1 which doesn't cause AIDS
HIV-2 which does cause AIDS and is the result of a mutation of HIV-1

If HIV-1 ever existed in humans then the strain would still be found in people as far as I know there isn't such a virus.

That's not so.
It's very common for entire strains of viruses to become extinct.
Its evolutionary cousin, SIV, however doesn't cause AIDS.

It's like you half almost know what you're talking about.

But the whole schpiel about parasites not killing their host because natural selection just doesen't permit it.. wha? How far off can you be?

All that is required for the said parasite to be successful is to find a way to reproduce before the host dies. Natural selection could easily produce an evoltionary step of this nature, instead of a die-off as you suggest.

 

[AIWGuru]

It's like you half almost know what you're talking about.

From your point of view....

Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to poke holes in any given theory than to successfully defend it.
Since I'm not getting paid for this and class starts again on Monday, :Q I really don't have time (or interest) to address every point that everyone brings up. I've provided more than enough information about this theory for you to come to your own conclusions and do your own research. Like Darwinism itself, this theory is not complete and indeed there are not answers to all questions.
I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the lineage of HIV/AIDS.

All that is required for the said parasite to be successful is to find a way to reproduce before the host dies. Natural selection

Here's where you show that you may "only half know what you're talking about."

A principle of darwinian theory is the selfish gene. I'll assume that you're familiar with that one. However, you don't seem to be familiar with Kin Selection. This principle dictates that the survival of previous generations benefits the odds of procreation for future generations and thus, host death does nothing for the selfish gene and would only be selected for if absolutely necessary (read: competition-lesser of two evils. See SCA example).

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

It's like you half almost know what you're talking about.

From your point of view....

Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to poke holes in any given theory than to successfully defend it.
Since I'm not getting paid for this and class starts again on Monday, :Q I really don't have time (or interest) to address every point that everyone brings up. I've provided more than enough information about this theory for you to come to your own conclusions and do your own research. Like Darwinism itself, this theory is not complete and indeed there are not answers to all questions.
I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the lineage of HIV/AIDS.

All that is required for the said parasite to be successful is to find a way to reproduce before the host dies. Natural selection

Here's where you show that you may "only half know what you're talking about."

A princle of darwinian theory is the selfish gene. I'll assume that you're familiar with that one. However, you don't seem to be familiar with Kin Selection. This principle dictates that the survival of previous generations benefits the odds of procreation for future generations and thus, host death does nothing for the selfish gene and would only be selected for if absolutely necessary (read: competition).

Interesting.

But I am failing to see how that makes everything fit together. Clearly, there are what, tens of thousands of parasites that will happily do whatever they do until their host is dead...? Whether it be in/on humans, other animals, plants, insects...

Isn't it true that there are parasites that are alive for no reason other than to live, at any expense? They devour all resources, or divert, or disrupt.. until host death? Keepers of equilibrium is what I like to call them.. lol

 

[AIWGuru]

But I am failing to see how that makes everything fit together. Clearly, there are what, tens of thousands of parasites that will happily do whatever they do until their host is dead...? Whether it be humans, other animals, plants, insects...

I edited my above post in the last sentence.

Yes, there are many examples of this. These are prime examples of 'the arms race without end.' which is another founding principle of darwinian theory.
I'm not, by any means, suggesting that HIV/AIDS is any kind of exception or oddity. Quite the opposite.
I do think that is was novel (proximate) causes which prompted this lethal virulence rather than evolutionary causes (read: organism competition) as in your examples.

 

[cquark]

A principle of darwinian theory is the selfish gene. I'll assume that you're familiar with that one. However, you don't seem to be familiar with Kin Selection. This principle dictates that the survival of previous generations benefits the odds of procreation for future generations and thus, host death does nothing for the selfish gene and would only be selected for if absolutely necessary (read: competition-lesser of two evils. See SCA example).

I'm not sure that you understand what kin selection is or whether you just can't explain it. Its focus is not on previous generations, which are obviously an absolute necessity for the current one to exist, but on the current generation. Because you share many genes with related members of your species, its worth expending effort to enhance their survival. The classic example is Sherman's study of warning cries in squirrels. Males, who don't live near relatives, are less likely to risk themselves by crying an alarm which might attract a predator to them, than females, who do live near relatives. Kin selection is also commonly invoked to explain altruism, and may offer an explanation for homosexuality.

There are several problems with kin selection as an argument against pathogen virulence. First, when the first generation of pathogens gains the ability to infect a host, there hasn't been any selective pressure against killing that host yet. Second, microscopic parasites experience selection on very different scales than squirrels or humans. Their generation time is extremely short, so they can go through more generations in our lifetime than our species has gone through since its inception. Survival in the early generations of HIV depends on fighting the immune system immediately, when the selective pressure of host death is tens of thousands of generations away.

Finally, its worth noting that serious immune system failure generally only sets in when a person is being attacked by multiple strains of HIV. The human immune system generally does fine against one or two strains, but tends to fail when confronted by five or more. Perhaps you could argue that kin selection has failed at this point, as the viruses are no longer so closely related, but I doubt that kin selection is a strong effect on any microbial pathogen because of the large differences in scale and life cycle between viruses and animals.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

But I am failing to see how that makes everything fit together. Clearly, there are what, tens of thousands of parasites that will happily do whatever they do until their host is dead...? Whether it be humans, other animals, plants, insects...

I edited my above post in the last sentence.

Yes, there are many examples of this. These are prime examples of 'the arms race without end.' which is another founding principle of darwinian theory.
I'm not, by any means, suggesting that HIV/AIDS is any kind of exception or oddity. Quite the opposite.
I do think that is was novel (proximate) causes which prompted this lethal virulence rather than evolutionary causes (read: organism competition) as in your examples.

It could very well be an evolutionary cause say the nonleathal virus strian was only non-leathal because it made a quarter of the viruses but the leathal virus produceds more copies creating a high virus load and a better chance to infect the person parternes.