-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
So is it safe to say we can blame AIDS on Africa?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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.
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.
Care to expand, or provide references? I've not heard of this idea before, and don't particularly find it plausible. While I agree with your statements about parasites (though understandably generalized, given the audience), I don't see how medicine is the selective force in this case. HIV affects people that are young usually, killing them before they get too old, and have reaped the "benefits" of modern medicine (such as a longer lifespan). Sickle Cell Anemia is COMPLETELY unrelated to the immune system and is the result of a specific gene mutation, not an infectious process. I just don't see the logic that you are using.
MD.
I referred to sicle cell anemia in another thread and this remark was for the people who may have read it.
That was a reference to an adaptation of people to select for a predisposition for SCA in Africa because it slows Molaria in the blood stream (because of the shape of blood cells - that of a sicle.)
It was used (poorly) as an example selection rather than as you've indicated.
Anyway, unfortunately, this is a relatively new theory and as such does not have much documentation.
This is generally discussed in the one reference I have already presented, "The New Science Of Darwinian Medicine" by Neese and Williams. Given your name, I assume you're in a University. I guarantee they have this book. I don't have it with me at the moment (since it's 3am) but it does contain several references for you to look up within.
I'm not sure why you don't find this to be a plausible theory. Bacterial adaption to medicine is well documented and accepted. How many bacteria is resistant to lysol and pennicilin now? Why is it a stretch to apply this to more complicated viruses?
A basic understanding of Darwinian theory will tell you that evolution will always select for procreation (the selfish gene.) Given the choice between killing the host over the course of years and having the intervening time to reproduce OR being erradicated by medicine/other parasites now, (through competition for resources) allowing for no chance of reproduction, evolution will always select for the former option and possibly also run-on sentences. 😉
note: and this may help, this may not have been a response directly to medicine but rather to other parasites which are now more 'ruthless' because of medicine.
Given our current and especially past state of over-prescription and this causing more resistant virulant bacteria/viruses this is not hard to imagine.
One of my Students (at UoG) wrote a major paper on the topic. I'll see if I still have it.
flxnimprtmscl
Diamond Member
When you get to 150 these things happen.
For extra clarification:
I was using sicle cell anemia as an illustration of genetic selection FOR a disease as the lesser of two evils to prevent molaria as SCA allows for a greater chance of reproduction than molaria.
I was using this to illustrate 'the selfish gene' and why HIV would mutate into AIDS which kills the host for anyone who isn't familiar with these concepts.
I was using sicle cell anemia as an illustration of genetic selection FOR a disease as the lesser of two evils to prevent molaria as SCA allows for a greater chance of reproduction than molaria.
I was using this to illustrate 'the selfish gene' and why HIV would mutate into AIDS which kills the host for anyone who isn't familiar with these concepts.
I'll see if I can find the book.....I've actually got to go library next week (first time in months!)
Bacterial adaptation to medicine, specifically resistance to antibiotics is well documented, and obvious. Even many creationists accept it. However, it's hard to imagine that medicine IN GENERAL, is the selective force for an infectious disease such as HIV. You could argue, and i might even buy it, that modern medicine (basically people living longer) could be the selective force for the development of certain cancers caused by infectious agents. Why, because you need the infection with the agent (higher likelihood of infection if you live a long time), AND you need time for the cancer to develop. However, most people that get HIV die before a systemic cancer kills them. Really has nothing to do with the evolutionary forces on HIV.
Also, it's not really modern medicine in general that effects HIV that would cause the development of resistance (that's caused by the anti-retroviral agents that we use). So, again, I don't see how modern medicine is the selective force for the development of HIV in its present form.
Another point is that HIV is a virus. The definition of virus implies that it always is a parasitic organism, requiring other cells/organisms to reproduce. I don't see modern medicine causing some of these other things to turn into SUPER-VIRI. Not to say that adaptation/evolution is not happening, but, not to the extent to which you imply happened with HIV.
Also, just FYI, though I'm sure this is just a typo, but viruses are inherently less complex than bacteria.
That's probably because you're trying to imagine a very direct connection.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the terms "novel factor" and "evolutionary factor."
If you are, you will agree that something would have had to drive the virus to select to damage the host.
This is otherwise not a logical selection anymore than africans selecting for SCA without the presence of molaria.
So what caused it?
An evolutionary factor? We don't see any.
A novel factor?
Given the very recent appearance of HIV becoming full blown lethal AIDS, very likely.
Rather than imagining medicine directly being the novel factor, try to imagine more competitive competitors or even an adapted human immune system due to those competitors which, in turn are due to the novel factor of modern medicine 😉
Understanding what causes the mutation to full blown AIDS will put us well on the way to a cure.
Yes, bacteria are more complicated in their composition and the ammount of DNA they contain.
Viruses are simple by comparison based on the ammount of DNA (if any) or RNA.
But, in this case I was referring to their dependance on a host to procreate and thus their more complicated evolutionary path (which is relevant to the discussion) based on a host which is always trying to evolve past it in the arms race.
Sure, bacteria is affected by competitors in the arms race too, but not as directly thus I would suggest that their generational adaptation is far less complex 🙂
Viruses are simple by comparison based on the ammount of DNA (if any) or RNA.
But, in this case I was referring to their dependance on a host to procreate and thus their more complicated evolutionary path (which is relevant to the discussion) based on a host which is always trying to evolve past it in the arms race.
Sure, bacteria is affected by competitors in the arms race too, but not as directly thus I would suggest that their generational adaptation is far less complex 🙂
Rather than viewing lifespan (which itself is a result of million of novel factors of modern life) as the novel factor causing said cancer, it would be more likely that novel factors such as burning of fossil fuels, synthetic material etc etc etc would be the cause of said cancer rather than simply living longer and thus the likelyhood increasing.
Carcinogens are far more likely novel factors.
Are you familiar with the principles of kin selection?
This principle dictates that long life even after fertility is still beneficial to the selfish gene and thus still selected for.
What are you talking about? Is that directed at me? If so, I don't see how it's relevant to anything I've said.
edit:
I think I know what you're getting at and your conclusion about what I think is misinformed.
I'm not saying that there isn't a recessive gene (or even dominant) which might make someone susceptible to cancer. (although it may have been a novel factor which caused the mutation of the normal gene allowing the recessive to be dominant) 😉
What I AM suggesting is that in MD's example, novel causes such as 10,000x the exposure to carcinogens than we would have had evolving on the African planes is a more likely novel cause than longer life.
That is the discussion of novel factors.
Evolutionary factors (genetic pre-disposition) are another matter entirely. and thus far, haven't been discussed.
thomsbrain
Lifer
yeah cause he must be a liberal to blame bad things on other people.
conservative battle cry: "IT'S ALL CLINTON'S FAULT."
but in case you haven't noticed, we're not talking about anything political, so keep your misinformed soapboxing to the Politics forum where it belongs. also, you may have a hard time getting people to take anything you say about politics seriously since IIRC you're not old enough to vote.
InverseOfNeo
Diamond Member
I blam terrorists. Seriously, think about it. You may find it more plausible than you think.
TheBoyBlunder
Diamond Member
Uh...I think you have your political factions mixed up there. Unless you were being sarcastic...my sarcasm meter isn't working too well right now.
Edit: Hey mods, shouldn't this flame war go in P&N?
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.
CurtisEbear
Senior member
just as a note, when i said "blame" i didn't mean blame as in "stupid africa, AIDS is your fault!" so much as i meant blame as in "you started it!"
of course looking at the posts, that may not be the case i guess.
of course looking at the posts, that may not be the case i guess.
SilverThief
Diamond Member
Yes!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
