How are we sure it is a dead end and how sure are we? It sounds as if this would put extraordinary selective pressures on the virus, if we are wrong I’d fear we would just make things worse
This is basic evolutionary theory that has been subsequently played out in both the lab and in the wild. You can't prove a negative but your requirement for reassurance will only be assuaged by furthering your own understanding of evolution on a molecular level, it doesn't seem like anything I could say to you in a reply to an internet post would make the slightest bit of difference to your skepticism and you'd have to get the basic grounding in yourself. The full answer would require 3-4 years of fulltime study, the shorter answer could be arrived at by reading the blind watchmaker and climbing mount improbably, two highly accessible books on evolutionary biology
I actually asked ‘how sure are we’ - you’re right though, just saying - learn more about it - isn’t exactly helpful. If it is as ‘basic’ as you say maybe you could explain it rather than just appeal to authority.
I think OP is trying to say this is a complex field which requires a long-form medium (books, at minimum) to explain the current evolutionary theory work to a layman. But among researchers in that field this falls within the "basics", and so barring a fundamental upheaval of a lot of well-observed theories (outlined briefly in those books) we're in the clear.
I think this is fair, even if a bit frustrating that the explanation can't be broken down simpler to laymen.
I’m sorry but I can’t state this any more plainly without this turning into a lecture. It is basic evolutionary biology, in as much as gravity keeps your feet attached to the ground. It is not an appeal to authority, it is simply a statement of fact and an underlying premise of a complex field. You seem like the sort of person who likes doing your own research - I’ve given you the key to the door now you just have to walk through it
This is what I was getting at - almost nothing in my scientific field is 100% and I find that true of most things. Thus my question- how sure are we. If we are at six sigma levels great, but I find that at odds with the little I do know.
Quit being so hostile, if you are not interested in discussion I would recommend not spending time on discussion boards.
You first spoke as if it was an absolute certainty ("This is basic evolutionary theory") and now are saying, "all of the normal caveats apply" which is exactly what I was getting at in my OP thread. The "normal caveats"/edge cases are exactly what this whole discussion is about. Clearly we are speaking past one another, I apologize for my role in whatever went wrong here.
I'm sorry you're interpreting my comments as hostility, but basically you're being a the sort of commenter that it isn't really worth engaging with. You're not interested in my answers, and you've accused me of using arguments from authority. From my perspective you seem intent on finding some loophole where i'm either lying to you or i'm incorrect. In a message board format, particularly with the number of outright bad actors when it comes to anything COVID related, how is it actually in my interest to provide you with a freshman course on molecular biology?
The problem is you haven't grasped that they're actually the same answer. It can be true that a field driven by stochastic behaviour consists mostly of degrees and probabilities, and still, due to the realities of how evolution and natural selection work, mean that it is impossible for an extremely highly conserved component of spike protein to jump to a new configuration, that at the same time escapes antibody response for the conserved region and maintains any degree of fitness in the wild.
Please park your antagonism and if you are actually interested, walk through the door and explore the field yourself. It's fascinating
> mean that it is impossible for an extremely highly conserved component of spike protein to jump to a new configuration, that at the same time escapes antibody response for the conserved region and maintains any degree of fitness in the wild.
See this is exactly the sort of quantification I was asking for from the beginning (albeit still somewhat vague). Others in the thread have already answered most of my questions (read the other threads if you like) but you just kept talking past them until now. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
> walk through the door and explore the field yourself. It's fascinating
That is precisely what I am trying to do here because I do find it fascinating as well. I have to be allowed to ask questions (even stupid ones) and I do those primarily in discussion forums like HN.
Well if it isn't then you just make other antibodies that treat the one that you can't deal with. Like it's a dead end at current time with current understanding. And as for making things worse, well it could or it could make things better by becoming lesser variant.
if all oxygen in the air was suddenly (by magic) replaced by carbon dioxide it would put extraordinary selective pressure on humans to evolve something other than oxygen-depending lungs. the most likely outcome would be that we'd all die instantly though.
I like the metaphor! I'd suggest two points, if humans evolved as fast as viruses and we couldn't replace all the oxygen on earth at once (and likely not at all in some places just as we can't get vaccine everywhere at once and not in some places at all) I would think it far more likely for human evolution to figure it out. Unlikely still, but maybe not outside the realm of possibility?
In keeping with the metaphor though and as others have pointed out in the thread - non oxygen lungs wouldn't make humans super humans, just different and if anything more likely to be weaker than their oxygen breathing counterparts as they adapt to a new environment? I think that is the running idea I'm getting at least.
