Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#101,702
#101,702
evillawyer said:
How was I shown to be incorrect? I'm talking about an established genetic phenomenon (genetic hitchhiking). I'm looking at data and what we know about this and other viruses and I'm coming up with a hypothesis that could explain the observed data. That's what science does. Once you have a theory, then you test it.
Click to expand...
I have a theory that lawyers are pompous asshats.

Testing…searching VN…compiling…

It’s a fact that lawyers are pompous asshats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, 82_VOL_83, allvol123 and 1 other person
#101,703
#101,703
evillawyer said:
No honey, just trying to explain how it is possible that a mutation that makes a virus more contagious can also make it more severe. Although virus generally tends towards mutations that make it less severe, the opposite can also happen if a mutation makes it more contagious.

Viruses can evolve to be more deadly
Click to expand...
Good thing micro biology, virology, and epidemiology are major portions of the LSAT and Bar exams. You're definitely in your wheelhouse, here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mr.checkerboards, 82_VOL_83 and RikidyBones
#101,706
#101,706
McDad said:
Good thing micro biology, virology, and epidemiology are major portions of the LSAT and Bar exams. You're definitely in your wheelhouse, here.
Click to expand...

I make no pretentions to be versed in the science. But I'm talking about basic concepts in genetics that anyone could learn through popular science reading, like Stephen Gay Gould (fantastic writer by the way). Highly recommend The Panda's Thumb as a good fun book to start with.
 
#101,708
#101,708
evillawyer said:
I make no pretentions to be versed in the science. But I'm talking about basic concepts in genetics that anyone could learn through popular science reading, like Stephen Gay Gould (fantastic writer by the way). Highly recommend The Panda's Thumb as a good fun book to start with.
Click to expand...
The problem is you have no foundation of consistency where "science" is concerned apart from the consistent use of it when it fits your narrative. For you, data are simply useful pawns in your argument at times and points to contradict at other times. There is no sincerity in your approach or your discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, volinbham, allvol123 and 1 other person
#101,712
#101,712
McDad said:
The problem is you have no foundation of consistency where "science" is concerned apart from the consistent use of it when it fits your narrative. For you, data are simply useful pawns in your argument at times and points to contradict at other times. There is no sincerity in your approach or your discussion.
Click to expand...
So cynical. Are you accusing me of sophistry?
 
#101,714
#101,714
evillawyer said:
How was I shown to be incorrect? I'm talking about an established genetic phenomenon (genetic hitchhiking). I'm looking at data and what we know about this and other viruses and I'm coming up with a hypothesis that could explain the observed data. That's what science does. Once you have a theory, then you test it.
Click to expand...
I am referring to your assertion that higher viral load means a more severe case of covid.
 
#101,720
#101,720
evillawyer said:
How was I shown to be incorrect? I'm talking about an established genetic phenomenon (genetic hitchhiking). I'm looking at data and what we know about this and other viruses and I'm coming up with a hypothesis that could explain the observed data. That's what science does. Once you have a theory, then you test it.
Click to expand...
Neither has Georgio...
1628267974620.jpeg
 
#101,721
#101,721
evillawyer said:
How was I shown to be incorrect? I'm talking about an established genetic phenomenon (genetic hitchhiking). I'm looking at data and what we know about this and other viruses and I'm coming up with a hypothesis that could explain the observed data. That's what science does. Once you have a theory, then you test it.
Click to expand...

Science doesn't ignore conflicting data and findings (as you have done wrt viral load and sickness, decoupling of death rates, etc.). Science doesn't change terms (eg. I said viral load but I meant viral dose). Science doesn't ignore generalized findings in the field (viruses tend to get weaker not stronger). Science doesn't ignore conclusions to date (eg. scientists conclude to date there is not strong evidence or data to conclude Delta is stronger than prior variants).

So for you to claim this hypothesis has merit you would need compelling evidence (even prior to your own data collection) to show the issues noted above are either irrelevant or wrong. You haven't even passed the literature review bar let alone any "test" of the hypothesis. IOW, the burden of proof in a deviating hypothesis is particularly high and that's why it's been so easy to point out the flaws in your hypothesis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, kiddiedoc and allvol123
#101,723
#101,723
evillawyer said:
I make no pretentions to be versed in the science. But I'm talking about basic concepts in genetics that anyone could learn through popular science reading, like Stephen Gay Gould (fantastic writer by the way). Highly recommend The Panda's Thumb as a good fun book to start with.
Click to expand...
Sweet heart, pretentious is YOUR middle name.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123 and volfanhill
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top