zlacker

>>todd8+(OP)
> The virus does have an inexplicable feature: a so-called “furin cleavage site” in the spike protein that helps SARS-CoV-2 pry its way into human cells. While such sites are present in some coronaviruses, they haven’t been found in any of SARS-CoV-2’s closest known relatives.

This is false. First of all it should be stated clearer that there has been parallel evolution across several branches of coronaviruses which have independently evolved a furin cleavage site (so there is evolutionary pressure and advantage for coronaviruses to follow this path):

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187350612...

And then the statement is just wrong. The related sarbecoviruses found in Thailand have similar furin cleavage sites:

> The RacCS203 S gene is most similar to that of RmYN02 (Supplementary Fig. 3a). The two viruses shared part of the furin cleavage site unique to SARS-CoV-2 (Supplementary Fig. 3b) and have an almost identical RBD aa sequence with only two residue differences out of 204 aa residues

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21240-1

>>lamont+UZ
I have to nitpick. I don't believe there's evolutionary pressure to evolve this. Evolution is (going to piss some people off) almost entirely random. There may be purifying selection but that has an entirely different set of properties than the idea of Lamarckian evolution.

Edit: Perhaps to clarify, what I'm trying to say is that evolution does not have foresight. And this is not my opinion, but merely that of Eugene Koonin, and I'm just repeating it.

>>COGlor+8X1
I hate to nitpick. How do you end up bringing Lamarckism into this? It's thoroughly discredited, and misleading to call it 'evolution'. Did you just travel here from the late 19th century?

Mutations are entirely random, usually deletrious. Evolutionary pressure is the selection for fitness.

>>abando+g62
Actually, CRISPR/Cas is a fantastic example of lamarckian evolution.

What I'm trying to say is that it's not pressure into with evolution, but rather, random mutation + purifying selection = evolution of new traits.

Organisms can't determine what they need to evolve to. There is no guidance of "evolve to this", but rather - "entirely random evolution maybe I won't die yay" - everything that isn't useful dies.

So saying that organisms can evolve to something is a little misguided because they have no specific objective in mind.

>>COGlor+V62
I think you totally get the concepts, but the way you talk about it is strange, hence my time traveler comment :)

You understand the nuances better than most. I'm guessing you're self taught? I've never read the origin of species, but I feel like you might have!

The points you're making are a given in modern evolutionary theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_pressure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation

>Actually, CRISPR/Cas is a fantastic example of lamarckian evolution.

This, however, is completely wrong.

>Lamarckism, also known as Lamarckian inheritance or neo-Lamarckism,[1] is the notion that an organism can pass on to its offspring physical characteristics that the parent organism acquired through use or disuse during its lifetime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

CRISPR has nothing to do with use or disuse. Lamarckism is only relevant as an example of what evolution isn't.