Peter the Roman
Rookie
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2020
- Messages
- 27
My thoughts about DNA sequencing of alleged viruses (or alleged genomic sequencing), here:
DNA sequencing is, in my view, the only thing a virologist can really provide to defend the existence of a virus, specially because the probability of assembling a long nucleotide chain at random is very low (close to zero), so, at first impression, it should indicate the existence of a biological entity. But if you hear about the Spiegelman's Monster, a sequence always obtained if you establish certain environmental conditions, and that does NOT imply any biological entity, then you may change your mind.
I'm now focused on that matter of sequencing and its implications. The dissident blog named "viroLIEgy" gives a lot of information about sequencing:
but I think it's not conclusive. You can learn a lot about the techniques and their possible problems, but it does not consider, for example, the aforementioned Spiegelman's Monster.
DNA sequencing is, in my view, the only thing a virologist can really provide to defend the existence of a virus, specially because the probability of assembling a long nucleotide chain at random is very low (close to zero), so, at first impression, it should indicate the existence of a biological entity. But if you hear about the Spiegelman's Monster, a sequence always obtained if you establish certain environmental conditions, and that does NOT imply any biological entity, then you may change your mind.
I'm now focused on that matter of sequencing and its implications. The dissident blog named "viroLIEgy" gives a lot of information about sequencing:
but I think it's not conclusive. You can learn a lot about the techniques and their possible problems, but it does not consider, for example, the aforementioned Spiegelman's Monster.