"The complex network of evolutionary relationships the authors describe suggests that viruses evolved from non-viral mobile genetic elements and vice versa, on more than one occasion.-The recent discovery of virophages inside the giant viruses, which in turn infect amoeba, has led to speculation about their origin and their relationship to other viruses and small transposable genetic elements"-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130523004605.htm-We are just beginning to learn about virus origin and evolution. Our DNA and chimp DNA has the same segments that look like virus DNA, encorporated in the distant past. But that is just a guess. Perhaps some kind of mixed-up DNA evolved all branches of life and viral partial life.
Virus evolution; complex organisms but not fully alive
by David Turell , Saturday, February 27, 2016, 01:29 (3193 days ago) @ David Turell
This article with diagrams explains what viruses are in structure and activity:-http://acsh.org/news/2016/02/02/viruses-natures-perfect-machine/-"I recently wrote that viruses do not come even close to meeting the standards that are generally accepted requirements in defining what “alive” means.-***-"Each virus contains the absolute minimum amount of “stuff” to do exactly what it is supposed to do: genetic material, enzymes, and proteins that keep it intact until it reaches the intended host cell. Then, the virus tricks the host cell into doing all the work for it. Before we go into how it works, here is a cartoon that represents a typical virus. Note that there isn't much there, especially when compared to any living organism. But it is remarkably efficient with what it has.-"What this “bag of chemicals,” which is about 100-times smaller than a bacterium, does is nothing short of amazing. It is way “smarter” than the cell that it infects. Using nothing more than a very specifically-shaped protein spike to locate and attach itself to the host cell, its own genetic material, and a few enzymes, each of which has a specific function, it turns the cell into a virus factory, letting the cell do all the work. The virus does nothing, except reproduce, courtesy of the cell, which provides the energy and the mechanism for viral replication. This is why viruses are called obligate parasites. They do not function in the absence of a host cell." (my bold)-Comment: Viruses are not fully 'alive' by definition. Without all existing animals and plants, they disappear.
Virus evolution; complex organisms but not fully alive
by dhw, Saturday, February 27, 2016, 12:38 (3193 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: This article with diagrams explains what viruses are in structure and activity:-http://acsh.org/news/2016/02/02/viruses-natures-perfect-machine/-QUOTE: "I recently wrote that viruses do not come even close to meeting the standards that are generally accepted requirements in defining what “alive” means. QUOTE: “The virus does nothing, except reproduce, courtesy of the cell, which provides the energy and the mechanism for viral replication. This is why viruses are called obligate parasites. They do not function in the absence of a host cell." (David's bold)-David's comment: Viruses are not fully 'alive' by definition. Without all existing animals and plants, they disappear.-And since you believe that God is in full control of everything, why do you think he specifically preprogrammed or personally dabbled these obligate parasites?
Virus evolution; complex organisms but not fully alive
by David Turell , Saturday, February 27, 2016, 15:01 (3193 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: And since you believe that God is in full control of everything, why do you think he specifically preprogrammed or personally dabbled these obligate parasites? - We also have dangerous bacteria that cause disease, all as a part of the balance of nature. You are correct. Tough to understand if God is simply benign.My proposal from my fist book is this represents a challenge from God to solve the problem. And we have ways: bacteriophages are viral enemies of bacteria. Research has been ongoing to enlist those guys to attack dangerous bacteria. Perhaps God feels life should present challenges to make it more interesting than simply boring in the Garden of Eden. Now I sound like you and what you imagine to explain things, but just as reasonable to me as your imaginations are to you.
Virus evolution; complex organisms but not fully alive
by dhw, Sunday, February 28, 2016, 13:38 (3192 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: And since you believe that God is in full control of everything, why do you think he specifically preprogrammed or personally dabbled these obligate parasites? DAVID: We also have dangerous bacteria that cause disease, all as a part of the balance of nature. You are correct. Tough to understand if God is simply benign.My proposal from my fist book is this represents a challenge from God to solve the problem. And we have ways: bacteriophages are viral enemies of bacteria. Research has been ongoing to enlist those guys to attack dangerous bacteria. Perhaps God feels life should present challenges to make it more interesting than simply boring in the Garden of Eden. Now I sound like you and what you imagine to explain things, but just as reasonable to me as your imaginations are to you. - I think these questions should be asked, and yours is a great answer. Thank you. In dealing with such problems, we have to try and read the mind of your God, and so what you call “anthropomorphization” is inevitable. I do not see it as a problem: if your God did create our advanced degree of consciousness, it is not unreasonable to suppose that it might reflect his own. And so I “imagine” that perhaps God feels evolution should present unpredictable varieties to make it more interesting than simply boring robots producing whatever he has preprogrammed them to produce. This is “just as reasonable to me as your imaginings are to you”.
Virus evolution; complex organisms but not fully alive
by David Turell , Sunday, February 28, 2016, 15:35 (3192 days ago) @ dhw
> I think these questions should be asked, and yours is a great answer.... if your God did create our advanced degree of consciousness, it is not unreasonable to suppose that it might reflect his own. And so I “imagine” that perhaps God feels evolution should present unpredictable varieties to make it more interesting than simply boring robots producing whatever he has preprogrammed them to produce. This is “just as reasonable to me as your imaginings are to you”.-Thank you, but I'm of the opinion that God thoughts are not as anthropomorphic as you suggest. His thoughts may be at an entirely different level.
Virus evolution; complex organisms but not fully alive
by dhw, Monday, February 29, 2016, 13:36 (3191 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: I think these questions should be asked, and yours is a great answer.... if your God did create our advanced degree of consciousness, it is not unreasonable to suppose that it might reflect his own. And so I “imagine” that perhaps God feels evolution should present unpredictable varieties to make it more interesting than simply boring robots producing whatever he has preprogrammed them to produce. This is “just as reasonable to me as your imaginings are to you”.-DAVID: Thank you, but I'm of the opinion that God thoughts are not as anthropomorphic as you suggest. His thoughts may be at an entirely different level. -ANY interpretation of God's purpose is anthropomorphic. You imagine your God's thoughts to be: “I'm going to create humans, and so I'm going to start off with single cells and preprogramme them to come up with millions of innovations and lifestyles and natural wonders in order to balance nature so that eventually it will produce and feed humans.” I imagine him thinking: “Let's make some autonomous living organisms and see what they come up with.” Your personal belief in your imaginings (mine are just a hypothesis) does not alter the fact that your anthropocentrism and my higgledy-piggledy are both anthropomorphic projections at the same level.
Virus evolution; complex organisms but not fully alive
by David Turell , Monday, February 29, 2016, 15:02 (3191 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: Thank you, but I'm of the opinion that God thoughts are not as anthropomorphic as you suggest. His thoughts may be at an entirely different level. > > > ANY interpretation of God's purpose is anthropomorphic. .... Your personal belief in your imaginings (mine are just a hypothesis) does not alter the fact that your anthropocentrism and my higgledy-piggledy are both anthropomorphic projections at the same level.-Fair enough.
Virus evolution; a new way to evolve
by David Turell , Friday, March 30, 2018, 00:27 (2431 days ago) @ David Turell
Shown in a new study: how they trick their way into new hosts:
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-virus-newly-path-evolution.html
"Viruses infect by attaching themselves to molecular receptors on the surface of cells. These receptors are the "locks" that viruses must open to enter cells. The "keys" to the locks are viral proteins called host-recognition proteins. Researchers working in this area have focused on how mutations alter these protein keys—and what changes allow them to access new locks. Scientists have known for years that viruses can gain new keys with relatively few mutations but they have not solved the mysteries of how these mutations first appear.
***
"Petrie and colleagues found that a single gene sometimes yields multiple different proteins. The lambda virus evolved a protein sequence that was prone to structural instability that results in the creation of at least two different host-recognition proteins. Fortunately for the virus—but not its host—these different types of proteins can exploit different locks.
"'We were able to capture this evolutionary process in action," said Petrie, the lead author of the study. "We found that the protein's 'mistakes' allowed the virus to infect its normal host, as well as different host cells. This nongenetic variation in the protein is a way to access more functions from a single DNA gene sequence. It's like a buy-one-get-one-free special for the protein.'"
Comment: Exactly how a gene can make more than one gene is probably epigenetic markers, but here again we see automatic responses at the molecular level between cells.