Slashdot Mirror
Viruses May be the Precursors of All Life
steveha writes "The cover story for this month's Discover magazine tells of a recently discovered gigantic virus, Mimivirus, that has blurred the lines between viruses and bacteria, and spurred speculation that viruses could be the reason life evolved past single-celled organisms." From the article: "This is striking news, especially at a moment when the basic facts of origins and evolution seem to have fallen under a shroud. In the discussions of intelligent design, one hears a yearning for an old-fashioned creation story, in which some singular, inchoate entity stepped in to give rise to complex life-forms--humans in particular. "
I AM A FISH!
Sheesh. Wonder if I can stop payment on my credit cards and blame THEM.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Does this mean that the virus writers are God?
Symmantec is the Devil?
My computer's the Virgin Mary?
that the computer viruses of today will lead to spur computers to life?
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
I thoguht that Virii needed a host. I can see simply self replicating Amino acids a being a host, be attacked by loosely coupled RNA strand incapable of self replication, but wouldn't that mean that the Self replicating amino acids where the precursor of life.
For Free Computer Help, and Technical Answers
So, Agent Smith was right, humans ARE a virus. Replicating and spreading, consuming everything in our path. Who says movies aren't educational?
If video games are created by teams of designers and artists, how are they not art??? www.skylarscaling.com
Obviously the guys who named it watched The Drew Carey Show.
"In the discussions of intelligent design, one hears a yearning for an old-fashioned creation story, in which some singular, inchoate entity stepped in to give rise to complex life-forms--humans in particular."
Actually, I just hear a bunch of idiots trying to take a fable from 2 thousand years ago and use it to explain things in place of modern science.
... if it weren't for the viruses, nobody would see any reason to ditch Windows and evolve!
A scientist says that they might have to rethink viruses! You scientists and your "facts."
In other news, the captcha was blacks. Props to GNAA?
"Discover magazine tells of a recently discovered gigantic virus, Mimivirus..."
I knew Mimi was promiscuous. Yep, she gets around and likely has several viruses and bacterium... but I didn't know she had a virus named after her.
Is objectivity dead? Is it possible for scientists to publish their findings WITHOUT stooping to the level of mockery?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The the debate over evolution... BEGIN!
Nothing will change ID people's minds. Nothing. Ever. This is interesting news, but it's not going to make a bit of difference to ID people. So why bother blathering on about it in an article?
Don't viruses depend on life to reproduce? Seems like viruses must have been a side effect of celled organisms.
They aren't saying viruses are the precursors of all life. They're saying viruses are the precursursors of cellular nuclei. It would be far from correct to say that all life has cellular nuclei.
The above post was a very, very bad idea.
Talk about a flamebait article. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, and there is absolutely no reason to mention the latter except to stir up controversy and hatred. And with an article title like "Unintelligent Design", it's a safe bet this is what the writer was after. Good jorb, Mr. Charles Siebert of Discover.com.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
So that's what the AI researchers have been missing all along: some big virus to generate the Big AI?
No, but one might BELIEVE in the non-EXISTENCE of God until HE BLOODY WELL SHOWS UP or teaches his followers how to spell!
And an all powerful, invisible being who created us from nothing is more probable than random chemical reactions?
Yeah, it's too bad the focus of the submitter was on the Intelligent Design snippet --- probably the least interesting bit in the article. The most fascinating stuff to a non-specialist like me was the complexity in the genetic code. Much more complex, I gather, than other members of the virus family so far discovered, and in fact sharing some genetic coding with "higher" animals? Wow --- that kind of thing really illusrates what makes science so fascinating.
Be friendly to the H5N1 viruses then. They are our ancestors.
What discussion? The whole topic of creationism/intelligent design is only being discussed in the US. The problem is that we have too many unteachable people in the US who take every nonsense for granted as soon as it gets the religious smoke screen. And the media in the US love this topic because it allows them to spread their pitiful program 24*7. Not only scientists, but also almost the entire world have put this "discussion" to rest. If you find it mentioned in European media, then only with reference to the difficulties in the US. This is not a discussion. It is comedy.
Funny, tragic, brilliant and memorable. Well, we laughed about it a great deal in High School Lit class!
There is evidence of evolution everywhere. We cannot deny such a thing. There is a reason why the red squirrel population in Europe is declining, one named "Natural Selection." There is another type of squirrel that breeds faster, is sturdier and more adaptable, and remembers where it stores its stuff better. The growth of the gray squirrel population squeezes out the population of the red. It is natural selection at its finest.
Now, no one can prove or disprove that there could be an intelligence that has guided evolution along. That is a discussion best left for philosophy, though, as it has left the realm of science itself. The only thing that science has to work with, right now, is what is readily at hand. Such is the difference between Plato/Socrates and Aristotle. One is the search for significance and meaning behind the numbers, the other is the significance and meaning in the numbers. Neither is wrong, but then again, it is far easier to follow the latter.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
The viruses need the single celled organisms to replicate... but the single celled organisms couldn't realy evolve into proper single celled organisms until the viruses came along to do it...
of course bacteria have their own virus like properties. For example, they serialize their objectes and multi-cast them to other bacteria for remote processing. Sometimes data values from that compuation. That is to say, bacteria have plasmids which a small usually circular chunks of data that are docked along side their primary dna. these plasmids are processed by the local host bacteria to get it's data and instructions. But it can also give these plasmids to other bacteria and accept them. That's how for example, antibiotic resistance is commonly propagated. The instructions for it get put on a plasmid and distibuted to other bacteria for use. thus like viruses this enable the net DNA of the host to change after birth.
In separate analogy. It's interesting to notice that like von neumann's architecture DNA intersperses data and instructions. And of course we also get buffer overflow error too where data becomes instructions. I've foundit intriguing that Von Neuman also felt this ambiguity was more powerful than separation of data and instructions. These days keeping the separate is of course a big problem in robust programming. Yet life, the ultimate robust system, does the same thing.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Virues may be involved in transferring genes from one species to another. In fact in many eco systems, it is found that plants, animals share common genes. It is unlikely some plants originated from animal or otherway round or they both originated from common microorganism either. It is more likely that the viruses (or virii as it is called biology) when infected different species, they transferred genes from one species to another. So not only all forms of life evolved from viruses, but current genetic evolution may be related to viral gene transfer.
The central tenet of the story is that virus' posess and are part of an emergent "hive mind", that all evolution on Earth has occurred at the unconscious direction of virus' attempting to modify the environment enough for the virus' to achieve sufficient numbers and complexity to consciously express their hive mind - all while we poor, benighted humans insist on viewing ourselves as the pinnacle of the evolutionary mountain. The author writing lead me to believe that he was strongly influenced by the works of Michael Crighton.
With appropriate apologies to proponents of Intelligent design - namely, none.
well anyone who read the ender's game series .
Most viruses are RNA coated with proteins the RNA generates from its environment. The earliest self-replicating molecule type we can document is RNA, though prions might turn up now that we know a little bit about them. Prions aren't as durable as RNA, so finding ancient evidence of them might be harder. But once we do, might we not start saying prions are the precursors of all life?
--
make install -not war
This title of this article should be "We Don't Know Jack". After reading the article I was almost ready to become an Intelligent Design proponent.
so this natural selection, does it cause these squrrels DNA to improve? or does it add anything to it that actually improves it in anyway? how does the weak dying make the stronger any better than they were before?
viruses certainly play a roll in evolution: they are mercenary gene transfer mechanisms, even across species
as to the roll they played in the very beginning, it's my personal belief they were there from the start, swapping dna between proto-bacteria. i think self-replicating dna came first, then one day a miraculous/ fortuitous event happened: one of the self-replicating dna got swallowed by a little oil droplet, a bag, a micelle, and in this contained environment, was allowed to direct it's self-replication in a more controlled manner. this protobacteria's dna most definitely still had a life outside the oil droplets where it could still self-replicate. so therefore the first "virus" was still self-supporting. but then, parasitically, it devolved and co-evolved with the proto-bacteria to get a free ride: get its energy source for its replication from its new more stable proto-bacteria
this oil micelle adapation was only one miraculous/ fortuitous moment. the prokaryotes, bacteria, are very simple: loose dna floating around inside a capsule. the eukaryotes are highly regimented: they have organelles throughout the cell, one of which, the mitochondria, has its own genome
how did that happen?
it can only mean, one fortuitous day, billions of years ago, one cell swallowed another and instead of being digested, the swallowed cell made "food" (atp, other energetic molecules) for the master cell
and the rest is history. our genetic history. without that one fortuitous moment, whenever and wherever it happened so long ago, life as we know it would not be the same in the most radical of ways. perhaps the earth would still be just bacterial and algal mats. perhaps life would still evolve more complex, but in ways utterly alien to how they are now
so there is, in a way, many such "miraculous", if you believe in intelligent design, or "fortuitous", if you believe in undirected evolution, throughout our history as life
and in the end, it doesn't matter which way you view it: god-directed or random, as long as you agree it HAPPENED
the real problem with the intelligent design crowd is when they deny basic facts
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In The discussion of evolutionary biology, one hears a yearning for people to leave out the ideas behind itellegent design so that the scientists can get back to doing their work.
Seriously, what's wrong with this poster and slashdot editor for letting this through? Why did that need to be included for this to be talked about? Nice of the poster to inject a controvertial personal view in the end of his submission for all of us to flame about.
meep
...that created life as we know it; it was an Intelligent Hacker!
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
Yeah, nothing like fighting for our freedoms, huh?
Tell me, when the Rapture comes will it hurt your head if you're inside?
>Is it possible for scientists to publish their findings WITHOUT stooping to the level of mockery?
Scientists don't publish their work in Discover. It is a news magazine with a science focus and a somewhat sensationalist editorial style. Don't confuse the hyperbole of journalists with the scientists writings. The scientists working on these things tend to publish in obscure journals like Virus Research. For more information on these things including some cool photos (these things are larger than some cells) see GiantVirus.org.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
I find this article extremely interesting- it implies (amoung other things) that by altering DNA in its hosts, viruses could be one of the main mutation contributors. Genetic engineers do this now by using retroviruses to insert genes we want, so it's not a stretch to say that this happened incidentally in the past.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
The only link I see between 'Virus -> Humans' and 'ID' is that both are conclusions brought about by speculation.
Who knew X-Files was right all those years ago....
The viruses need the single celled organisms to replicate... but the single celled organisms couldn't realy evolve into proper single celled organisms until the viruses came along to do it...
AFAIK, the point is that the virii forced the single-celled organism to evolve beyond single-cell, i.e. to transform into multi-cell organisms.
It's a little bit like windows, the virii and Linux. First came Windows (single-user^H^H^H^Hcell). Then came the virii. And with the virii came the awareness that security was important after all, which gave rise to Linux (multi-cell).
"the chance that higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparible with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
There's a flaw with this thinking.
Boeing 747s do not self-replicate, nor mutate. Living cells do.
how does the weak dying make the stronger any better than they were before?
That depends. Were they weak because of a mutation that made them grow one leg backwards? Was another squirrel stronger because of a mutation that allowed it to stand on two legs?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
The condescension of some biologists drives me nuts. I remember a magazine that published arguments from IDers (all relatively respected, with PhD's) followed by response from more wizened biologists. Now, if I were responding to a fellow scientist, I would treat them respectfully as I dismantled their arguments. But what did the magazine call this collection? Something like "Evolution: Science versus faith." Okay, if the people were openly religious and phrasing their arguments that way, I can see that title as being fair. But people with PhD's presenting what they deem scientific arguments? The whole title is skewed against them. It would be like a magazine publishing economists responses to arguments against tax cuts with the title of the "debate" as "Tax Cuts: Economics and Emotion".
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
From TFA: "A monstrous discovery suggests that viruses, long regarded as lowly evolutionary latecomers, may have been the precursors of all life on Earth"
Wait... who actually thought viruses came later? Isn't it pretty obvious they came first? They've got DNA... but they aren't "alive". Isn't it a no-brainer that they came before cells?
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Even if there is an incredibly small chance of it all working out, you must remember:
It has to happen to someone.
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
but mutations are destructive to the dna code not constructive they do not add any information. and I doubt that the entire group of squirrells were mutants. and, well, squirrells do stand one two legs.
is that why you just can't get rid of people who annoy you?
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
a moment when the basic facts of origins and evolution seem to have fallen under a shroud.
More like been obscured by the cloud of smoke being blown by american fundamentalists. Evolution theory is stronger than ever with important new fossil record discoveries shedding light on natural history.
Someone who believes in ID will ignore this study as part of Darwinism, just as someone who accepts Darwin's theory ignores the ID belief.
It puts the lotion on it's skin, or else it gets the hose again.
No. Some mutations are beneficial. Most are neutral.
Basically I read two different ways around that: 1) Viruses are uber-creative in coming up with ways to replicate 2) Viruses basically "de-evolved" from more complex structures, and shed their abilities to self replicate.
Viruses May be the Precursors of All Life
Yep, either them or Elton John.
Or something other than God, right? Scientific theory is good when it doesn't invovle a "Mimivirus" (are you guys serious) or researchers who jerk off to pictures of Darwin before they go to sleep every day. But when you stoop this low, prepare to be called names and screamed at on your way to work.
P.S Spyware spawns a lot more life on your desktop than a virus does, believe me.
It makes sense. A self-replicating nucleic acid form must have access to proteins and aminoacids to multiply... in the beginnings of life, these materials were readily available on the surface of the oceans (primordial soup)... when the first self-replicating acids evolved into unicellular beings (having the ability to CREATE a membrane), others evolved along with them (having the ability to PASS through said membrane).
Survival of the fittest. Those "protovirii" (term is an invention of mine) which couldn't adapt to the new environment of isolated (membraned) aminoacids, simply disappeared, or, to be more precise, were consumed by the other protovirii. It seems logical that the nucleic sequences with more "useful features" later merged with other useful sequences, obtaining things like the mimivirus discovered recently.
So it's not "random aminoacids -> hocus pocus -> living cells", but rather "random random aminoacids -> protovirii -> living cells + cell-invading-virii".
And THAT explains a mystery which i have thought about for so long... the existence of parasites and symbiotes. If an organism evolved, how could another organism evolve to take advantage of the first? The answer is that they evolved from the beginning, it's always been like that. Virii as the beginning of life solves this riddle with elegance.
Messiah? Yeah, you know - like Keanu Reeves.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
"the chance that higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparible with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
in a junkyard the size of the universe, with a tornado the size of billions of galaxies, and it blew the materials around in such a way that they could only create structure and build off of their own structure, over the course of billions of years, i really think it would be impossible if many "Boeing 747s" weren't formed together.
No evidence of evolution? HEY POT! IT'S ME: KETTLE!
Squirrel A remembers where his nuts are at all times, and excels at providing nourishment for himself, his mate and his offspring. He get's all the chicks and has many, many offspring, all of which also carry his superior traits and are equally skilled at procreation.
Squirrel B, however, even if he were to be able to blindly find his way out of his mother's basement, doesn't present a very desirable mating choice. If he were to mate, he'd be lucky to have the nuts needed to keep a family fed, and any offspring that managed to survive the winter without starving to death will be weak and sickly, and they to would be poor performers when it comes to procreation. Through this, the overall squirrel population becomes more likely to survive in the ecosystem.
And that, poor Squir.. er, AC, is how Natural Selection makes the squirrel population stronger. The existence of this behaviour on Earth does not in any way exclude the existence of a supreme being as a creator.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/US/733_ intelligent_design_belittles_2_1_2006.asp
"One gets the impression from certain religious believers that they fondly hope for the durability of certain gaps in our scientific knowledge of evolution, so that they can fill them with God. This is the exact opposite of what human intelligence is all about."
--Father George V. Coyne S.J., director of the Vatican Observatory
Except for the fact that Unix long predated Windows, it just constantly screws itself over in various ways.
DYWYPI?
Again we are faced with the age old "What came first, the chicken or the egg..." debate. Let us please not forget about the Flying Spaghetti Monster FSM for it was by his noodly appendage that all things were and are created...
Get your Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool Here for FREE! - http://fedora.redhat.com
Does that mean that Windows is the primordial ooze?
But, on a serious note, would it still be evolution if humans would interfere and introduce new species? Would that still be "nature doing its thing" because we are a part of nature or would that be some sort of a "bad" thing.
I have always wondered about the "protected species". It seems that if evolution is what has been happening we should not have to worry about protecting species. We are the evolved species and we should be able to do whatever we want. Eventually we will nuke ourselves during some WWIII and then perhaps the squirrels or the monkeys can take over. Or should we regard ourselves above evolution...?
Anyway, I guess I am not replying to your post specifically anymore, just thinking (writing) out loud...
And a virus is a meme.
Therefore life is a meme.
Would a meme, by any other name, not be as pointless?
mayb mutations from line noise or it's modern equivalent (i'm sure we've all seen borked files from sftp or whatever since then) will one day accidently change the code of a virus just enough to stick in the part of the code that is self aware. programs get bigger every day, with even the smallest of virii being bigger than the average program of twenty years ago by far. maybe when there is a sizeable enough chunk of code and some accidental buffer overflow occurs it finally will become aware. however due to the amount of time, with the million monkeys million typewriters thing, maybe this would eb as slow as the amount of time it takes real evolution. who knows, i'm just blueskying here. any thoughts?
Stop reading Jehovah Witnesses books!
ALL HAIL THE CURCH OF THE MIRACULOUS HERPES(tm)!
Coming to a street corner near you...
Great God Herpes, thank you for stepping in and creating multicellular
life!
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
While I find the idea that life originated from some primordial soup mix to be distasteful at best and downright inconceivable at worst, using scientific conjecture to attack the idea that a sufficiently super-advanced, presumably immortal "super being" that we conceptually use language to call "God" could not:
while perhaps not scientifically provable at this time, is also not scientifically discreditable.
So the whole science vs. religion arguments are a great big waste of time, flame wars, and effort, when the things that really matter are that we learn enough about our local world and do what it takes to make it the best possible habitat for all of the creatures that live in this corner of the universe.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
...Humans as well as other advanced lifeforms seem to act just like viruses. We consume & reproduce - that's about it.
though I haven't read the article, it sounds like its saying that the viruses (whats the plural for that?) themselves evolved, but I wonder (again, I haven't read it - yet) if mentions the possibility that the existence of viruses forcing the single cell organisms into having to evolve to be able to survive...
How may evolutionists does it take to change a lightbulb?
None.
Given enough time it will screw in itself!
This shows a basic lack of understanding of evolution. The correct answer would be:
None. Given enough time, fire-flies will evolve.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Dinosaurs were laying eggs way before chickens were. Oops I forgot-- Dinosaurs didn't really exist, God put them in the ground so we get confused when we try to question him.
My biology teacher in High School taught us this. How is this news?
http://www.google.com/search?q=evolution+of+parasi tes
evolution is replete with thousands of stories of free-living organisms who co-evolve with other organisms and then devolve (lose some of their functions such that they become entirely dependent on a host)
a virus is such a parasite
i said it was my personal belief, but: virus's are just batches of dna/ rna that need a host to replicate
at one time, that's all there was (free-floating self-replicating bits of dna/ rna).
one form of this proto-life adapted oil micelles as their housing for a stable environment, and became cells. the ones that remained free-floating eventually co-evolved and then devolved such as first they borrowed energy from their proto-bacterial neighbors, and then became entirely dependent on them to replicate
so, in a way, viruses are the first forms of life, just devolved to be dependent on "higher forms" of life to exist today
in other words, one day, we were all viruses, but a special kind of virus that doesn't exist any more: a virus that needs no host to replicate, a virus that can self-replicate
viruses have lost that ability today, they've devolved into parasites of cells, once their ancient prehistoric neighbors in the primordial sea they borrow energy from, now their hosts they need to survive
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Mutations are not always destructive (whatever that means anyway). Mutations are just.. well... mutations. They can increase or decrease chance of reproduction, or not affect it, and naturally, the ones that increase the chance for reproduction are more likely to be passed onto decendents of the squirrel.
If mutations are always destructive, how come there are people with different colours of hair and skin?
yes but how did the living cell get arranged in the first place? it too was arranged before it became alive. even a "simple cell" is incredibly complex, with all sorts of functions that would all fail if they were not in place together, including replication systems.
In winter people with blocked noses always phone in to work and say they're in bed with Flo.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Some mutations are beneficial. Most are neutral.
And the ones that are detrimental we call "disease".
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I sneeze therefore I am.
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
rent A++, very funny
what came first virus or single celled orgasm?
How may IDers does it take to change a lightbulb?
None.
Given enough time, God will screw it in for us!
For a better view check out the large-virus Gallery. I hate it when people publish articles about something visual but only give you a little low-res image to accompany the article.
So are extant viruses sorta like the biological equivalent of big bang background radiation?
Oh.. if only there were answers to your questions then maybe it'd be easier to sleep at night... they sound a bit nihilistic.
I'm vegetarian since I think that, being a human, it's possible to try and cause less harm to other animals without causing harm to ourselves.. yet occasionally I find myself questioning it on "Well we evolved to be like this so why shouldn't we?". It's a bit like the taking animals into zoos to breed them up and release them back into the wild. Is there any point releasing seemingly evolutionally deficient animals back into the wild? Are we taking them in because essentially it's humans causing them to go extinct and we have "morals"? God knows... (maybe).
Sometimes I wish I was religious.. then I could believe that there is one correct path. It'd be so much easier, but you can't believe in something you don't believe in...
I'd like to share a revilation with you that I've had during my time here. It came when I tried to classify your species, and I realised that you're not actually mammals. You see, every mammal naturally develops a natural equillibrium with it's environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply untill every natural resource is consumed, and the only way to survive is to spread to a new area. There is another life form on this planet that follows the same pattern. A Virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, and we are the cure.
While I find the idea that life originated from some primordial soup mix to be distasteful at best and downright inconceivable at worst...
o gy/miller.html/
Doesn't everyone in biochem201 do Miller's experiment?
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiol
The unfortunate thing about the skeptics is that they seldom want to take into account 1) time, and 2) chaos.
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
what came first Virus or Single Celled Orgasm?
In my opinion this article doesn't need any sexing up. It really is a fascinating read. The general thrust of the article is that this large virus bears a striking resemblance to a primitive cell nucleus. The theory goes that back in the dawn of time a large complex virus, similar to the one discovered, infected a nucleas-free ameba (I had no idea there where single "celled" organisms that didn't have a nucleas!) and instead of using that environment to replicate, and destroy the host in the process, it stayed on and integrated itself into the host organism, evolving into the nucleas.
This makes perfect sense to me and so does the other premise the article puts forth. That because the virus inhabits a very strange middle ground between life and non-life, it is thereby a perfect candidate for the very precursor to life; the missing link if you will. I am having some trouble thinking of ways a virus could replicate without any kind of cells or bacteria around, but that doesn't mean there wasn't/isn't one.
I say, onward great march of discovery!
God will screw it in for us!
Yes I hear this is going to happen "soon".
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Apparently this was the cause of the weird title article. Good job! :)
I don't see any reference to aliens when searching their site. Surely probability-wise if not evolution then we were cloned by visiting creatures. After all, we know how to do some space travel, we know how to do some cloning, eventually we'll be capable of it ourselves. Then we'll be God on some poor dumb moon somewhere.
That's OK with you though, right? Wouldn't ruffle any feathers at the Discovery Institute?
Be honest, they may not be young-earthers, but the Discovery Institute was created by an old lawyer to promote the Christian God as creator of the Universe. That's a fact.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Read "The Blind Watchmaker", or some other good book that explains what probably happened.
Fuck, man. Just because you're too lazy to go inform yourself doesn't mean IT CULDNT HAV HAPENED ITZ 2 COMPLEZX!
Besides, claiming a Divine Creator just pushes the question back a bit, but doesn't solve anything. If GOD created life, where did GOD come from? Something as complex as an eternal, all-powerful being surely couldn't have just popped into place.
Unless GOD evolved from something else...
Well for starters there's the one that used to be married to Tom Cruise. Quite a pair of Mimi's there.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Clearly, the lower-activation energy of phosphodiester bond formation between nucleotides (RNA) causes favorability over the much higher activation energy for peptide bonds.
Prions are defective proteins. You appear to be latching onto an idea and running with it rather than understanding the science behind it, much like Darwinists do with evolution.
In the context of proper science, your post makes no sense.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
imagine being a character in world of warcraft, imagine what the programers must seem like to you (the character). living in a dimention far greater than your own. where 3D is an illusion but to you seeming solid as a rock, created from nothing. talk about far fetched right?
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
When did "theory" get redefined to mean "Here's something you can take as true, or make up anything you like"?
Furthermore, I would graciously request that the Creator (or spokespeople thereof) explain to me what my tailbone and appendix are for.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
I have had similar thoughts to Doc Ruby. We used to think of viruses as much different that bacteria because there was no cell, no metabolism... or whatever. Virii were simple... almost just chemicals. Well, although prions are a very specific version, why can't we stretch our minds to think of proteins in the same lineage?
It begins to make you realize that life, as amazing as it is, might just be the evolution of chemical reactions such as simple proteins.
If everything besides humans, roaches and wheat went extinct, you'd have a pretty sorry ecosystem. Not only would it be less able to cope with changes and disruptions, but it wouldn't be nearly as able to spin off most, possibly more successful, organisms.
why, none thanks you!
Want to prove me wrong? Go ahead. Stand up and reply to this message, and tell me that your fundamental worldview has been changed as a result of this ID/evolution Slashturbation. I think the messages that follow (or more likely don't) will speak for themselves.
And moderators, do your part. If the discussion fails to include anything relevant to the article itself, you need to put it in its place with offtopic mods.
Finally, if you're frustrated like I am, then speak out! Otherwise, the inteligent discussion we enjoy on Slashdot will decompose into the same juvenille, knee-jerk flamewars you find on the rest of the web.
Then there is the issue of mitochondrial DNA, which is non-nuclear DNA that has merged into modern cells late on in the cellular picture. Are they implying that mitochondrial DNA was a virus that got stuck in a nucleic cell, or that the nucleus is the foreign part that infected a non-nucleic mitochondrial cell? Or maybe those were two independent cells where one had been infected by this virus, and then the cells (as cells) combined to form a chimera.
Three ways to interpret a single article, with minimal knowledge of what possibilities exist. An expert might easily find hundreds, if not thousands, of interpretations of events. Of course, there is the question of whether that matters. I would say yes. If you have a totally generic theory like that, it is unfalsifiable, because no matter what evidence you come up with, you can twist the meaning of the theory to fit.
Am I saying that they're wrong? No. It is self-evident that "life" and "non-life" are two regions on a continuum that has no discontinuities. There is therefore a third region, which I'll call "semi-life", which exists between those two regions. Whatever point you pick in the "semi-life" region, you will find something that has non-life attributes between that point and the start of the "life" region. Likewise, there will also be something, somewhere, that has life attributes between that same point and the "non-life" region. Given that, it would seem fairly obvious that viruses are probably a major component in the "semi-life" realm and probably had some role in the stepwise refinement process we call evolution.
The lack of a testable hypothesis, the wooliness of the conjecture, the lack of discussion on mitochondria - these tell me that the paper is grossly inadequate. NOT necessarily "inaccurate", just inadequate. The quality of the work may well be there, but you cannot determine this from the quality of the writing, which read like tabloid journalism. People whose idea of news is the UK's "The Sunday Sport" are unlikely to be interested in microbiology and the chimerical nature of modern cells. It is unclear how many could even spell "microbiology" or "chimerical" with their concentration absorbed on the pictures.
Slashdot and K5 have excuses for stories that aren't "perfect" - they're not supposed to be. Nobody (sane) subscribes to Slashdot in the expectation of the next Einstein or the next Arthur C Clarke publishing vivid, powerful, truly revolutionary stories there. Although said stories would almost certainly be covered. Maybe twice in the same day. When science journals start to resemble a cross between a teenager's blog and some advertising hype for a paperback novel, though, I have to wonder why they're bothering. Those who can understand the subject well enough to appreciate it fully will be repulsed by the pop style. Those who like the pop style are unlikely to understand a word of what was said.
Probably the greatest hope for scientific journalism is if a law is passed banning the writing of academic papers when under the influence of hallucinogens.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species that I realized you aren't actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. And the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we...are the cure. - Agent Smith (The Matrix)
The article seems to be stretching too far beyond the facts in many places. In particular:
Moreover, certain signature Mimi genes, such as those that code for the production of the soccer-ball shape of its capsid (an outer protein coat common to all viruses), have been conserved in viruses that infect organisms from all three of the domains, particularly in eukaryotes. The implications of that finding are truly radical: that Mimi, or a Mimi-like ancestor, emerged prior to the three other domains and played a key role in inventing the very cells of which humans and all complex cellular life-forms are made.
I can think of three alternative explanations: convergent evolution (it is such a good protein design that multiple viruses have developed it independently), horizontal gene transfer (e.g. a virally infected amoeba eats a virally infected bacterium. Virus particles are released which contain DNA from both of the original viruses) or host switching (e.g. a bacterium virus "learns" to infect amoebae.) Host switching is problematic, because the domains use slightly different genetic codes.
How can they call genes "signature Mimi genes" and also claim they are in many other viruses? This is contradictory.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
There is another type of squirrel that breeds faster, is sturdier and more adaptable, and remembers where it stores its stuff better. The growth of the gray squirrel population squeezes out the population of the red. It is natural selection at its finest.
point 1:
it took how many billions of years for this decline to happen? boy, evolution *is* a slow process.
point 2:
the possibility of extinction isn't at issue. you have to prove that the red squirrel was, at some point in time, not a squirrel or, in the future, not a red squirrel.
if macro-evolution were true, odds approach unity that the red squirrel would be toast after all these millions of years.
you can't show an instance of point 2, so you don't.
rather, you proof text some nonsense and try to spin it as something it is not. this reminds me what the religious folks do when they try and proof text their pet beliefs onto the scriptures.
macro-evolution may well be wholly or partially true, but if it was as obvious as some like to say, people like you wouldn't be so irrational when explaining it.
btw, i find the nonsense you've shared to be the norm, so don't feel too bad.
In related news, many famous virus developers, including the inventors of the mydoom virus, are being hired by artificial intellicenge labs across the world.
I really wanted to change my sig to something witty, but all I could come up with is this.
Sorry, guys, but isn't this almost the same story?
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
devolve means to get less complex
when i say a human is more complex than a bacteria, this is not prejudice, it's just a simple fact
likewise, when you say something devolves, there is no judgment or bias involved at all
lampreys are not better or worse than their ancestors, but they are certainly less complex, as all parasites are, because they are shedding functinality they no longer need to survive
they have DEVOLVED
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The earth (according to bible studies) was created 4000 BC, if you take it literally. I even met a nutcase who did while I spent a High School year in California in the 90's (I am German). I didn't understand this at all, but nowdays it wouldn't astound me as much.
Anyways, the tale of Jesus is about 2000 years old. He was/is a jew. So christianity is a jewish sect strictly speaking. The old testament was taken from (or is) the jewish tanakh, which is much older. I don't know exaclty how old, but I believe Genesis (which is the part that contains the "fable" that you are referring to) is much older.
Why does such a blatant factual error get such a high rating? I always thought the US was so religious? Mmmh Slashdot, not the stereotype, mmmh. (I like)
Well, that falls more closely to the Matrix theory than to the God theory.
So that means that God is a virus?
Cool!
Nothing will change ID people's minds.
That's not necessarily true.
The way I understand evolution is that it is driven by mutation. For example, giraffes had short necks. Every now and then, a long necked giraffe was born, but couldn't graze that well on grass and was generally unsuccessful, until there was suddenly no more grass anywhere the giraffes lived (like all of Africa) and those with long necks that were able to eat leaves thrived(because trees were mysteriously not affected by whatever killed all the grass), and the short-necked giraffes died off.
While this story seems plausible, in order for Darwin to be correct, every species would have to come into existence because of some catastrophe that causes it's non-mutated parents to die off. I say this because no one can show me two distinct species (short and long necked giraffes) where one had evolved from the other... Nowhere on earth. Humans, chimps and baboons both evolved from some great-grandparent species, but none of these are around... and none of the species that existed between us and them exist either. They are all mysteriously extinct, for all species, everywhere on the plantet, leaving no fossil records of any kind.
In other words, not only is there no missing link between humans and our ancestors, but there is no missing links for any animals, past or present. You find me one species and it's direct ancestor and maybe I'll change my mind. But the way it stands right now, I've seen about as much evidence for evolution as have for some sort of ID.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
One of the leading theories about the origin of the mitochondria in eukaryote cells is that they came about as the result of endosymbiosis between a bacterium and a proto-eukaryote cell.
Recall the function of mitochondria: to generate energy for the cell in the form of ATP. Some bacteria have this capability. It is believed that, somehow, some such bacteria intermingled with some proto-eukaryote cells and got taken up by them, that is, captured inside a vacuole. This produced a beneficial arragement where the host cell got the energy produced by the bacteria, and the bacteria got a host cell that kept it fed. As this symbiosis continued through generations, the bacteria and host cells became more and more dependent on one another, to the point where neither could live without the other. To the modern observer, therefore, the mitochondria look just like another organelle in the cell.
There is various evidence for this hypothesis, including:
---The mitochondria have double membranes; presumably, one was the membrane of the bacterium and the other was the vacuole membrane.
---Each mitochondrion possesses a single, circular chromosome, just like a bacterium.
---We find other examples of endosymbiosis (inside-symbiosis) in nature, where the integration of the host with the smaller cell is not complete, and each can live independently.
Just thought I would mention this since you brought it up.
Every time an article get's posted to Slashdot that has some reference to Evolution, someone brings up how it waves something denigrating in the face of Intelligent Design proponents. I was considering posting something to the effect of suggesting that such repetition be noted and logged as a corollary to Godwin's Law except in this case,
"As any discussion on Slashdot involving biology or any evolutionary science progresses, the odds of Intelligent Design being referenced, especially in a mocking or disparaging tone, approach 1:1."
I find it strangely appropriate that the "please type the word in this image" word for this post is "Contempt". Perhaps that was because an intelligent designer anticipated the moment this poster would need a word to describe the aforementioned phenomenon.
I'm surprised no one has brought up the implications this has with respect to theories like Panspermia.
A virus could withstand extrasolar transit much better than even the most hardened extremophile bacteria.
UBU
Hmm, I wonder. If a bunch of scientists could travel back in time "2 thousand years ago" to illuminate the unlearned non-scientific heathen, how would they explain "modern science"? Without sounding like a "bunch of idiots" that is.
I'd like to see that proof! I didn't think it had progressed that far. I am thinking about it, and I have to admit that I don't understand the scientific method enough to know how you would even begin to prove it.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.
Agent Smith: Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability.
Agent Smith: Never send a human to do a machine's job.
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
-Some viruses DO have membranes, but they're taken from the host after it lyses. The membrane is typically from the nuclear envelope within the cell. So don't think they don't have the phospholipid goodness entirely. -Viruses are genetic-level parasites. The critters hijack a cell and has no sympathy for the cell. Even if a virus may integrate it's genetic data with a cell's, it will eventually bail out during bad times (but there are always exceptions). Technically, they will eventually kill the host.
The Matrix is definitely one of the most profound movies of all time. The dialog by Agent Smith has these words:
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.
This may as well just be it - the actual truth.
The discovery of Mimivirus lends weight to one of the more compelling theories discussed at Les Treilles. Back when the three domains of life were emerging, a large DNA virus very much like Mimi may have made its way inside a bacterium or an archaean and, rather than killing it, harmlessly persisted there. The eukaryotic cell nucleus and large, complex DNA viruses like Mimi share a compelling number of biological traits. They both replicate in the cell cytoplasm, and on doing so, each uses the same machinery within the cytoplasm to form a new membrane around itself. They both have certain enzymes for capping messenger RNA, and they both have linear chromosomes rather than the circular ones typically found in a bacterium.
"If this is true," Forterre has said of the viral-nucleus hypothesis, "then we are all basically descended from viruses."
Follow the white rabbi
You can't handle the truth.
Viruses on the other hand are far far simpler than cells and according to the article have been shown to have an evolutionary history. At some point it is likely that viruses could self-replicate and they can still readily adapt. We have seen evolution occur in viruses.
There is far more in the article itself to refute your statement. Perhaps you should read it.
google meme theory, and you'll find you're not joking... :)
music - http://www.subatomicglue.com
n/t
As a republican I feel it my responsibity to manufacture criminals. People need punished!
(writes article about cool virus findings. Doesn't think it's cool enough so throws in needles "ID" buzzword and watches slashdoters have a jerk off party over ID bashing that detracts from the original article)
Digitally anyway. His novel Maelstrom deals with artificial life developing from viral software . The first two books of his Rifters trilogy (Maelstrom being the second) are available for free here http://rifters.com/real/shorts.htm until they are reprinted this summer. Very, very good hard sf.
The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
...welcome our new viral overlords.
"This is striking news, especially at a moment when the basic facts of origins and evolution seem to have fallen under a shroud."
What facts? They are speaking of Macro-Evolution (the changing of one kind of species to another), which can not be observed, tested, or proven, and therefore is still a theory.
If they are speaking of Micro-Evolution (the belief that dogs and wolfs share the same ancestor), then yes, I guess one virus turning into another would be fact.
But to say that I am related to banana? And now it's a virus' fault? That's not science. It is, and always will be, a theory.
Mod everyone flaim bait. This story reaks of it.
The Tierra virtual life simulation from the early 90s exhibited some interesting, life-like behaviors. Parasitism was one of the early, and unexpected results of letting snippets of randomly mutating code operate. At times, the simulated primordial soup consisted primarily of virus-like entities, dependent upon others for their existence.
Sometimes it seems like I'm the only one who does not have these questions anymore. The questions seem to stem from believing that there is a cosmic right or wrong or that one needs to reconcile such a thing. However there is nothing to support this idea.
There is no right or wrong to evolution. Evolution does not have the goal of making the fittest survive, that is merely a side effect. If you rinse a glass with alcohol you have changed its environment, the things most fit in that environment will continue to be, and other things will change form as a result of interacting with the alcohol. Neither was stronger, one simply was resistant to change. Which is better, to be static or to change? The answer is that there simply is no better. Was it wrong to put in the alcohol? No. Was it right? No.
Put some yeast in sugar water and the yeast will first destroy the sugar, producing alcohol (nature evolved the sugar into alcohol, see)the alcohol in turn kills the yeast. None of this is wrong. If the alcohol developed consciousness and killed yeast where it would save sugar from conversion or avoiding killing yeast and pooled on one side of the tub this would not be wrong either.
The first illusion to dispel is right and wrong. There is merely cause and effect, no effect is any better than another unless you supply a 'goal' or 'motivation'. Of course there is no cosmic 'goal' or 'motivation'. If there were, we would all have the same goals, motivations, morals, and so forth. Fortunately there is no particular reason we need to imagine there being one.
The next illusion is the separation of man from the rest of nature. Man is just another animal, like all others he has a set of characteristics and there are numerous complex organisms that function in a similar way to us. Harming a cow would be no more right than a man. See the first illusion if you are still wondering about how wrong harming a man is (this is why I am not a vegetarian).
The question then is how far can we take that illusion? The great question of where do you draw the line? The answer is that you do not draw a line. The universe is composed of a constant flux and changing of states of energy. Matter is merely a subgroup of energy in states that remain stable in certain ways that allows us to interact with it (being composed largely of this sort of energy ourselves). If you follow this to its conclusion then you quickly realize that the distinction between living and non-living can not be defined because it is also an illusion. All matter is merely a pattern of energy in a subgroup of states whether regardless of what the human brain classifies it as.
The human brain works by classifying and sub classifying all things around us. We never "know" anything, we merely label it, develop a model to describe our observations. We develop labels and classifications for behaviors we witness also and combine them to form the models. None of this is cosmic truth. It does however reveal why the above illusions exist. They exist because humans need labels like good and bad, right and wrong. Intelligence is the act of ordering. The first thing classified is self. Philosophy discovered this with "i think therefore I am". After classifying itself an intelligence must then classify characteristics of self. The very act of classifying the chaotic universe of "what is" requires artificial constructs like "right" and "wrong". How could one successfully order something that is not orderly without INVENTING patterns in the chaos?
Master yourself. Realize that intelligence needs goals to drive it, master yourself by choosing those goals consciously instead of pretending they are chosen by cosmic consequence or innate morality.
In summary, evolution is a side effect of the fact that nature is constant change of energy states. A change of energy in one state is a change of environment that results in the change of states of still more energy. Evolution can not be stopped or started, it can not be wronged because IT DOES NOT HAVE AN EN
Do we know the difference between macro- and micro-evolution in this discussion?
# man tar
it was the "karma sutra" virus.
What?
Natural selection is true without question. Changes in environment cause extinction. Therefore those less suited to an environment are selected for extinction.
As for macro-evolution it is also obvious. Macro organisms are composed of micro-organisms and micro-organisms evolve fast enough that we have watched the entire process again and again. This point has been clearly settled with the proof that virii are no less organism than single celled life. Since the macro-organism is merely a sum of its mico-organisms evolution in the micro effects an evolution in the macro.
As for squirrels not being squirrels there is no need for any such non-sense. Squirrels were always squirrels because a squirrel is not a factual thing, it is simply a label we have given to a grouping of characteristics. If something mutated in a way that caused a vast change in those characteristics we would not classify it as a changed squirrel, we would classify it where the characteristics best fit or call it a new species. If squirrels are an evolutionary decendant of something else we clearly would call the something else by a different name more suited to its characteristics. For instance, if squirrels evolved from something we would call a bat, we would have called it a bat and would call any old skeletons of it that we found bats.
Fortunately we have now sequenced the DNA of many lifeforms and conclusively proven that there are common roots.
It is a lot easier to think these things out if you try to remember what is fact, and that nothing needs to resolve a conflict in classification systems we made up to be true. Most questions of philosophy have arisen in this manner. For instance, morals and ethics. Both are constructs that have been made up to provide direction for intelligence not universal truths with which the universe must be reconciled.
Don't all extant viruses require hosts to replicate? How could viruses be the precursors to prokaryotes? If they existed before cells, wouldn't they, by definition, not be viruses?
Disclaimer: IANAMicrobiologist
If you can read this sig, you're too close.
I, for one, welcome our Blaster decended Artificially Intelligent overloards.
Perhaps we need to revise our definition of life? For me, life is a pattern. It is a pattern of molecules in space. It is a pattern of processes. The atoms in you today are not the same as those next week. Are those atoms "alive" today and "dead" next week? Why?
what I think he was trying to say is that he met someone in highschool that literally believed that the earth was created 4,000 BC (around 6,000 years ago).
SO, what are you saying? That millions upon millions of Americans believe the earth to be around 6,000 years old?
oil micelles in water spontaneously create themselves
if there were any self-replicating rna/ dna, they would have been exposed to all sorts of disruptions
any that got trapped in an oil micelle would be in a controlled environment, and would have been exposed to less interruptions, and would replicate more
over time, types of self-replicating molecules dependent on the existence of oil micelles would have evolved, and, over a long time, any that could extend the existence of the micelle, or control its shape/ size would have evolved (it created byproduct molecules that interact with the micelle)
eventually, the ability to control the micelle's formation and to create new ones would have established a huge evolutionary leap, and survival guarantee, and such creatures would come to dominate
its a gradual process, where there are rewards for every tiny incremental improvement
just like the evolution of flight: it didn't happen because lizards kpet jumping off cliffs util one spontaneously had mutated wings in all their complexity
more like lizards jumped from tree to tree, and those with webbing could jump a little more, glide a little more, and the survival benefits of this concentrated... better and better aeronautical abilities until full flight was achieved
gradually, in tiny incremental steps, where each tiny improvement meant a survival advantage
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I think the red, green and blue stuff is malarky.
I say it's cyan, magenta and yellow!
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
huh? I've heard lot's of words used to describe a supreme being, but "inchoate" !?!
Which religion defines the creator of the universe as a rudimentary being who isn't fully formed? What person has a deep seated psychological need for an inadequate supreme being?
Clear, Dark Skies
Which biologists haven't been thinking of viruses as the logical step between non-life and life?
Clear, Dark Skies
I agree with the scientist who noted that bare viri would be rather unstable compared to bacterium -- but that would explain why self-replicating viri are essentially extinct today -- they've been beaten out by bacterium, and forced into a parasitic niche.
The really novel thought for me is that cell nuclei may have evolved from a large virus 'melding' with a bacterium.
This would mean that we, like lichen, are a hybred creature -- half bacterium colony, half virus.
And the "intelligent design' people complain about being descendents of the apes .... bwahahaha! we're a walking, talking viral colonoy!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
... Will a super-intelligent AI look back and be depressed to discover that it's ancestors included SoBig and Blaster?
that you have asperger's syndrome
and that your brain is so brittle that you can't focus on deeper meanings, and get stuck on shallow style
i wish you luck on your impediment
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
said better than me at least
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
nt
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
From the article:
We have been looking for our designer in all the wrong places. It seems we owe our existence to viruses, the least of semiliving forms, and about the only thing they have in common with any sort of theological prime mover is their omnipresence and invisibility....
And, of course, their intelligent design. Few things in the biological world accomplish so much with so little complexity as a virus. Relatively speaking, they are lean and mean, optimized for their particular function. Think of them as the hand-optimized assembly code of the biological world.
I'm growing weary of psuedo-intellectuals spouting off politically correct claptrap without any regard for critical thought whatsoever. There was nothing in the article which disproved, or even significantly weakened the case for intelligent design. In fact, the key claim of Intelligent Design - that a statistically random organization of DNA sequences would not produce a viable organism isn't even discussed. If anything, the presence of viruses in the evolutionary chain would only reinforce this claim, because 1.) their DNA sequences are much more crucial to their survival than in other types of organisms, and 2.) they are not a viable organism apart from their host.
Granted, I don't like the ID argument because of its statistical basis, but this latest research does nothing to disprove intelligent design or theories of a benevolent Creator. Perhaps if the author had really thought about this critically he would have realized that as exciting as this discovery is, it does nothing to weaken the ID argument. It is science, not theology!
This was a scientific, not theological discovery. Why does the author confuse the two?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
It is the drug of the poor. If you can convinced the poor (in mind and/or matter) that there
will be an after life then you can also convince them to leave you all the power and money.
The after life will be a lot of fun if the current life is very bad. The more you suffer
the happier you will be after death.
A religion is a must for any tyran who wants to control his people. When there is a conflict
between the tyran and religion is when the tyran doesn't control the religion.
Perhaps this is why people in the USA have felt like they were free for many years, because
of the separation of church and states. If assholes like bush or robertson ever get their
way we'll live in a theocracy no better than Iran or Saudi Arabia. You will get killed
with stone or burned perhaps instead of having your head cut off.
Life for the normal people would be just as miserable.
i am sure they believe in Creationism. and i am also sure they are outside of the US... just because Christians in this country have been quiet, and allowed themselves to be marginalized (mostly because they actually may believe in freedom of speech) they have only been pushing back hard lately... be glad they don't push as hard as say a suicide bomber (usually).
Humans are a virus.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
has a neck length like no other
it is like that because of feedback with the environment: giraffe's with longer and longer necks survived and had more and more offspring
the amplification of the neck required nothing more than the fact that: longer neck= more food, the longest of the long always had the fullest belly
same with human intelligence: the smarter of the smartest always had the fullest belly
this amplification of traits is actually quite common throughout species and evolutionary history. the amplification of certain traits due to sexual selection is a prime example: peacock's tails and deer's antlers among thousands of other such examples
you really should educate yourself on the subject matter you speak of before you open your mouth
otherwise, you run the risk of sounding ignorant
like you do now
How many more ideas are they going to go through?
many many more. each one tries best to match the evidence set before it. the main reason intelligent design will never defeat evolution is simply because intelligent design is like this: "this is the way it works, accept it, shut up, don't think about it anymore, end of story." this is dogma. it is not science. science always defeats dogma because dogma ends thought, while science is always welcome to more and better thought. so science grows and gets stronger and stronge rover time while dogma sits and rots. evolution works like this: "we will try to get the idea that makes the most sense with the evidence set before us, and as more evidence or better ideas present themselves, we will incorporate them until we have an explanation which is the best explanation of what we see in the natural world." with every passing day, evolution gets stronger and a better description of the world around us, while intelligent design looks more and more full of holes
If evolution is real I have to wonder why one branch of the tree became so different compared to the other branches (humans to any other species). There should be a lot more similar variations of humans but there is only 1 type of human at that. There is a big divide between humans and any other species.
there have been more than one type of human: homo sapiens killed them all off. witness the hobbits of indonesia and the neanderthals of europe. there even were some sort of gigantic type of human in africa i recently heard about. the reason you can't fathom these other things you talk about is because you can't wrap your mind around the immensity, the sheer volume of time we are talking about. we get to where we are with the branches of life and the big differences of species (pruning the branches continualy over time) simply because we are talking about such a FUCKING HUMONGOUS amount of time
you're just too much a simpleton and a dimwit to appreciate it
educate yourself first, then open your mouth next time
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That is all.
That's always possible. Even a random memory malfunction (ie, a random mutation) could lead to intelligent computers, given programs that were close enough already. As time goes on there will be more computers, and more artificially intelligent software, so the "breeding ground" for these mututations, and therefore the chances of it happening successfully, will increase.
;)
But actually, it means something cooler than that... if viruses can cause evolution beyond single-celled organisms, then beginning the process of intelligent life on other planets is just a matter of sending a virus there. It's a slow approach, of course...
Very amusing; so, you believe there are some 747s floating around somewhere else in the Universe, all formed by chance?
Evolutionists and mathemeticians have been at odds (pardon the pun) with each other for many years. Evolutionists know that anything is possible given enough time and particles, whereas mathemeticians know there aren't enough particles or time in the entire Universe for all the things evolutionists claim. And, you, my friend, have completely lost the sense of scale in probability, beyond which events may effectively be said to be impossible. Something that has a 1 in a google chance of happening can effectively be considered impossible; the last stars in our Universe will burn out before it happens.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Off topic, but it fascinates me how many molecular biologists / microbiologists are on slashdot (myself included).
Uhhhh
Did you not see the quotes I put around Boeing 747?
Did you not even stop, for a moment, to think that I metaphorically meant "intelligent life"?
And in terms of being off-scale, please re-read my initial criticism of parent post. Tornado + Junkyard != Something as large as a 747. I completely agree that a tornado in a junkyard cant make a 747, which is what the statement is supposed to do, make you think it's impossible because its a biased and innaccurate analogy. Maybe a tornado in a junkyard could make something _smaller_ (assuming the range of acceptable "things" were things we are already familiar with). The statement assumes that a strong wind could assemble an airplane out of washing machines, broken tv's, rocking chairs, and a toaster. No wonder it's so easy to not believe. "Believing in gravity is like believing birds cant fly!" So let me re-iterate and spell it out for you, with a "junkyard" the size of the universe, "junk" meaning an unimaginable amount of particles, "tornados" being natural forces not chaotic enough to destroy said particles if they were to happen to assemble by chance, and "boeing 747" meaning intelligent life. Then yeah, what is so impossible about something nice happening given enough time? Much more believable than "Oh. Yeah. Some invisible grandfather-figure guy, who has no creator, who is very involved in human affairs, made you from nothing."
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
I am in Europe. When I heard there's a "discussion" going on about creationism or intelligent design or other rubbish, my first thought was "(snicker) They won't budge to reality, will they?" Little did I know, or at least assume or even consider, that in the US this discussion is very real.
At first I thought it's a fad. You know, like that low carb thing. Some nutjobs trying to create a tempest in a teapot to be heard. A marketing stunt for a church, so to speak. That this could honestly be considered teaching material, I don't think anyone here would have considered this possible.
If a state funded school tried to push this bullspit into courses, they would probably be struck from the funding list. Worst, certificates from said schools would no longer be accepted as valid. Simply for teaching bullcrap. And trying to push this matter into politics would be suicide for the career of the pushing politician.
We've had our time of clerical oppression. Maybe the US need some of that time, too, before they realize that it's not really a good idea and that (organized) religion is the best way to keep a country backwards and out of the scientific loop.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If I recall correctly, Miller's Experiment and it's variants have only been able to create amino acids and precursor chemicals, not any form of "life", and then under very carefully constructed conditions "surmised" to have existed at some point on earth. Even these experiments required intelligence to design, so in a way, even if scientists eventually cracked the code of creating the simples one celled organism, it took an "intelligent being" to design the experimental conditions required. Which instead of defeating the idea of an intelligent designer for life supports it.
But to my main point there is a chicken and the egg problem that would have to be solved for these amino acids to begin assembling the amino acids into the self-replicating protein chains required, and even prior to that it seems like their was a problem where polymerization is required but the formation of some of the acids prevents it (?) I am not saying there wasn't a primordial soup by the way -- the fossil record shows there was. What I am saying is that it doesn't make sense to insist that the process of intelligent creation would not be supported logically AND in the fossil records, where random design would tend NOT to be logical or supported in the fossil records.
What is referred to as "the theory of evolution" consists of several parts. First of all, common descent - i.e. that the different species that live on earth (or lived on earth in the past) have common ancestors. They did not appear independently, but instead descended and changed from that common ancestor. The theory does not specify if there was just one common ancestor, or several ancestors (i.e. that life might have originated several times). Currently evidence points at one common ancestor, with no good understanding of where to put viruses.
This theory had already many opportunities for being disproved. For example, if it had turned out that the DNA of one species has no resemblence to very close species - so for example, if the DNA of a marsupial rat was closer to that of a regular rat then it is to a kangaroo. Or if the genetic code of species would be a patchwork of pieces assembled from other species, taken almost without change, and not according to a pattern of common descent. It is amazing that the DNA, totally unknown at the time of Darwin, shows almost exactly the same pattern of descent as can be inferred by looking carefully at the animals - i.e from taxonomy - even when one looks at parts of DNA that seem to have no function.
Fossil evidence provides another opportunity for the theory of common descent to be chalenged: if we discovered a bird in 2 billion year old rocks, it would be a serious problem for the theory of common descent.
Another part of the theory of evolution is how changes from one species to another happen. The idea of evolution by natural selection and random changes. Part of that theory is a mathematical theory, and can not be disproven. Just like you can not disprove that 7 is a prime number - if you accept certain axioms, then it follows from them. What is disprovable is whether the theory applies to the world - to the way species changed in the past. That, again can be disproved. Darwin provided one example - he said that if one would find even a single instance in which a feature of one species evolved for the sole benefit of anoter species, then his theory would be proven wrong. Thus, artificially selected species have many features that are only good for humans - increased fat content, wiered shapes and so on, which make the species they are in much less viable. If you found something like that in species that were supposed to have been naturally selected, it again would provide a serious chalange to the theory of evolution.
Another possible way of disproving the theory is if you found within the DNA of humans a single gene of a length of say 1000 bases (letters) (out of the 10^9 that we have) that does not appear to be similar to a sequence in any organism on earth. (Though it would be already an increadible challange if it did not appear in any closely related ape).
Or imagine the following experiment: take bacteria, and delete the gene for digesting a certain sugar. Grow them with that sugar for some time. If the gene suddenly appeared back, it would be a serious challenge to the idea that things change through random mutations.
Hey - that was almost on topic!
Why is it so difficult for you to use punctuation beyond the occasional comma? Reading your posts is quite the task.
Considering that the most potent viruses are "RNA viruses" and that biology students are taught that "the RNA universe" preceeded the "the DNA universe" (basically meaning that on Earth, organisms used RNA before DNA evolved) then the theory that viruses promoted evolution (possibly as a way to combat the "RNA universe") holds water.
Since chickens evolved from organisms that had eggs, then eggs must have come first.
FRA: STFU GTFO
Viruses are parasitical organisms which use the RNA mechanism in the cells of "real" life forms to reproduce thier DNA.
Viruses have no cell structure, therfore no cell nucleus, therefore no RNA and therefore cannot reproduce on there own.
So how can a parasitic virus which depends on celled organisms to reproduce be the ancestor of celled organisms.
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
inchoate
adj : only partly in existence; imperfectly formed; "incipient
civil disorder"; "an incipient tumor"; "a vague
inchoate idea" [syn: incipient]
I can't even understand what kind of belief system Zonk is talking about. It's definitely not Christianity, nor is it creationism.
Perhaps he's talking about that Que character from Star Trek TNG?
This proves it... god IS a 1337-h4xx0r
Wikipedia article: much shorter, much more informative
One of the recent papers in Science on that matter: quite nicely written for a junk that both Science and Nature are becoming.
In particular, the latter states:
The question is, whether the bold stuff works? It seems to me that it is all debris of old working cell-replication machinerie.
My humble hypothesis is that it is downgrade from bacteria.
Sorry for being an Anonimous Coward
By what criteria would you like to have it demonstrated? If you mean the large-scale evolution of microbes into mammals, I'm afraid then that there's no lab with enough time or funding to create life from scratch, given that we think it takes about 2 billion years under the most ideal conditions we know of for it to happen. The condition you are requiring for "proof" is ridiculous. I might say also that you have to create the Sun in a lab to demonstrate that fusion occurs -- but I could just invite you to a vacation on the Bikini Atoll for a smaller demonstration.
Adaptation of moths or bacteria to environmental stress is not evolution.
So, faced with an example of small-scale evolution clearly occurring, you dance to one side and and re-define the process in order to avoid accepting the unmistakable truth -- organisms change their forms in response to selective pressures from their environment. Good one! Nice to see that evidence doesn't really mean anything to you.
The origin of life itself cannot be shown experimentally. Nobody has ever taken any mixture of all 92 elements, none of which have ever been part of something alive, and created any life . . .
blah, blah, blah. Again you come up with the clearly-impossible requirements of proof, as you bloody well know we do not yet have the knowledge to reproduce biogenesis. Not knowing exactly how to make it happen doesn't mean the theory is invalid. And by attacking biogenisis you are also not really attacking evolution. You're instead moving goalposts far and wide to avoid the squarely-kicked points that you don't want to see.
Evolution tries to apply to living systems what applies nowhere else -- namely that systems left to themselves become more complex, rather than breaking down into simpler components.
Fundamental and bloody ignorant misunderstanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Try to grasp the complete implication -- left to themselves any systems of order will tend towards disorder. Our system is not left to itself, idiot! We have a gigantic ball of flaming light pouring energy into the system, which can directly be proven to drive evolution's movement. We even know how chlorophyll works in plants to make photosynthesis possible.
Evolution teaches that over large spans of time, simple cells evolved into complex animals -- even eventually humans. No experiment has ever been done to prove even the smallest link in such an amazing chain of events.
Again with the impossible requirements. What we do have is a long chain of irrefutable evidence from which the devoutly stupid avert their eyes in fear. An experiment is what science uses when the real world's evidence isn't specific enough or obtainable. You once again wildly shift goalposts across the field, because if you didn't you'd be confronted with a TEEMING MASS of indisputable evidence that didn't need to be experimentally obtained.
Evolutionists try to convince us and themselves, that complex living structures, such as brains, eyes, ears, circulatory systems all came into being without detailed instructions and knowledge of how put them all together. Hemoglobin molecules are very complex structures that have a very precise arrangements of atoms.
Funny, during the latest trial on ID, "Dr." Behe was unable to convince a jury of the theoretical underpinnings of this, and whenever confronted with any questions about it ID'ers are eerily silent on the details of at what juncture this complexity becomes irreducible. Do you have any math to back this up? That's usually what real scientists use to frame their quantitative proofs. What is the measure of complexity as expressed by a number, and at what "percent" or vector or whatever of complexity does a system become too complex to have evolved independently of intelligence? As an aside, any theoretical papers on this topic whatsoever would be o
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
So is what this article saying is that a more complex "Virus" that could replicate which came from the primordial soup suddenly de-evolved to make simpler viruses and those viruses then inturn evolved into more complex cells. I would also like to know how they know the mimi could at one time replicate itself without a host. That seems like a jump in logic to me with no real supporting evidence except that it makes their theory work.
I would love some feedback.
Agent Smith talked about humans being different from mammals. Forterre is not saying the same thing, because mammals all have cells with nuclei, thus all would be descendents of viruses under this hypothesis.
The submitter should be modded down for being off topic. It is like a pastor starting the sermon with. "Todays sermon is going to be about the good sumaritan parable and the lesson of helping others. This is especially improtant today since there is a controversy over whether or not you should convert to bhuddism."
Because by his comments the half that knows what the hell it's talking about was apparently never required for his survival. A compelling demonstration of what an amazing machine the human body is that it can manage with only half of the mass of its central nervous system.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
"whereas mathemeticians know there aren't enough particles or time in the entire Universe for all the things evolutionists claim." Like what? Can you cite any of these mathematicians? Or are you just repeating something you've heard in the past.
James Gould and other evolution pundits says its a fallacy that evolution has a direction, i.e. get more complex, better, etc. A good fraction of evolution seems to be simplifying life- e.g. leeches and parasites have dropped many bodily organs. Viruses may be simplified cells.
If evolution has a trend, then it is to occupy more ecological niches over time. About 10% of earth's history ago multi-cellular life came onto land (though bacteria could have been there for eons). Life lives in deep rock, the edge of the atmosphere, has become intelligent, is leaking into space, and so on.
Apply your genetic algorithms.
random event-
-crossover
-mutation
if(rank>threshhold) entity persists;
iterate.
rank = ability of entity to exist / time
Where is creative evolution in that?
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
i think the analogy is off (provided this isn't merely a troll)
a more apt analogy would be several tornadoes going through a trailer park one after another and eventually assembling something of some level of complexity.
the way we are occurred by chance. one random change long ago could have resulted in us being far different that we are today, as if that tornado idea assembled a helicopter rather than an airplane for example.
and no, the "occurred by chance" thing does not eliminate the possibility of there being (a) god(s). something had to start everything. IMO, its entirely likely that he/she/it/whatever simply went "let there be light", "let there be stuff", then just sat back down in his chair and watched things happen.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
I'm still hoping that in another twenty year, people will ba able to live the fact that someday, they will die, disgusting worms will eat their bowels, a tree will grow out of it, and apples too, circle of life!
:)
Yeah, but what I'm really hoping for is the day that people accept that as a method of body disposal or funeral. People have asked that question "cremation or burial" in general morbid conversation. I always tell them neither...because cremation is mostly wasting what was me by actually using more energy to burn the body. While burial is locking up what I was made of in some misguided attempt to preserve me.
Want to really freak people out? Tell them you would prefer to be fed to animals. I really don't give a crap...gators, bears, hyenas, etc. Just let nature be nature. I am not separate from it. The best possible solution would just be burial at sea. Just dump me overboard. Even that is incredibly limited. There also buddhist temples that chop you up and feed you to vultures. Pretty sure you would need to have been there for awhile to get that treatment...
People look at me like I'm completely insane. I guess they think doing that to a body is disrepectful. How? I am gone. I cannot weep or feel anger. I am not going to haunt you from the afterlife (which I don't believe in anyway) because you did something else. I no longer exist. But if you're going to ponder how to dispose of my now useless vessel...why not consider giving it back? I think I've just accepted what life is and isn't. And what the end of it is and isn't. At least bury me in a shallow grave with some seeds in my pocket or something.
And no, I am not some dirty hippie. I don't even recycle.
Worlf of Warcraft evolved from similar, more primitive computer games.
Think about it.
Am I misunderstanding something here?
What was this creator made out of? Did this creator transend time and space? If so, why did a single event need to start the universe? Is it likely that the universe created itself? As you can see, ID tends to fall away from conventional science and goes straight into the mental-masturbation domain of philosophy and speculation.
Again, faced with CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS evidence that does not require an experiment, you dodge to one side desperately trying to come up with an impossible requirement with which to invalidate evolution. And furthermore, the failure of such an experiment as you propose would not be any kind of falsifiable disproof -- as you have not stated what is irreducably complex. Neither do you understand by the premises of this experiment how life is to have evolved. BTW, you are WAY TOO HUNG UP on the 2nd law. Like Inigo Montoya says, "That word does not mean what you think it means."
Living things are very adaptable and in that sense, "survival of the fittest" is certainly valid. However, the urge to survive by adapting to stress in no way proves the claim of evolution from the simple to the complex.
No, I think it's the staggering mass of fossil remains that proves that claim. Why do you keep wanting to change around the rules whenever the evidence doesn't suit you? Are you really that afraid of what it says?
You state that evolution is fact, yet say that not knowing still makes a valid theory! Facts are things we know. You name me ONE other real science that is NOT based on doing experiments and measurements in the lab other than the pseudo-science of evolution.
1. Astronomy. Idiot!
It is you that has no understanding of entropy.
Oh HO HO HO! Who the fuck are you to tell me what I do and don't know? Entropy speaks specifically to the level of chaos in a system. The end result of entropy in a closed system is HEAT DEATH, the complete cessation of all movement in a system. Don't fucking point me at the Wiki. I took physics 101, and passed it with all aces, which is more, I guarantee, than you can say. Heat death occurs when all of the energy in a system which is organized (into things like stars) has been exhausted. Since the Earth is a system in concert with a STAR, the Earth system is not subject to Heat Death JUST FUCKING YET. When the SUN BURNS OUT then you will have a point. Until then, please slam your ignorant gob shut because you clearly do not understand the VERY FIRST THING about your topic.
Evolution of simple life forms into complex ones has also never been observed,
Except in the fossil record. Blind?
This process has neither been observed happening today in nature, nor has anybody MADE it happen in a lab. Show me just ONE example.
Shifting requirements . . . yawn. The only reason I'm still typing is that I've made it my personal crusade to mock you until you shut the fuck up. You are wrong. Accept it and gag on your acceptance of it.
Neither evolution's non-mind stance, nor ID theory of a Mind behind life can be experimentally verified
Evolution is again a factual process. Natural selection is the theory. Blueness of the sky, and all that. Not seeing the forest for the trees? Your intellectual cowardice is staggering. There's nothing I truly despise more than the willfully ignorant, and you are as willfully ignorant as a four-year-old child. Go change your fucking diaper.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Heh.
I'm reminded of an incident that happened up here in Toronto. A writer died, and as part of her will, she wanted a tree planted and her ashes used to fertilize it. The tree was to be planted on the grounds of a library that she had previously donated a lot of her book collection to, and which had already been named in her honour.
The problem was that there are local by-laws regarding disposal of corpses, and this violated at least one of them. I believe someone attached to the library branch snuck out at midnight to make sure the author's wishes were kept, despite the bureaucrats.
i have no idea on what the answer for any of the questions you posed is. i fully accept that i have no idea on the answer and i am confident that we will eventually figure it all out, somehow.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Size isn't the issue; complexity is the issue. The reason a whirlwind won't assemble a 747 out of a junkyard is that a 747 is too complex for natural forces to produce.
The number of particles in the Universe might seem unimaginable, but it is not uncalculable. The number of of particles in the Universe is estimated between 10 raised to the 87th power (10^87).
"If the universe were packed solid with neutrons, there would still be only 10^128 particles, a number larger than a googol but much smaller than a googolplex."
http://www.stormloader.com/ajy/reallife.html
Let's suppose there were 10^100 particles in the Universe, and each particle represented a tiny printing press, printing random characters at the rate of one character a year. If it does this for 20 billion years, then the particles would have printed 20 x 10^109 characters. If we increase the rate to the 10^20 characters per second, then we would have 10^100 * 10^20 * 6 x 10^17 characters, or 6 x 10^137 characters produced. Notice that this is more particles than are believed to exist in the Universe, and more time than the Universe is claimed to have existed (that is, around 14 billion years), all at a frequency greater than would produce x-rays. If the odds of something happening are 1 chance in 10^1000, then you should see there hasn't been enough time in the entire history of the Universe for that event to have happened. It is practically impossible. Indeed, an event with a 1 chance in 10^100 isn't likely ever to happen in the lifetime of the Universe.
There actually is practical application of such a concept. Alan Turing's Halting Problem is based on this principle; namely, there are some problems that a computer cannot solve, because it won't have enough time in the Universe to solve them. Substitute biological evolution for the computer, and you can see why evolutionists hate mathematical analysis of evolutionary theory.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
"Prions are defective proteins."
"Defective" means they don't do what the designer expected. In the context of proper science, there is no "designer", or the "designer" is nature, which does not "expect" anything. Or there is an "intelligent designer", for which there is, as yet, no real evidence.
Self-replicating RNA, not just any nucleotides, constituting just one of the many possible products of random chemical process "mutations", might have taken a much longer time to occur often enough to become established as a permanent presence in the organic soup. Simpler self-replicating proteins might have occurred earlier and in great enough numbers to become established, despite the other processes feeding off them and breaking them down. Where does your oversimplified analysis account for that?
And where does your obnoxious retorts, including stabs at "Darwinists", fit into the proper context of science? It really sounds to me like you've got your own version of "science", which you're latching onto and running with. Which makes sense, but not in the context of proper science.
--
make install -not war