Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Viruses May be the Precursors of All Life

Posted by Zonk on Tue Feb 28, 2006 05:03 PM
from the it's-alive dept.
Biotech Science
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. "

Related Stories

[+] Another Explanation for Multicellular Life 87 comments
DrJay writes "Hot on the heels of Slashdot's coverage of a controversial model for a viral origin of the multi-cellular branch of life, Nature has published an alternative model that has nothing to do with viruses. Ars Technica's science journal has the rundown on the differences between these proposals." From the Ars article: "It's funny that this proposal for the origin of Eukaryotes should hit the popular press at a time where Nature has just published a hypothesis regarding the formation of the nucleus that has nothing to do with viruses, but everything to do with parasites. The parasites in this case are molecular: Type-II introns. These DNA sequences exist in both eukaryotes and bacteria, where they can insert in the middle of genes without causing harm because they can undergo chemical reactions by which they remove themselves from the RNA messages the genes make."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Viruses May be the Precursors of All Life 50 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Keybindings Beta
Q W E
A S D
Loading ... Please wait.
  • Sheesh. Wonder if I can stop payment on my credit cards and blame THEM.

    • Which came first? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by goombah99 (560566)
      Which came first the symbiant or the host? One might say well the host of course. But now consider the virus and the bacteria. we are told the host may have evolved from the virus.



      of course bacteria have their own virus like properties. For example, th

  • that the computer viruses of today will lead to spur computers to life?
    • Only if the computers get to the point where they get into arguments over whether the computer virus was designed or created through a random process.
      • Only if the computers get to the point where they get into arguments over whether the computer virus was designed or created through a random process.

        ... and ironically the computer that argued that the virus was designed (i.e. programmed by some teenage

    • that the computer viruses of today will lead to spur computers to life?

      No, because computers are intelligently designed

  • I see... (Score:3, Funny)

    by UberMench (906076) on Tuesday February 28 2006, @05:10PM (#14821439) Homepage
    So, Agent Smith was right, humans ARE a virus. Replicating and spreading, consuming everything in our path. Who says movies aren't educational?

    • Re:I see... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ultranova (717540) on Tuesday February 28 2006, @06:09PM (#14822075)

      So, Agent Smith was right, humans ARE a virus. Replicating and spreading, consuming everything in our path. Who says movies aren't educational?

      Um, no. Viruses don't consume anything, since they don't have a metabolism. Agent Smith (and all the other agents too), on the other hand, uses human hosts to replicate, and is therefore a virus himself.

      [ Parent ]
  • Obviously the guys who named it watched The Drew Carey Show [tvacres.com].

  • Uh (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hexghost (444585) on Tuesday February 28 2006, @05:10PM (#14821443) Homepage
    "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.

    • Well (Score:2, Insightful)

      by beakerMeep (716990)
      "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. "

      In The discussion of evolutionary biology,

      • Re:Well (Score:4, Informative)

        by steveha (103154) on Tuesday February 28 2006, @06:50PM (#14822486) Homepage
        Nice of the poster to inject a controvertial personal view in the end of his submission for all of us to flame about.

        Hi, I'm steveha. The poster.

        For the record, here is the story submission exactly as I submitted it:

        The cover story [discover.com] for this month's Discover [discover.com] 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.


        Please note that I didn't put any personal views there.

        Please also note that Zonk did not put words in my mouth. He put my summary in double-quotes, and then after the double-quotes he put some additional stuff from the article. He edited my link references but did not edit my words at all.

        steveha
        [ Parent ]

          • Re:Uh (Score:3, Interesting)

            by iamlucky13 (795185)
            I suspect we're on the same wavelength here, but I'll say it anyway. Creationism is not a scientific theory, which is part of the problem I, a devout Catholic, have with Intelligent Design.

            My bigger problem is the fact that, as a theological concept, ID

            • Re:Uh (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Floody (153869)

              How is evolution disprovable?


              The following thought experiment will help you to understand the principle of falsibility:

              In the not-so-distant future, a team of archaeologists discovers a giant underground complex filled with technology significantl

              • Re:Uh (Score:4, Insightful)

                by bani (467531) on Wednesday March 01 2006, @06:03AM (#14825250)
                problems.

                1) we know life to be several billion years old, a few hundred million is a mere fraction of that.
                2) a plausible explanation: the complex was merely a laboratory for extraterrestrial scientists who were visiting earth, studying the genomes of life on various planets in the universe.

                do i get a cookie?
                [ Parent ]

            • Good that you ask (Score:3, Informative)

              by leehwtsohg (618675)
              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 inst
        • Evolution has never been duplicated in a lab

          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 scrat

  • It's the same thing in the computer world... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ArsenneLupin (766289) on Tuesday February 28 2006, @05:10PM (#14821449)
    ... if it weren't for the viruses, nobody would see any reason to ditch Windows and evolve!

  • Why mention intelligent design? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Arandir (19206) on Tuesday February 28 2006, @05:10PM (#14821458) Homepage Journal
    Is objectivity dead? Is it possible for scientists to publish their findings WITHOUT stooping to the level of mockery?
    • I remember a college textbook that went out of its way to attack creationism several times. That's just brilliant. Every time a scientist/wannabe scientist takes a jab at religion, it fuels the rabid creationists who view science as being antagonistic.

    • >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 confu

    • Is objectivity dead? Is it possible for scientists to publish their findings WITHOUT stooping to the level of mockery?

      I agree. It just gives power to the creationists. Do astronomers feel the need to attack flat-earthers every time they make an announcem

    • It's called trolling... and it sometimes happens in the stories or summaries themselves and not only in the comments. Sadly, we can't moderator the articles...

  • Not this crap again... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Digital Vomit (891734) on Tuesday February 28 2006, @05:15PM (#14821507) Homepage Journal
    "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. "

    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.

  • Submitter misplaced the focus... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wanerious (712877) on Tuesday February 28 2006, @05:18PM (#14821542)
    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.

  • Discussion? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by msbsod (574856) on Tuesday February 28 2006, @05:20PM (#14821566)
    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.
    • It's only really being discussed in United States media. It's not even a real issue in schools (although it kind of sounds like it is, there's no actual ID classes being taught outside of private parochial schools despite various proposals). It's not lik
  • 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 there is a third participant: THE BIRD-FLU VIRUS!

      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...

      AFA

    • 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...
      Did you RTFA? The scientists suggest that a virus similar to Mi
    • The viruses need the single celled organisms to replicat

      RTFA. Most

      RTFA. Most (known) modern viruses need host cells to replicate. What if the ancient ones did it just fine? But they they got bored of it and started exerting pressure on other proto-life
  • 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 com
  • Virus Clans (sorry, forgot the author's name).

    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 environmen

  • Precursion (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Tuesday February 28 2006, @05:26PM (#14821656) Homepage Journal
    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?

      • Re:You are incorrect (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Dachannien (617929)
        Instead of trolling, why not try to educate.

        The use of the term "prion" might not be absolutely correct since it was originally used to describe an infectious agent. However, the idea that a protein with two conformations - one as produced by a simpler bi
  • 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.

  • similar to eukaryotic versus prokaryotic (Score:4, Interesting)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare.gmail@com> on Tuesday February 28 2006, @05:28PM (#14821688) Homepage
    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

  • primordial soup... virii... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Spy der Mann (805235) <<spydermann.slashdot> <at> <gmail.com>> on Tuesday February 28 2006, @05:59PM (#14821986) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Welcome, Mr. Anderson (Score:4, Interesting)

    by roman_mir (125474) on Tuesday February 28 2006, @08:18PM (#14823102) Homepage Journal
    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

  • Viruses without hosts? (Score:3, Informative)

    by JourneyExpertApe (906162) on Tuesday February 28 2006, @09:28PM (#14823481)
    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
    • This is far OT, but as I'm responding to a post far OT, I hope you'll indulge me. My favourite line in any of his novels is AS I LAY DYING's one-line chapter: "My mother is a fish."

      Funny, tragic, brilliant and memorable. Well, we laughed about it a great

    • 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 a
        • 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?
    • "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-repl

    • Re:Virii need cells (Score:2, Informative)

      by Miraba (846588)
      If you RTFA, you'd see this:

      Mimi's outsize complement of genes--so large that the virus is tantalizingly close to being an independent organism--suggest to many scientists that Mimivirus underwent reductive evolution early on and shed some of its genome,
      • Mimivirus underwent reductive evolution early on and shed some of its genome, including the genes necessary to replicate on its own.

        Wait, doesn't that suggest that the Mimivirus is the opposite of what we are looking for? How does a bacteria devolving
Check for more

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2008 SourceForge, Inc.