Evolution question.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Try here... Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences Vol:103 P.3669.

tao

As far as I can tell that article describes a hypothesis for co-evolution of viruses and cells. Thanks for the reference.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Awesome, hope you're having a good time!

I vaguely recall a passing mention in a general biology class that pointed in this direction, but it sounds like they've come quite a bit further along since then. Viruses are tricky little devils, and a lot depends (as I recall) where one draws the line and calls it "life." I recall most viruses *require* other living organisms...to provide cells...for them to invade in order to reproduce. In other words, where I left off about four years ago, viruses and phages weren't quite considered alive because they could not reproduce by themselves in the complete absense of other life.

It will be interesting to take a look at what you came across, Tao. Any links?

It is revolutionary stuff Juantoo, despite the blind certitude of Dogbreath this is new stuff that comes from the program to sequence and understand the genomes of over 500 viruses and phages. They were not expecting to make the discoveries they have made. For example they have found that around 8% of the human genome is made up of ERV, (endegenous retrovirus), derived material that is fully functional. And by a 2 decade löng study to try and understand the evolution and relationships between Eukaryotic, Archae and Bacterial cells they have concluded that before the emergence of cells, first created "by viruses" there was a wider grouping some of which have not survived. They have concluded this because there are evolutionary histories recorded in the genomes of these cells that can only be explained by there once having been more groups, and only those 3 survive. Viruses are strange creatures indeed, and the experts in the field all agree we are only just begining to scratch the surface.

Refs:
Nature, Vol403,P785
New Scientist 30.8.08

tao

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

ALL viruses do. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS.

Perhaps I should comfort myself by noting that, at least, nobody has written "virii".

Duly noted, I was working from a vague recollection. And my Latin sucks.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I wonder how many modern scientists would agree with the statement, "If it's made of atoms (quarks -- strange, charm, etc.), it's alive."

none. That would be the end of their careers.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

the thing is, juan, what is religion but educated speculation about what constitutes the "Divine Will"?

You will not find me in denial of this.

Which leaves us with yet another similarity between the two disciplines of science and religion. Both are educated speculation. Neither is "fact," nor cast in stone.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Try here... Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences Vol:103 P.3669.

You have a serious attitude problem. And you have a long way to go yet before I can begin to take you seriously.

tao

Answer my question though, virus is life? If so, how so, and if so, is it time to re-define life?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

You will not find me in denial of this.

Which leaves us with yet another similarity between the two disciplines of science and religion. Both are educated speculation. Neither is "fact," nor cast in stone.

Not quite Juan. Even I have to draw the line there. Science is made up of facts and speculation, theory and confirmation. Not all is speculation in science. Then again, not all is speculation in religion.

I guess some of us are willing to entertain both areas, in order to find the truth... eh?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Answer my question though, virus is life? If so, how so, and if so, is it time to re-define life?

In my opinion a virus is without question life. Its method of reproduction and its dependence on cellular organisms, which viruses in the distant past most likely created, may make it a different class of life but none the less they are RNA/DNA based organisms with genomes and life cycles and well honed and highly effective reproductive processes. The diversity within the Viral Kingdom
is greater than all other life forms we know of put together and their ability to mutate, borrow or steal DNA code from other viruses and cells make them the most adaptable and evolutionary "fit" class of life we know. And, contrary to popular perception, they are not only parasitic but as I said above...8% of your "working" genome is viral.. without viruses you would not be here.


tao

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Not quite Juan. Even I have to draw the line there. Science is made up of facts and speculation, theory and confirmation. Not all is speculation in science. Then again, not all is speculation in religion.

But see, this stills bears upon the nature of "truth."

What was truth for a people ten thousand years ago is not necessarily what is truth for a people two thousand years ago is not necessarily truth for people today.

The validity of a theorem is as a working model that allows for confirmation and falsification, but particularly if that theorem is still in development (and outside of mathematics, what theorem isn't?) it cannot rightly be called truth or fact.

A simple history of the development of western science makes this very plain. What was the nature of electricity to people three hundred years ago? Two hundred? One hundred? Electricity is still the same, but our understanding of it has changed radically. What will we understand about electricity one hundred years from now? Two hundred? Three? Do you really think that knowledge will remain static?

Reality is reality. Fact is fact. We often confuse our POV with reality or fact, which is probably the greatest problem underlying what I have tried for years to convey. Because we hold a theorem that works today, does not make it a fact. It is still a theorem. Generations from now will use a different working model, that to them will appear as fact but will still be theorem.

Newtonian physics still work. So do Einsteinian physics. As do Quantum physics. None are fact, all are working models used to describe the fact and reality that surrounds us, but all fall short at various points of reference. Vajra is fond of saying that apples did not suspend in midair when Einsteinian physics superceded Newtonian physics. This is true, but equally true is that the old school physical scientists were able to work using Newtonian physics to great advantage until they ran into its limitations. The industrial revolution was built on Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics seemed to be the "fact" of the day, until a Swiss patent clerk came along and told them all they were full of sh!t. Imagine how that was first received! Two hundred years and more of industrial progress, overturned overnight? Not hardly. Newtonian physics is still in use today, along with Einsteinian and increasingly Quantum physics, because each of these are working models for solving problems and developing solutions.

But none of these are of themselves, or even collectively, "truth."

Lord help us when we get to the soft sciences including biology and anthropology where this problem is actually inflated...in all respects. It seems the more incomplete and variable the theorem, the more tenaciously some people cling and seek validation and justification. ToE is a great working model, but it is just that, a working model. It is not truth, it is not fact. It is an attempt to understand the reality around us. It is educated speculation, and nothing more.

Likewise religion is a working model, trying to understand the reality around us. The nature of the question is different, yes. Why? as opposed to How? But religion too is educated speculation, more often informed by a far longer tradition than that of science.

But Gould was correct. It is erroneous for religion to assert itself over the How? questions. And it is just as erroneous for science to assert itself over the Why? questions. In each case, the discipline is acting outside of its purview, outside of its operating parameters.

[Tao_Equus]

A single organism ecosystem at a depth of 2.5 miles into solid rock.

BBC NEWS | World | Planet's loneliest bug revealed

[The Dude]

I want to know where the evidence is that God created the Universe all forms of life in one week? LOL.






ps - Tao you need a new name. In the current culture of the day you demean the Tao by associating it with the perverse behavior of the main character from the play Equus. No offense.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by The Dude

I want to know where the evidence is that God created the Universe all forms of life in one week? LOL.






ps - Tao you need a new name. In the current culture of the day you demean the Tao by associating it with the perverse behavior of the main character from the play Equus. No offense.

Welcome to CR..or Interfaith organ or Borg... or whatever we call this place these days.


It sort of translates as "Way of the Horse", though I am sure one or two round here would like to poke my eyes out


tao

[Bruno's logic]

Evolution is a process,
Evolution has no end; hence there was no beginning…..
One could say that humanity had their beginning on this world, but that is only a partial truth.
One could also say that humanity had its beginning in this universe, but that is not really true either.
One could also say that humanity will continue on after this universe… But that truth is deceiving.
Evolution is change…
Change is another way of describing evolution.
Change is eternal, infinite and the only constant law, in and of, existence.
In a billion years humans will be unrecognizable to their ancestors (us) and that evolved state of humanity will be ancient history someday too…. but that is the nature of evolution
You can’t fight it…
You can only accept it….
There may, or may not, be a God or Gods but if they do indeed exist then they too are evolving…. Changing ….. adrift in the perpetual motion that is existence.

Still, I’m going to miss this time… this understanding of reality as it appears to me now, for something in me realizes that this time, this stage of evolution, is special.
~Bruno

[Tao_Equus]

Nice way of looking at it....

Such a shame so many spend their lives in petty, mundane and wholly illogical constructs of the imagination when what is really all around them is so majestic.


tao

[Tao_Equus]

And more on viruses..

Viruses that infect other viruses are a vital step in what I touched upon above, the suggestion that it was viruses that created the first cells. Here is direct evidence that viruses can and do infect other viruses.


Even Viruses Catch Viruses | LiveScience

tao