Gods handiwork revealed?
 

Mimivirus

"A monstrous discovery suggests that viruses, long regarded as lowly evolutionary latecomers, may have been the precursors of all life on Earth...

Last July Forterre held a weeklong conference in Les Treilles, France, where two dozen of the world's leading microbiologists, cell biologists, and evolutionary biologists met to discuss "The Origin of the Nucleus." The nucleus, the command-and-control center of the eukaryotic cell, is ultimately what distinguishes a human from a bacterium. For eons prior to the emergence of the nucleated cell, life on Earth was essentially slime: vast, directionless mats of single-celled bacteria and archaea.

With no nucleus to further modify and craft gene expression and protein translation, life thrived but literally could not get hold of itself, could not assume new shapes or diversify. How the first nucleus came to be is a question that has intrigued scientists ever since Scottish botanist Robert Brown first detected a cell nucleus while peering at orchids under a microscope one day in 1824.

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..."

Information, whether biological or industrial, is passed along by replication. Create a new word-processing file and copy it: that's replication. But any replication process is susceptible to errors, which in turn can generate novelty. And novelty, especially in harsh, shifting conditions like those that prevailed on the newly formed Earth, is often an advantage: Some new life-forms will adapt better to the environment. To the utter abhorrence of the proponents of intelligent design, there is a certain randomness to evolution.

Some viruses, like Ebola or the new avian influenza, are basically runaway replicators, effectively burning their own life bridges in the process. But the majority, as Villarreal puts it, strive "to persist, not make a lot." Those that do persist eventually become both stable within, and staples of, evolution. The overwhelming majority of viruses are not harmful to their hosts. Each of us is infected with a huge array of viruses. The human genome, considered as a mass, contains more retrovirus sequences than actual genes.

"They're not doing anything," says Villarreal. "They're just persisting. And they were around long before humans evolved. The better part of the human genome is composed of viral DNA. That's true of nearly all eukaryotes, and the more complicated the organisms, the more of those sequences you have. We aren't sure exactly what they all do, but they are part of our genetic identity, this stuff we dismiss as junk. 'Junk' and 'parasite' are both words that will get you into a fight if you use them improperly. And yet they are where all life's creativity lies—its very origins.""

A virus is not a living organism....could this be the way life came to be?

If this can be proven, it could be used to once-and-for-all prove evolution. Very interesting find.

So we are an infection....

I don't know how I feel about that!

I wouldn't say we were an infection, per se.

To me that makes sense and I'm vaguely suprised that people haven't figured that out sooner, but I suppose hindsight is 20/20.

Interesting. But seeing as I am not a biologist I honestly don't really care where we came from. All I know is that we are here and I am satisfied with that. But it is good to know that honest research is being done and not just squabling over creationists/evolutionists. (personaly I am somewhere in the middle)

that is facinating.

sweetpea

Sort of old news for biology.

The mitochondria was the first example of this thought.

Ironically enough, i came across this same conclusion this morning whilst writing a biology essay.

I remember learning this in an intro-level biology course last year.

So it would seem that Agent Smith in 'The Matrix' was right. We are viruses.

speaking as a biologist, i must say that some of those statements were rather exaggerated and not entirely factual, but the gist of the conclusion is possible. And yes, viruses ARE alive.

Life is a STD :D

"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."

... I like it :D

Its a cute quote but totally untrue :)

So this joke is true?

One planet meets another one:
- Hey, how are you?
- Oh, I feel sick. I suffer from homo sapiens.
- Don't worry. That passes


;)

Is that a quotation, Tec? Is there linkage, or did I just miss it?

damn you, I was gonna say that! I am such a nerd.

Don't tell Bush.

Big whoop. Another "When the lightning struck the puddle" story.

Nothing new to see here, folks.

Actually....there is quite a bit "New" to see here, with no lightning, or puddles. This Data is extremely important to those who are curious about early life on Earth, and may very well lead to significant changes in how we classify Biology on some levels, as well as help science trace the tree of life to its roots. Just because some do not wish to delve into the knowledge, does not make it irrellevant, nor does it diminish the importance of discovery.
The Mimivirus has already changed the understanding of base level life in many scientific circles, as it does not fit neatly into what was considered "Alive" by science in the past, yet it cannot be easily classified as non-living. It has also forced those with far more complete understanding of Biology than us, to rethink where we came from. As I personally depend on these people to explain the fundamentals of life, and am extremely curious about where we came from, I might find this sort of information fascinating while others are bored, or decide to ignore it due to its implications .

Gods handiwork revealed?

Kinda makes that line an oxymoron, doesn't it? As the religious types believe we were created in Gods' own image? It seems God may then just be a single cell organism with a virus. Who a whole lot of people believe is all powerful!!! It seems like a bunch of the religious wars are all being fought over something really insignificant.....

This line could be removed with no change to the entire story.

It was interesting until I read that line, after that I felt it lost some credibility.

If a virus can not multiply without a host, it can not have been the first life, period.

The concept is that various types of life 'merged' to form the eukaryotic cell. That is to say at one point there was an organism that held properties like a current cell nucleus, this in turn merged with a prokaryotic type cell. It could be possible that a true virus merged and did the same thing, becoming a symbiot rather than a parasite.

This one is hard to prove, but the mitochondria is a bit easier being it has its own DNA, among other factors.

What any of this has to do with god is beyond me. When biologists wax poetic they talk about looking at gods handiwork or jokingly gods testicles, but it is never meant to prove or disprove creation.

Someone saying this goes against intelligent design isn't thinking very deep. You could easily 'design' life by taking different bits and putting them together. Hell its been something biologists have been trying to do for quite a while. Does it give a evolutionary path? Sure, but it is by no means a definitive proof even if it were 100% correct.

Methinks the point is more that the earliest life had the makeup of a virus (a nucleic acid molecule in a protein coat I believe is the key) than the fact it had to live off other organisms. Life had to start somewhere, and with all life today having to feed of something organic then we'd be in trouble if we apply that logic to this situation.

I would happily say that we, the human race, are a virus to this planet and our selves that will eventually be own downfall.

As for that article, that was some great stuff and I hope they can get more study into it.

Which animals are not?

At least the animals dont cause world-wide pollution causing destruction, and they also dont butcher entire generations often in vain from Wars all in the name of "Pride"

No other creature is as succesful, as the Human Species....I suppose we would be a virulent strain, heh.

Ever see a new male take over a pride of lions?

Ah, but they do. Cows and sheep are actually the biggest producers of methane gas. A greenhouse gas, that contributes to global warming... :eek:

People keep saying that this article claims viruses are the origin of life. That's not what it's saying at all. In fact, this article has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life on earth. It's saying viruses were the bridge between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. This is in no way an origin of life.

In basmoq's opinion viruses are alive. In my opinion they're not. This is an old debate with many people on either side, and many valid arguments for both sides. But don't make the mistake thinking that bacteria/archaea aren't living things. They are the most successful living things on the planet. The mimivirus infection, according to the article, is just a proposed mechanism for the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes.

By the way, where did the article come from tecoyah?

Wonderful evaluation of the meat in the article....which came from Discover Magazine (my favorite light reading)

Er yeah.

Are you saying that the temperature is not so much rising due to carbon dioxide (another greenhouse gas) - but that it's more due to increased farting by cows?

I'm sure that you aren't... I just want to be sure. I mean it's one thing to be the largest producer of methane. It's quite another to be the largest producer of greenhouse gases (which include methane, carbon dioxide, etc).

In my microbiology class, we learned that RNA polymers came around before DNA polymers and such, which is directly correlated to this idea that life started with viruses, since viruses can use RNA (single or double stranded) as their genome.