Are viruses responsible for evolutionary change?

Theoryofrelativity said:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/L/Luria.html

I have been doing some reading recently

I read that DNA in biological creatures could have originated in viruses.

Viruses need living cells to reproduce.

They transfer their DNA to us and this is what creates 'problems' within our 'system'.

It occurred to me that if biological life originated from a virus and previous to that viruses could not reproduce, is it possible that the factor which enables an evolutionary adaption to take place is viruses and the DNA they carry?

Does the DNA that viruses transmit to us effect a change in our own DNA that we then pass on to offspring which may then reveal an evolutionary 'change'.

Are we 'by killing viruses' preventing the process of evolution within ourselves? Are we avoiding adaptation?

( I have not posted this in biology thread as I don't want the dialogue cut short before it has been explored)
Click to expand...

Don't be silly! Viruses don't change our DNA they embed themselves in our DNA and somehow control the cell's machinary to replicate their genes and package their proteins into baby viruses.
And as for being the driving force of evolution, no theyr not because a mutation in your cells isn't passed to your offspring unless it occurs in the gametes.
Colds are a virus they proliferate in the respiratory tract and the nose, you don't pass on your nose cells directly to your offspring.:D. But even if a virus does infect the gametes the whole point of a virus is to use the host and kill it, therefore any damage it may cause will not be passed because the cell is lysed and not in a fertilisting mood.
but viruses may have been the source of transposable elements that move around the genome and changing expression of some genes. So it may have been a factor millions of years ago when we were still single celled organisms but definately not now.
 
I don't know enough about this to say.

But I did find out that the white blood sell, a member of the immune system, was at one point a violent attacker of humins. After killing people like crazy it suddenly changed and now defends it! As well, most of us are now born with it. There must have been something like what you are refering to in order to bring this about.
 
Its almost like there are two ultimate life forms. Bacteria and Virii. The virii remind me of the replecators from Stargate. Scienstists even debate if they fall under the term "life", as they do not meet some of the requirements to be classified as life.

Every living creature today is basically an advanced bacteria colony. Its an interesting story where the mitochondria originated and how it is now.

Mitochondria contain DNA that is independent of the DNA located in the cell nucleus. According to the endosymbiotic theory, mitochondria are descended from free-living prokaryotes.
Click to expand...

As mitochondria contain ribosomes and DNA, and are only formed by the division of other mitochondria, it is generally accepted that they were originally derived from endosymbiotic prokaryotes. Studies of mitochondrial DNA, which is often circular and employs a variant genetic code, show their ancestor, the so-called proto-mitochondrion, was a member of the Proteobacteria.[5] In particular, the pre-mitochondrion was probably related to the rickettsias, although the exact position of the ancestor of mitochondria among the alpha-proteobacteria remains controversial. The endosymbiotic hypothesis suggests that mitochondria descended from specialized bacteria (probably purple non-sulfur bacteria) that somehow survived endocytosis by another species of prokaryote or some other cell type, and became incorporated into the cytoplasm. The ability of symbiont bacteria to conduct cellular respiration in host cells that had relied on glycolysis and fermentation would have provided a considerable evolutionary advantage. Similarly, host cells with symbiotic bacteria capable of photosynthesis would also have an advantage. In both cases, the number of environments in which the cells could survive would have been greatly expanded.
Click to expand...
 
Some viruses can carry useful information, but others simply kill you. However, maybe AIDS will mutate us all into gay geniuses.
 
Goddamn son of a bitch retards.

Of course viruses (and all parasites) drive evolution. Resistance to infection is a very strong selector for who survives and who doesn't. It also acts on characteristics used to attract mates. Why are bad teeth unattractive (Tor and any other Brits excluded)? Because a rotten mouth is infested with parasites. It's a sign of bad genes.

In many singular cell organisms, viruses will often affect their hosts DNA. In fact, some viruses have two methods of multiplying. The first, they inject themselves into the hosts genome, then wait for mitosis. When the DNA multiplies and divides, they are too. However, when the cell undergoes strees, the viral DNA hijacks the cellular apparatus, multiplies a lot, then destroys the cell and escapes into the environment.

Viruses can also pass useful genetic information from one bacterial cell to another, such as virulence or resistance to antibiotics.
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/L/Luria.html

I have been doing some reading recently

I read that DNA in biological creatures could have originated in viruses.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't put much stock in the idea that DNA originated in viruses. Once a species goes down the road of paracitism, the only thing it really needs is the ability to reproduce. Everything else is superfluos. Viruses are the ultimate paracite. Not even meeting the definition for life outside of a host.

Therefore, it is much more likely that viruses started off as bacteria and degenerated to their present state.
 
madanthonywayne said:
I wouldn't put much stock in the idea that DNA originated in viruses. Once a species goes down the road of paracitism, the only thing it really needs is the ability to reproduce. Everything else is superfluos. Viruses are the ultimate paracite. Not even meeting the definition for life outside of a host.

Therefore, it is much more likely that viruses started off as bacteria and degenerated to their present state.
Click to expand...

Or, it could be the ultimate bacteria killer. Most scientists in the field to not believe Virii are alive

A virus is a microscopic particle that can infect the cells of a biological organism. Viruses can only replicate themselves by infecting a host cell and therefore cannot reproduce on their own. At the most basic level, viruses consist of genetic material contained within a protective protein coat called a capsid. They infect a wide variety of organisms: both eukaryotes (animals, yeasts, fungi and plants) and prokaryotes (bacteria). A virus that infects bacteria is known as a bacteriophage, often shortened to phage. The study of viruses is known as virology, and those who study viruses are known as virologists. The word virus comes from the Latin, poison (syn. venenum).[1]

It has been argued extensively whether viruses are living organisms. Most virologists consider them non-living, as they do not meet all the criteria of the generally accepted definition of life. They are similar to obligate intracellular parasites as they lack the means for self-reproduction outside a host cell, but unlike parasites, viruses are generally not considered to be true living organisms. A definitive answer is still elusive because some organisms considered to be living exhibit characteristics of both living and non-living particles, as viruses do. For those who consider viruses living, viruses are an exception to the cell theory proposed by Theodor Schwann, as viruses are not made up of cells.
Click to expand...

Replicators I tell you!
 
WOW- maybe this does belong in biology forum afterall

I asked this question on a biology forum elsewhere..after the initial flippant reply I got here, I was provided with this link:


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7126/full/445369a.html

from above link:

Nature 445, 369 (25 January 2007) | doi:10.1038/445369a; Published online 24 January 2007

ConnectionsBiology's next revolution
Nigel Goldenfeld1 and Carl Woese2

1. Nigel Goldenfeld is in the Department of Physics and Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1110 West Green Street, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA.
2. Carl Woese is in the Department of Microbiology and Institute for Genomic Biology, 601 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA.

The emerging picture of microbes as gene-swapping collectives demands a revision of such concepts as organism, species and evolution itself.
One of the most fundamental patterns of scientific discovery is the revolution in thought that accompanies a new body of data. Satellite-based astronomy has, during the past decade, overthrown our most cherished ideas of cosmology, especially those relating to the size, dynamics and composition of the Universe.

KAPUSTA
Similarly, the convergence of fresh theoretical ideas in evolution and the coming avalanche of genomic data will profoundly alter our understanding of the biosphere — and is likely to lead to revision of concepts such as species, organism and evolution. Here we explain why we foresee such a dramatic transformation, and why we believe the molecular reductionism that dominated twentieth-century biology will be superseded by an interdisciplinary approach that embraces collective phenomena.
The place to start is horizontal gene transfer (HGT), the non-genealogical transfer of genetic material from one organism to another — such as from one bacterium to another or from viruses to bacteria..." etc

The forum I posted it on, which has other good contributions for and against is here:

http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?...n=A021D563-1F44-48C6-AE5BE9589D90442059631868
 
Last edited:
I think it might affect a change in our genotype in the longterm if a large population were increasingly subject to a detremental virus and that population evolved an immunity to it. We might see something like this in our lifetime with HIV? Either way, you have a good point. However, the article that you site goes way too far overboard by suggesting that: "The uselessness of the species concept is inherent in the recent forays into metagenomics — the study of genomes recovered from natural samples as opposed to clonal cultures."

Bad timeframe. Aristotle started classifying plants and animals 2,000 years ago and our taxonomical classifications that started with him have given us tremendous insight into Linnaeus's "species" classification system ever since. Where would we be today if we were no longer able to classify species in the Latin binomial system? There's no way we or our posterity will ever live long enough to outgrow the benefits from this methodology.
 
Last edited:
valich said:
I think it might affect a change in our genotype in the longterm if a large population were increasingly subject to a detremental virus and that population evolved an immunity to it. We might see something like this in our lifetime with HIV? Either way, you have a good point. However, the article that you site goes way too far overboard by suggesting that: "The uselessness of the species concept is inherent in the recent forays into metagenomics — the study of genomes recovered from natural samples as opposed to clonal cultures."

Bad timeframe. Aristotle started classifying plants and animals 2,000 years ago and our taxonomical classifications that started with him have given us tremendous insight into Linnaeus's "species" classification system ever since. Where would we be today if we were no longer able to classify species in the Latin binomial system? There's no way we or our posterity will ever live long enough to outgrow the benefits from this methodology.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Our science is not a universal but a cultural description and this will change inevitably over time. The metaphor is of science as a leaky boat but at least it will land us at the next port of call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top