Virus: if a virus is not life....

[We Never Know]

If a virus is not life where did they come from?

Life came from abiogenisis(or creation) but a virus is not considered life. So evidently it didn't come from abiogenisis or creation.

And yes I know there are hypothesis/speculations/thoughts/opinions but we really don't know. Some think they existed before life.


We have life and nonlife and it seems a virus is somewhere in between.

So????

Give your thoughts.

 

[sun rise]

Origin of Viruses | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[We Never Know]

Origin of Viruses | Learn Science at Scitable

And your link supports what I said... "To date, no clear explanation for the origin(s) of viruses exists"


Which is why I asked for "your thoughts"

 

[Curious George]

Life came from abiogenisis(or creation) but a virus is not considered life. So evidently it didn't come from abiogenisis or creation

this is a non sequitur. This means that the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

The premise is that a virus is not life.

the conclusion that viruses could not have been created or naturally derived from processes found in abiogenesis does not follow the premise.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If a virus is not life where did they come from?

Life came from abiogenisis(or creation) but a virus is not considered life. So evidently it didn't come from abiogenisis or creation.

And yes I know there are hypothesis/speculations/thoughts/opinions but we really don't know. Some think they existed before life.


We have life and nonlife and it seems a virus is somewhere in between.

So????

Give your thoughts.

When a virus has a host it meets the requirements for life.

 

[RestlessSoul]

One of the requirements for abiogenesis is complex chemistry, I believe; even the simplest life forms have a complex chemistry and undergo chemical changes to stay alive. Viruses, it seems, are also complex biochemical mechanisms.

Water, on the other hand, which appears absolutely essential to all living things, is about the simplest molecule there is; consisting, as poet and writer DH Lawrence once observed, of two hydrogen atoms, one oxygen, and a third thing that nobody knows what it is.

Perhaps it’s that third thing which holds the key to all of this. Anyway, I’m off for a swim in freshwater now; it’s the moment of the day when I feel most alive.

 

[exchemist]

And your link supports what I said... "To date, no clear explanation for the origin(s) of viruses exists"


Which is why I asked for "your thoughts"

There is no clear explanation for the origin of life either, so that is hardly surprising.

Since viruses are a parasitic form of genetic material, having their ancestry in the same biochemistry as the most ancient organisms, they clearly evolved along with them. But how remains a matter of speculation. There seem to be three ideas about this:

There are three classical hypotheses on the origins of viruses and how they evolved:

• Virus-first hypothesis: Viruses evolved from complex molecules of protein and nucleic acid before cells first appeared on earth.[1][2] By this hypothesis, viruses contributed to the rise of cellular life.[7] This is supported by the idea that all viral genomes encode proteins that do not have cellular homologs. The virus-first hypothesis has been dismissed by some scientists because it violates the definition of viruses, in that they require a host cell to replicate.[1]
• Reduction hypothesis (degeneracy hypothesis): Viruses were once small cells that parasitized larger cells.[8][9] This is supported by the discovery of giant viruses with similar genetic material to parasitic bacteria. However, the hypothesis does not explain why even the smallest of cellular parasites do not resemble viruses in any way.[7]
• Escape hypothesis (vagrancy hypothesis): Some viruses evolved from bits of DNA or RNA that "escaped" from the genes of larger organisms.[10] This does not explain the structures that are unique to viruses and are not seen anywhere in cells. It also does not explain the complex capsids and other structures of virus particles.[7]

Virologists are in the process of re-evaluating these hypotheses.[6

(From the Wiki article on viruses.)

 

[wellwisher]

If a virus is not life where did they come from?

Life came from abiogenisis(or creation) but a virus is not considered life. So evidently it didn't come from abiogenisis or creation.

And yes I know there are hypothesis/speculations/thoughts/opinions but we really don't know. Some think they existed before life.


We have life and nonlife and it seems a virus is somewhere in between.

So????

Give your thoughts.

My guess is virus were originally part of a process where early cells would trade/swap genetic material. Along the way, these viral trading cards became more self standing. Virus continue their trading card traditions through cellular and genetic insertions. This genetic material swap is less important today, but at one time it was used to speed change on the host and community DNA.

Changes on the DNA, in modern cells is not uniform along the DNA. There are some areas that hardly ever change and other areas more prone to change. I tend to think that the active areas of the DNA, where R&D is still underway, would have been the hot spots for swapping with your neighbors.

The more conservative areas of the DNA, that hardly change, may have eventually been swapped, leading to the viral trading cards gaining self preserving genes, that made them self reliant; proactive.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If a virus is not life where did they come from?

When I talk about life I'm talking about a single thing, drawing lines around it and considering it as a system. I can't just say 'Universe'. I have limitations and can only think of parts at a time. Life is something which reproduces, which uses energy and which is stimulated to do something. This makes sense for us and for our situation, even though parasites and symbiotes are edge cases. They can't do things in isolation, reproduce in isolation, use energy in isolation. A single cell is a community of symbiotic systems that work together. As a package a cell ticks all of the boxes for life.

Words are analogous to accounting systems. In accounting you measure what goes in and what comes out of a system. 'Life' is a word about something which reproduces, which uses energy, which through actions sustains itself obtaining more energy and more materials with which to reproduce. The word represents what goes in and what comes out or what something does.

We might say that symbiotic creatures and other parasites are not alive without their partners. We might say it, or we might not. It depends upon what we are including in our account. I have heard people say that a human must have helpful bacteria to survive, and so we are not purely creatures of DNA and other materials but are composites having both bacteria and human DNA. If we account a human as only part of a system that includes bacteria then no humans are not alive and are only partly alive apart from all that we require. We don't define ourselves that way. Its not useful, and words which are not useful are wasteful. We have to think of small units and approximate things with useful words. The human is a form of life. Viruses are not.

 

[fantome profane]

If a virus is not life where did they come from?

Life came from abiogenisis(or creation) but a virus is not considered life. So evidently it didn't come from abiogenisis or creation.

And yes I know there are hypothesis/speculations/thoughts/opinions but we really don't know. Some think they existed before life.


We have life and nonlife and it seems a virus is somewhere in between.

So????

Give your thoughts.

I wonder if a virus could have been a self-replicating organism that lost the ability to self-replicate. A bit of genetic code that just sloughed off of a living microorganism and floated away and infected living cells.

Nature doesn't have biases. If a bit of DNA or RNA can find a way to continue by using another organism rather than replicating itself.

Just a thought.

 

[We Never Know]

I wonder if a virus could have been a self-replicating organism that lost the ability to self-replicate. A bit of genetic code that just sloughed off of a living microorganism and floated away and infected living cells.

Nature doesn't have biases. If a bit of DNA or RNA can find a way to continue by using another organism rather than replicating itself.

Just a thought.

IMO abiogenisis didn't just happen and poof there was life. I wonder if a virus is like a prototype of life, as in it has many components to survive but didn't quite get to "life stage"

 

[fantome profane]

IMO abiogenisis didn't just happen and poof there was life. I wonder if a virus is like a prototype of life, a in it has many components to survive but didn't quite get to "life stage"

It is also possible that there could be more than one way to get what we call a virus.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

IMO abiogenisis didn't just happen and poof there was life. I wonder if a virus is like a prototype of life, a in it has many components to survive but didn't quite get to "life stage"

It seems plausible. Maybe it came from the same source as common cells but didn't have the same replication ability, but continued to survive by latching onto them.

 

[We Never Know]

this is a non sequitur. This means that the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

The premise is that a virus is not life.

the conclusion that viruses could not have been created or naturally derived from processes found in abiogenesis does not follow the premise.

This was sarcasm...."So evidently it didn't come from abiogenisis or creation"

 

[We Never Know]

It seems plausible. Maybe it came from the same source as common cells but didn't have the same replication ability, but continued to survive by latching onto them.

A virus has no cells. Its like rogue RNA/DNA. Maybe viruses were all that existed before cells came into existence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Origin of Viruses | Learn Science at Scitable

Tis better to seek understanding of the subject
than to argue based upon different definitions
of a word, ie, equivocation.

 

[We Never Know]

Tis better to seek understanding of the subject
than to argue based upon different definitions
of a word, ie, equivocation.

Tis better to stick to "what are your thoughts" even if they are wild instead of posting links of hypothesis. Being we really don't know, I thought it would be interesting to hear what others think instead of regurgitating what we don't know.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

A virus has no cells. Its like rogue RNA/DNA. Maybe viruses were all that existed before cells came into existence.

Aren't virus akin to cells? They're not made of cells, in the same way cells aren't made of cells, but cells are made of RNA and/or DNA and Viruses are made of RNA or DNA. That's why I suggested that perhaps there's a common "ancestor" to them.

But the issue with viruses coming before cells is that, don't viruses need a cellular host to maintain their existence? So surely viruses must've came around the same time, if not after, cells?

 

[icehorse]

If a virus is not life where did they come from?

Life came from abiogenisis(or creation) but a virus is not considered life. So evidently it didn't come from abiogenisis or creation.

And yes I know there are hypothesis/speculations/thoughts/opinions but we really don't know. Some think they existed before life.

We have life and nonlife and it seems a virus is somewhere in between.

So????

Give your thoughts.

As with almost all science, biology is far, far, far from "done".

 

[Revoltingest]

Tis better to stick to "what are your thoughts" even if they are wild instead of posting links of hypothesis. Being we really don't know, I thought it would be interesting to hear what others think instead of regurgitating what we don't know.

I'm just addressing the meat of the matter,
ie, that one definition of "life" shouldn't be
construed to exclude others, or mean that
something not life cannot have some of
the properties of "life".