Man most likely evolved from a Virus

Viruses are about as alien as it gets, I still do not think it is understood what they are, or whether they are even a form of life...

I think if viruses can form from some point of none being in the universe then life in general can also from from no life too. It seems we all think of life as some special thing when it most likely WILL happen under the right conditions just as a star will form under the right conditions, so it is just a natural event like anything else that is in the universe.

a reply to: Xtrozero

As alien as they are, they still share commonality with the rest of life on the planet

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Xtrozero

As alien as they are, they still share commonality with the rest of life on the planet

We have shared/stole DNA from viruses but I guess my point is if life needed viruses then we have the old chicken or egg in where did viruses come from? I see that life in general can happen when conditions are right and viruses are not needed as they are most likely created by the same process.

Your talk of a "missing link" indicates an unfamiliarity with the subject of human evolution.
a reply to: SPECULUM

5a reply to: sn0rch

What the heck, dude? Snorch is banned. O.O

Anyway virii are very interesting and mysterious, thank you speculum for making this thread, Ive enjoyed the speculation on what exactly they are and where they came from. Very cool.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Oy ignoring the DNA swaps. The very fact we are using DNA or RNA implies a common ancestry.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Xtrozero

Oy ignoring the DNA swaps. The very fact we are using DNA or RNA implies a common ancestry.

No, it doesn't, actually.

A common mechanism may mean that it is a particularly efficient way of achieving things, not that one thing came from another.

Life and genetic mechanisms may have arisen multiple times (separate abiogenisis) over the Earth's history.

The fact that there are more than 20 different encoding schemes on DNA indicates that there are, very likely, multiple "trees of life".

a reply to: chr0naut

Cite or recant. As a bioinformaticist I really want to see your evidence

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Cite or recant. As a bioinformaticist I really want to see your evidence

Would the NCBI Taxonomy Homepage do? It lists 25 different genetic codings.

There was also a thread on ATS that discussed Craig Venter's comment that it was more likely that there were several "bushes of life", rather than a single tree of life.

I could cite more specifics but it would be fairly redundant.

a reply to: chr0naut

No I mean where that that implies anything beyond 25 different genetic coding. It certainly does not imply that life formed somewhere else. They all use the same nucleic acids to code those amino acids, they all use the same amino acids (the proteogenic ones). So while the codes may be different, they are still terrestrial.

As for Venter? A comment does not a theory make. I'm not against that idea, but it is unproven. WE still share a large percentage of commonality with every other thing on this planet. For example arund 50% with the banana. Mind you it is the epigenetic which matter here, it is what makes the difference on how a protein is expressed.

So I return to my point, on the OP. It is not unlikely we evolved from a "virus" (well more likely a bacteria).

Like I said, I've got bioinformatics training. Sure its more in the area of synthetic lethals for cancer treatment and my main area of expretese is Process Development inf Pharmaceutical Chemistry. But I do understand Bioinformatics, especially genomics.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Xtrozero

Oy ignoring the DNA swaps. The very fact we are using DNA or RNA implies a common ancestry.

So a life form that starts on a planet 100 million light years away that uses DNA/RNA and one that starts here with the same means they are related by your logic, or...that life has a common chemical composition.

a reply to: Xtrozero


Show me the proof that life forms else where use DNA or RNA. Just because life HERE uses DNA and RNA (guess what we use both), there is no guarantee they will. There is no guarantee that they will be carbon based either. The only life we have evidence for is interstitial born,thus that is the only life we can comment on. Anything else is .... Science Fiction or Science Fantasy. Sorry but if you are going to use science, you have to play by sciences rules. IT would be like saying you are going to play chess, then whip out a Dungeons and Dragons rules book on how to play.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Xtrozero


Show me the proof that life forms else where use DNA or RNA. Just because life HERE uses DNA and RNA (guess what we use both), there is no guarantee they will. There is no guarantee that they will be carbon based either. The only life we have evidence for is interstitial born,thus that is the only life we can comment on. Anything else is .... Science Fiction or Science Fantasy. Sorry but if you are going to use science, you have to play by sciences rules. IT would be like saying you are going to play chess, then whip out a Dungeons and Dragons rules book on how to play.

The mere fact that we are here as life means life is elsewhere. You really going to bet the farm that we are unique and life just doesn't happen.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I do not disagree that there is a very high chance that life exists elsewhere. Stop implying things I did not say. What I said, and I will make it short and succinct for you: Just because life forms on Planet Earth use DNA, RNA, and what we call the 21 protogenic amino acids to exist, it does not mean other forms of life elsewhere in the universe do.

I am not denying there is a chance life is else where, I fully believe there is. But I also believe in a multitude of deities as well not just one or none.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

No I mean where that that implies anything beyond 25 different genetic coding. It certainly does not imply that life formed somewhere else. They all use the same nucleic acids to code those amino acids, they all use the same amino acids (the proteogenic ones). So while the codes may be different, they are still terrestrial.

As for Venter? A comment does not a theory make. I'm not against that idea, but it is unproven. WE still share a large percentage of commonality with every other thing on this planet. For example arund 50% with the banana. Mind you it is the epigenetic which matter here, it is what makes the difference on how a protein is expressed.

So I return to my point, on the OP. It is not unlikely we evolved from a "virus" (well more likely a bacteria).

Like I said, I've got bioinformatics training. Sure its more in the area of synthetic lethals for cancer treatment and my main area of expretese is Process Development inf Pharmaceutical Chemistry. But I do understand Bioinformatics, especially genomics.

I was suggesting that there may have been several abiogenesis events here on Earth, not just the one. If it is possible and likely that it happened once, it is also possible and likely that it happened several times.

If there were separate abiogenisis events, then there is no common ancestor between each event and they are two separate 'fresh starts' at this thing we call life.

The 25 different codings, to me, seem to imply that there were at least 25 abiogenesis events (probably far more that failed somewhere along the line and aren't in evidence today).

a reply to: chr0naut

Proteogenesis/abiogenis is something separate from evolution however. What about the fact that they all use the same bloody chemicals, nucleic acids, which code (somewhat but not overly differently) for the same 21 amino acids. This implies a commonality of start.

Now I ask this in all seriousness, what is your background? We could get into the nitty gritty of the Biochemistry and Chemistry here OR we can leave it as low level. Like I've said, I've got a back ground in those sciences, and an interest in the origins of life, genetic archaeology, etc (even if my research in biochemistry was into synthetic lethals for stopping breast cancer, and my research in Chemistry was altering amino acids chemically for Pharmaceutical applications).

originally posted by: Noinden

I am not denying there is a chance life is else where, I fully believe there is. But I also believe in a multitude of deities as well not just one or none.

The universe is somewhat repetitious, everything follows set rules, but this is not to say that there is not life totally different. In the end I do not think that type of life really matters much other than to say it is different since there is little chance we can communicate with it or even recognize it as life. My original point is that virus have most definitely played into the evolution of life on our planet, but for anyone to suggest that is the building blocks of life is just pushing the start of life down the road, where I suggest life happens independently and doesn't need a kick start of some other life form. Amino acids, RNA, DNA etc are chemical reactions that just happen like any other in our universe.

To say viruses started life or a deity started life just keeps pushing the chicken or the egg scenario farther back and I think that life comes from non-life chemical reactions so viruses or deity are not needed. The biggest issue is, WE humans, have define life and then suggested it is special, where the universe most likely sees us as just a bunch of advance chemical reactions.

a reply to: Xtrozero

One can not base a scientific theory on a single data point. Life on earth, is a single data point. We only understand how life can start, with a basis in carbon. Thus we have no idea what else could happen out there. It is insular, and unimaginative to assume that all life is DNA or RNA and amino acid based.

It is interesting that you are changing the topic away from the debate, to "type life does not really matter". It is NOT what this thread is about. No type of life probably does not matter, except, when one is talking about evolution. It really does, if one wants to talk about a historical relationship between say different hominids, or a virus, and humans. We are certainly not going to have evolved from something which encodes its instructions for existence in a manner different than our own.

Like I said, your comments while interesting, are sort of a different topic all together.

originally posted by: Noinden
It is insular, and unimaginative to assume that all life is DNA or RNA and amino acid based.

If you read my post again I agree other types of life can be out there, but it is a fact that RNA DNA life is out there. I also said that other types of life would most like be so different in nature we might not even recognize it as life and it would play little into anything what we consider as life.

It is interesting that you are changing the topic away from the debate, to "type life does not really matter". It is NOT what this thread is about. No type of life probably does not matter, except, when one is talking about evolution. It really does, if one wants to talk about a historical relationship between say different hominids, or a virus, and humans. We are certainly not going to have evolved from something which encodes its instructions for existence in a manner different than our own.

Man most likely evolved from a Virus

We share 98% DNA with chimps that takes us back 5 to 10 million years, 50% DNA with a grape vine that takes us back 400 million years... How much DNA do we share with a virus for the OP to make their claim?

I assumed the OP meant life evolved from a virus since we, human, did not. Maybe I'm wrong in my assumption, so please set me on the right path.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Proteogenesis/abiogenis is something separate from evolution however. What about the fact that they all use the same bloody chemicals, nucleic acids, which code (somewhat but not overly differently) for the same 21 amino acids. This implies a commonality of start.

Now I ask this in all seriousness, what is your background? We could get into the nitty gritty of the Biochemistry and Chemistry here OR we can leave it as low level. Like I've said, I've got a back ground in those sciences, and an interest in the origins of life, genetic archaeology, etc (even if my research in biochemistry was into synthetic lethals for stopping breast cancer, and my research in Chemistry was altering amino acids chemically for Pharmaceutical applications).

Firstly, we found another amino acid in 2002, Pyrrolysine (Pyl). The count is currently 22 amino acids but this may change.

There are actually only about 118 elements of which only 82 are stable. I could ask why there aren't things made of more elements than there are, but that would be silly.

Each instance of life could simply have used the best tools from a limited set, it doesn't necessarily imply that they came form a common source. Definitely life had to survive and compete, so less efficient configurations would have been selected against.

The different genetic codes mean that the DNA - RNA - amino acids 'chain' doesn't always map the same.

My background is in Astrophysics, so no one can claim an 'argument from authority fallacy'.