Viruses... what's the point?

[KIAman]

Other than to kill and destroy, do viruses serve a purpose? I was thinking up a response to the evolution question and noting how fast a RNA virus mutates but it got me to thinking, what is the point of their existence?

If the answer is "to survive and replicate" then I counter by asking, what if the viruses ultimately win? What if they end up bursting every cell with more viruses and destroy all life? How does that contribute to their survival once nothing is left?

What would be the consequence (hypothetical as likely unfeasible) if all viruses were wiped out? Would life only benefit?

Some thoughts.

 

[CycloWizard]

They only have access to information present now. They know that right now, there are plenty of hosts for them to live in, allowing them to reproduce. Evolution doesn't understand that things will change with time or that fitness changes along with these changes. However, it does allow organisms to adapt to these changes rapidly after they appear.

 

[Cogman]

The argument could go the same way for all mammals. Whats the point? They consume, reproduce and produce what? Loads of feces and meat for other stronger animals. If they where dominate then they would go on until they started attacking themselves.

 

[dorion]

Nature quickly puts overacheivers in place, incredibly effective killing viruses burn out because their target host becomes to sparse/extinct. Animals that are too effective have a population crash once they've consumed all their resources. Wolves can't eat all the deer, deer can't eat all the grass, grass can't drain the soil of all it's nutrients.

 

[KIAman]

I see humans on an evolutionary path towards understanding and mastering their environment.

I see animals as transitionary or failed attempts at human-like self-awareness and progression.

Viruses... do they have an evolutionary path? I think not. Once again, what's the point?

 

[KIAman]

Originally posted by: Cogman
The argument could go the same way for all mammals. Whats the point? They consume, reproduce and produce what? Loads of feces and meat for other stronger animals. If they where dominate then they would go on until they started attacking themselves.

Animals support other animal life (for food) and plants (through feces and death). They have specific purposes in our ecology in which an extinction of a species most likely wipes out a whole hierarchy of other animals.

Not a true comparison, if I may.

 

[presidentender]

Originally posted by: KIAman

Originally posted by: Cogman
The argument could go the same way for all mammals. Whats the point? They consume, reproduce and produce what? Loads of feces and meat for other stronger animals. If they where dominate then they would go on until they started attacking themselves.

Animals support other animal life (for food) and plants (through feces and death). They have specific purposes in our ecology in which an extinction of a species most likely wipes out a whole hierarchy of other animals.

Not a true comparison, if I may.

Okay, I'll bite. Viruses serve the vital purpose of thinning the heard.

I agree with Cogman overall, though.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: KIAman
I see humans on an evolutionary path towards understanding and mastering their environment.

I see animals as transitionary or failed attempts at human-like self-awareness and progression.

Viruses... do they have an evolutionary path? I think not. Once again, what's the point?

Why does evolution have a point? I think you're convoluting the philosophy of the "why" with the science of the "how."

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: KIAman

Originally posted by: Cogman
The argument could go the same way for all mammals. Whats the point? They consume, reproduce and produce what? Loads of feces and meat for other stronger animals. If they where dominate then they would go on until they started attacking themselves.

Animals support other animal life (for food) and plants (through feces and death). They have specific purposes in our ecology in which an extinction of a species most likely wipes out a whole hierarchy of other animals.

Not a true comparison, if I may.

Plants can survive without feces. They don't need animals to survive, but animals need hosts to survive, just like viruses. The fact that feces is often beneficial to plants is moot as you could argue that an exploded cell is useful as food for other cells.

 

[jagec]

That's a philosophy question, not a biology one. Viruses exist because they haven't died out yet. Once gene therapy starts to take off, viruses will have much more of a "point" as they will be used for targeted infection of defective/cancerous cells.

 

[Gibsons]

In humans at least, the vast majority of viruses are not lethal. There's some evidence of pathogens evolving towards lower pathogenesis, presumably due to selection for a more transmissable phenotype.

You can make an argument that some viruses are almost symbiotic with humans - it's "normal" to be infected with EBV for instance, and a latent EBV infection can certainly be viewed as beneficial in some instances.

Finally consider the observation that approximately 8% of the human genome appears to be derived from retroviruses. Given that, they've certainly pushed us along the evolutionary trail more than once.

 

[manowar821]

The "why" is irrelevant. Not only is there the possibility that there is NO "purpose", but using what we understand about evolution shows us that life seemingly just survives if it has the correct traits to live on. Viruses could very well be just another split, probably earlier on in life formation on Earth. There doesn't need to be a reason for it, so long as it can survive and mutate with later generations.

There is no reason to bring the "why" into the "how".

 

[dorion]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: KIAman
I see humans on an evolutionary path towards understanding and mastering their environment.

I see animals as transitionary or failed attempts at human-like self-awareness and progression.

Viruses... do they have an evolutionary path? I think not. Once again, what's the point?

Why does evolution have a point? I think you're convoluting the philosophy of the "why" with the science of the "how."

Exactly! Evolution has no point, it can't. It's just a name for a process. Evolution has no pentultimate goal.

 

[BrownTown]

Viruses have the same point as every single other living thing.

 

[KIAman]

Topic sorta went off topic towards evolution and thanks to BrownTown getting it back. Although it is assumable when I ask the point of viruses that I am also asking the point of evolution, I assure everyone that I am not. I am simply referencing evolution as a possible purpose of viruses.

Let me reiterate that I am not asking why evolution, rather, why virus?

So if viruses have no point and only function to "thin the herd" and to "propagate" itself, what would the consequences be if they were obliterated?

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: KIAman
Topic sorta went off topic towards evolution and thanks to BrownTown getting it back. Although it is assumable when I ask the point of viruses that I am also asking the point of evolution, I assure everyone that I am not. I am simply referencing evolution as a possible purpose of viruses.

Let me reiterate that I am not asking why evolution, rather, why virus?

So if viruses have no point and only function to "thin the herd" and to "propagate" itself, what would the consequences be if they were obliterated?

if they were eliminated then we would probably live longer. It might result in some "weakening" of species since those weakest individuals would live longer then they otherwise might. However I think its important to note that viruses "don't give a shit" about the fact that they are killing off weak individuals, all they care about is propagating themselves just like every other species. Viruses aren't there to try and strengthen other species they are there to exploit them. Now if everything else dies the nso do viruses, so they try NOT to kill, but of course since they leech off us some weak individuals can't always survive, but the goal of a virus is to kill as few people as possible not as many.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: KIAman
Topic sorta went off topic towards evolution and thanks to BrownTown getting it back. Although it is assumable when I ask the point of viruses that I am also asking the point of evolution, I assure everyone that I am not. I am simply referencing evolution as a possible purpose of viruses.

Let me reiterate that I am not asking why evolution, rather, why virus?

So if viruses have no point and only function to "thin the herd" and to "propagate" itself, what would the consequences be if they were obliterated?

Ah, now I see what you're asking. A virus could be thought of as a catalyst for evolution. Or, it could change what nature considers "fitness" when spawning a new generation. If the organism in question is robust, then it will survive the virus. Otherwise, it will die and so will its genetic material be lost.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: KIAman
Other than to kill and destroy, do viruses serve a purpose? I was thinking up a response to the evolution question and noting how fast a RNA virus mutates but it got me to thinking, what is the point of their existence?

If the answer is "to survive and replicate" then I counter by asking, what if the viruses ultimately win? What if they end up bursting every cell with more viruses and destroy all life? How does that contribute to their survival once nothing is left?

What would be the consequence (hypothetical as likely unfeasible) if all viruses were wiped out? Would life only benefit?

Some thoughts.

I think virus's are merely primitive forms of self-orgnization gone wrong or actually parts of living things that broke off (i.e. imagine an autonomous part breaking off of another organism, etc). I haven't studied much into them but it seems more likely that it is remnants of the first self-organizing entities, or broken off pieces of living things.

It would explain why virus's have the machinery to hijack cells if they were once part of other organisms, I would imagine virus's are merely outgrowths (i.e. accidents) of organisms themselves.

Next is the self-organizing character of evolution itself, why has it accompished such higher orders of complexity? I think we know too little about physics and biology, i.e. our understanding of what we call 'evolution' is completely primitive.

I've been studying the simulation arguments related to the universe being a simulation and I feel like it gives a lot of insight into the universe itself, to study the universe as if it is a simulation. Things like virus's would be like bugs in the code of the universe.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: KIAman
Let me reiterate that I am not asking why evolution, rather, why virus?

It's not the most satisfying answer, but you might as well as "why not?"

I don't think there's a good reason for them to NOT be around. Certainly things would be vastly different (maybe no humans, or nothing that we would recognize as such) if they'd never come to exist. That's sort of what I was getting at in my previous post.

 

[superunknown98]

Just recently I was reading that viruses can actually have thier own viruses. I might put forward a theory that if viruses destroyed all complex life they would attack themselves. They might have to mutate to do it but what choice would they have?

I also do not think it wise to destroy all viruses. There is much to learn about them and ther are probably many benefits we can extract.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: superunknown98
Just recently I was reading that viruses can actually have thier own viruses. I might put forward a theory that if viruses destroyed all complex life they would attack themselves. They might have to mutate to do it but what choice would they have?

I also do not think it wise to destroy all viruses. There is much to learn about them and ther are probably many benefits we can extract.

Hepatitis D is something like that.

 

[KIAman]

Interesting replies. Strangely, I never thought of viruses as "bugs" in the code of the universe but it seems to fit.

Also, call me stupid, but I had no flippen idea that the human genome contains viruses. I wonder if their genetic code has contributed anything to our humanity... Does this apply to all living things?

From what we've seen so far, I guess viruses do serve a purpose in evolution by weeding out weak genetics. But is this truly the case? It seems that if viruses do wipe out a weak genetic variant, then the strong genetic variants propagate but then the virus needs to continue to survive so they evolve to attack the stronger genetic variants and the cycle goes on.

Finally, viruses having their own viruses... I don't know what to say other than... wow?!? I had thought viruses lacked a reproductive mechanism and their sole reason to attack cells to take advantage of their factories.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: KIAman
Interesting replies. Strangely, I never thought of viruses as "bugs" in the code of the universe but it seems to fit.

Also, call me stupid, but I had no flippen idea that the human genome contains viruses. I wonder if their genetic code has contributed anything to our humanity... Does this apply to all living things?

Hard to say for sure, but almost certainly all mammals. I haven't looked much at the genome analysis of plants, protists etc. Certainly viral genes have contributed to what we are. We might still be something without them, but imo it's impossible to say what.

From what we've seen so far, I guess viruses do serve a purpose in evolution by weeding out weak genetics.

They don't exist to "weed out" anything. They exist to reproduce. If the host happens to die, so be it. In some cases they might kill the (apparently) strong instead of the weak. Keep in mind that the vast majority of viral infections don't kill the host, it's a rare virus that has a significant mortality rate.

Rhinovirus is an immensely successful virus, and it almost never kills its hosts... just causes a cold.

Ebola has a very high death rate, but it's not easily passed from human to human - one reason being that people die too quickly to pass it on. This is one reason that it's thought that humans are not the natural hosts for Ebola, it's probably something else. Bats seem like a decent guess at the moment.

There's also some speculation that HIV is evolving to a less lethal/debilitating phenotype - if its hosts are healthier and able to live longer, the virus is more likely to spread. Reasonable theory, but I'm not aware of any data that clearly demonstrates it.

But is this truly the case? It seems that if viruses do wipe out a weak genetic variant, then the strong genetic variants propagate but then the virus needs to continue to survive so they evolve to attack the stronger genetic variants and the cycle goes on.

Some of the virus/host game isn't strong vs. weak, it's more like rock paper scissors. Is rock better than scissors? If the virus is paper, then scissors is better. But if the virus is rock then scissors is screwed. Another way of saying it is that the genes that provide resistance to virus A might cause susceptibility to virus B and vice versa. Thus, it's a good thing humans are genetically diverse at some of these crucial genes, it makes it less likely that a single killer virus can wipe us all out.

Now certainly there are some "weak" genetics, e.g. people with genetic immune deficiencies and we do see pathogens removing them from the gene pool pretty efficiently. But these are rare and not really important in the global propagation of the pathogen. A successful virus must be able to infect and spread from normal human hosts. Otherwise it wouldn't be here.

Finally, viruses having their own viruses... I don't know what to say other than... wow?!? I had thought viruses lacked a reproductive mechanism and their sole reason to attack cells to take advantage of their factories.

"viruses having viruses" is sort of misleading.. afaik, viruses don't/can't infect other viruses. It doesn't really even make sense. But they can have parasitic relationships with each other. The example I'm familiar with is Hep D. Hep D is incapable of completing a round of infection in a cell by itself, it requires some Hep B genes to do so. IOW it can only successfully infect a cell that is also infected with Hep B. It parasitizes Hep B genes to complete its own lifecycle. Hep D apparently only encodes 2 genes (!). You really don't want Hep D by the way.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: KIAman


Also, call me stupid, but I had no flippen idea that the human genome contains viruses. I wonder if their genetic code has contributed anything to our humanity... Does this apply to all living things?

What later evolved to become our present day RNA was orignally, if I remember correctly, an indepent virus that at some point started living in cells (or rather what later evolved into the modern cell).
Now it is an integral part of how our cells work (several types of RNA are e.g. used as "intermediates" when the information in DNA is used to create proteins).

 

[Modelworks]

EBV (Epstein-Barr Virus) is a virus that almost every human being caries throughout their life.
In the end you have to remember that a virus doesn't have a complex brain. It just does what it does without really thinking about anything more than replication.

If anyone ever did engineer a virus that had a brain with thoughts of things like long term survival and organization , we would all be screwed !