Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What? A virus with no recognizable genes?



Viruses are some of the most mysterious organisms on Earth. They’re among the world’s tiniest lifeforms, and because none can survive and reproduce without a host, some scientists have questioned whether they should even be considered living things. Now, scientists have discovered one that has no recognizable genes, making it among the strangest of all known viruses…

Yaravirus’s size wasn’t the only thing weird about it. When the team sequenced its genome, none of its genes matched any scientists had come across before, the group reports on the bioRxiv preprint server.

Viral novelty doesn’t surprise Elodie Ghedin of New York University, who looks for viruses in wastewater and in respiratory systems. More than 95% of the viruses in sewage data have “no matches to reference genomes [in databases],” she says. Like Abrahão, she says, “We seem to be discovering new viruses all the time.”

Elizabeth Pennisi, “Scientists discover virus with no recognizable genes” at Science

From what they’re saying, viruses don’t necessarily share any characteristics of common descent. Let alone universal common descent.

Jury’s still out but this is big.


Before you go: One way viruses get spread “never should have evolved”

Reset! Different segs of virus genome can exist in different cells but work together

Viruses devolve. (PaV)

Virus expert highlights the conflict over whether viruses are alive In short, it is an open question. The question relates to the role viruses can play in evolution, among other things. Are they precursors of life, detritus of life, or something in between? Or all three? Keep the file open. 

Viruses invent their own genes? Then what is left of Darwinism?

Why viruses are not considered to be alive

Another stab at whether viruses are alive

Phil Sci journal: Special section on understanding viruses

Should NASA look for viruses in space? Actually, it’s not clear that RNA came first. Nor is it clear that viruses precede life. A good case can doubtless be made for viruses being part of the scrap heap of existing life. But no matter. If you think you can find viruses in space, boldly go.

Why “evolution” is changing? Consider viruses

The Scientist asks, Should giant viruses be the fourth domain of life? Eukaryotes, prokaryotes, archaea… and viruses?

Viruses are alive.


Are viruses nature’s perfect machine? Or alive?

@ Pw I do not know. According to 'rational wiki', "there are numerous pieces of evidence that could falsify evolution." Then they list 6 criteria. And finally, after having listed them, they say:
Darwin made the case a little differently when he said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."
Probably those 6 criteria they list are arbitrary, since evolutionists arbitrarily choose everything when their pet theory is concerned. I do not even know what authority (if any) do these 'rational wiki' people have. What it is clear to me is that they are extremely biased and have an agenda. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_evolution That is why I was asking for some input. Truthfreedom
Truthfreedom, Does that falsification criterion make sense? Didn’t Darwin himself establish the falsification criterion, which doesn’t sound like what you quoted? pw
Hey 'fellas', according to 'Rational Wiki', "evolution" can be falsified! I.e: "If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits". Any idea? Or are we only a group of "religious loons" with nothing to offer? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_evolution Truthfreedom
@ Martin_r:
We all know how FLEXIBLE the Darwinian evolutionary theory is (it can accomondate anything)… But it still can not explain the origin / existence of the most abundant organism on Earth :)))
We know evolutionist proponents are at odds with "reality". According to them, "reality" is a very flexible thing, that changes from moment to moment. We are always "hallucinating" :) Apart from their blind faith in darwin and "evolution", they have nothing to anchor themselves in reality. They are adrift in a sea of illusions. These are the priests of our era. Truthfreedom
Truthfreedom @5 "I was being ironic" i know you were ironic ... however, HERE IS THE REAL IRONY: We all know how FLEXIBLE the Darwinian evolutionary theory is (it can accomondate anything)... Despite its flexibility, the theory is in such a crisis, that it can not explain the origin / existence of the most abundant organism on Earth... And what is even worse, most lay people are unaware of it !!!!!! martin_r
Martin_r: I was being ironic :) Evolutionists are corrupt beings who try to impose their ideas "no matter what". Truthfreedom
Truthfreedom @3 "the “theory of evolution” can accomodate anything! " no, it obviously CAN NOT.... the theory of evolution CAN NOT explain the origin of the most abundant organism on Earth, see my post @1 martin_r
Oh Martin_r, the "theory of evolution" can accomodate anything! Let's add some 'tweaks' here and there, and the creature will live a few more years. Problem is, their "theory" is now an irrecognizable Frankenstein, a monster that is forcefully being kept alive. And people do notice. Truthfreedom
and this is also interesting: "The Yaravirus genome also contained six types of tRNAs that did not match commonly used codons." https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.28.923185v1 martin_r
... Viruses - the most abundant organism on Earth (outnumber bacteria 10 times) SUCH AN IRONY ... the most abundant organism on Earth, but desperate Darwinists and their desperate evolutionary theory CAN NOT explain the existence / origin of the viruses. so let me repeat that again: you have a theory for how life arose on Earth, but this theory can not explain the origin of the most abundant organism on Earth :))))))))))))))))))))) Darwinian common descent idea does not work with viruses, because viruses are a completely different system, not made of cells. Most people don't realize that, but to explain the origin of viruses, it is like to explain the origin of life like thousands times over and over again, if not hundred-thousands times ... Because most viruses are unique (a biologist would use the term - polyphyletic - many evolutionary origins) Some quotes from the mainstream-virology blog: "In a phylogenetic tree, the characteristics of members of taxa are inherited from previous ancestors. Viruses cannot be included in the tree of life because they do not share characteristics with cells, and no single gene is shared by all viruses or viral lineages. While cellular life has a single, common origin, viruses are polyphyletic – they have many evolutionary origins." "No single gene has been identified that is shared by all viruses. There are common protein motifs in viral capsids, but these have likely come about through convergent evolution or horizontal gene transfer." http://www.virology.ws/2009/03/19/viruses-and-the-tree-of-life/ martin_r

Leave a Reply