I like how your argument is, in essence: "Viruses, coming from the rainforest? Arising in nature? C'mooooon." The truth is that in nature, a whole variety of ordered systems and relationships arise without artificial intervention. This phenomenon is extremely well-substantiated in all of the natural sciences--you might as well be arguing that it's a conspiracy that the Earth is neither too close nor too far from the sun, allowing it to have reached temperatures and environmental conditions that
part of the balance of nature, if shit didn't die we wouldnt live or be alive, we are overpopulated to shit, i do however would not exclude the possibility that something human or otherwise created recombinant dna rna virii , it makes sense since it has no "life" how did it begin if there were no "egg" or birth
I've told my cells not to read this Lyme's disease that I have, but it's not working! So, "Don't read it." ...Hmm, easy for you to say since you don't have Lyme's disease.
@1:05... "No reason for a virus to exist in nature," that's scientifically AND humanly nonsense.
May I remind you that the FDA-approved bacteriophage LMP-102 is widely used to kill Listeria monocytogenes--the bacteria that causes listeriosis? Did you know that EHEC--the deadly strand of E. coli which recently caused a deadly outbreak in Europe--can potentially be attacked by a phage?
No scientist ever sticks a 'good-for-nothing' label on any entity in the biosphere. Only the media does that!
A conspiracy theory video against viruses. You're an idiot. The music in the background adds a spacial something to your bullshit Sir. Only the uneducated buy this bullshit.
i read that viruses were created for the purpose of DNA manipulation when man was created. Anyone who gets their data only from the most commonly available sources (and thats most ppl) this sounds strange and absurd
If you want to convince people, maybe you shouldn't treat them like retarded children. "Come on, people", "I'm just being metaphorical", "Ye-uah, I'm suuuure".
I'm sure other people will/have spent time telling you why your conspiracy theory that ties together creationism, nanotechnology and advance alien cultures is wrong, so I won't get into that too much. Sufficient to just say: try to understand the theory of evolution and the concept of empirical data.
You say there is no need for this in nature? You don't understand evolutionary processes then.
There is no need for anything in nature, nature doesn't have needs. It exists to replicate. Like you if you have kids.
In your world there's no need for mosquitoes and definitely no need for malaria. Unfortunately they just do their thing. How can your understanding after this nice video editing be so limited.
One big argument from incredulity/ignorance. "How could nature do that? Must be intelligently designed." I think Michael Behe has a book you would like.
"There's no reason for viruses to exist." There's no reason for cancer to exist either. But it does. It doesn't even reproduce communicably like viruses do. You just need one or two cells somewhere to accidentally divide off a nonliving mass of DNA and coating, and then it'll multiply and mutate forever.
If virus are nanotechnology, then why did they exist before we had that technology? Warts have been known for ages, the flu the same, yet nanotech was not developed, still is in its infancy. And dont you be talking about no aliens.
And why do animals have virusses as wel? They dont have governments to conspire against.
I'm so glad there are people like you who can disprove everything we've been taught, everything that science has learned, based on what you "know". Come on, the world just isn't that exciting.
Dude, viruses have been around for thousands if not millions of years, since long before anyone had even thought of the word 'nanotechnology'.
This video is just typical human arrogance - we can never accept the 'boring' simple explanation, but always have to imagine a conspiracy behind it. "But the Titanic couldn't possibly 'just' have hit an iceberg! And the Twin Towers couldn't possibly have 'just' been hit by planes! And JFK couldn't possibly have been shot by 'just' one guy!" Gimme a break
Like all good conspiracies it's feasible but just because you can't imagine the evolutionary origins of virus' doesn't mean they're nanotechnology. Also driving home the fact that virus' technically aren't living is kind of a red herring. That doesn't mean they didn't evolve. Being curt and dismissive of people who are educated in Sophomore college level biology is also a use of the bandwagon fallacy to convince those less educated that you know what you're talking about.
Of course viruses are nanotechnology; everything is at the molecular level. And just because an origin or process seems overly complicated doesn’t mean it’s untrue.
the ignorance is this video ,"oh he uses big words and everything he knows what he's talking about " ,NO! he is talking out of his arse and I'm not even qualified in Biology and I know that . this is basic stuff ,jebus people are so ignorant it's bloody depressing
@headphones222 first and foremost he is employing the watch makers fallacy this video is creationism in a different guise the subject has been done to death on you tube ,so if you're genuinely looking for enlightenment ( I doubt this ) then look up "watch makers fallacy" on the inter-webs
@headphones222 the watch makers fallacy is often sighted in reference to God but it's applicable to any designer . he suggested that viruses could not evolve ,think you need to watch the video again , I'd agree viruses are like little machines but they're not designed by any intelligence
He even said in a place in the video about how they change the DNA in some areas. Which gives support for a lot of arguments stemming from mutation and an evolution point of view. I think this video was neutral really.
@headphones222 it's foolish and ignorant to be neutral about evolution as it's considered a scientific fact .but anyway I think he's suggesting we should consider that the virus may of been designed ,and his fruit loop play list adds strength to my conclusion .
It is considered a fact, like gravity, but it has not been taken to the point of absolute proof like some of the principles in mathematics for instance. Something coming along and showing another way is possible so teaching something AS fact does not MAKE it true as such.
@headphones222 I'd not disagree that a scientific fact is not an absolute truth but wow you'd better bring something substantial to the table to challenge it . I think we're mostly in agreement ,just a slight disagreement over what the guy meant ,perhaps we should ask him :)
Yeahhhh, I mean certain things taken as something where there probability tends to 1 is stuff like: gravity and light etc... Because before viewing the outcome of me dropping a stone, there is no way you can proof me on how it WILL drop, you can at best say that it most likely will. They are not hard to challenge, its just hard to come up with something which fits observations well and is plausible. ASKKKK HIMMMM
I was a bit annoyed at how you implied that viruses can't be natural due to their complexity, which is the same argument that creationists make about life (if you ARE a creationist, please stop talking about biology).
Have you ever heard of Spiegalman's monster? It is a "virus" that, when introduced to a nutrient-rich solution, shed it's cell-invasion parts in favor of faster reproduction in the spoon-fed environment, leading to the very real possibility that relatively simple self-molecules...
Did he seriously imply that they aren't a naturally occurring phenomena? If not than who engineered them? Aliens?
The two arguments I heard were basically that anything that can't reproduce on its own isn't natural, and irreducible complexity. The former is obviously contradicted by every parasitic species. The latter argument is also frequently debunked since the assault of creationist psuedo-science. See for example: watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
Many times in natural sciences the simple explanation is the best.. Without wishing to endorse or offend neither evolutionists nor creationist, evidence from xenobiology and associated sciences point to the "alien" origin of many viruses.. At this day human science isnt evolved enough to enginneer a virus, but also to "built up" humans, indicating that somebody/something else has the technology to do that, and time to time modify/enrich human DNA using viruses. Just a theory though!
Agreed - Very interesting, thanks for publishing it here :)
Organic Life itself has a mathematical probability of existing in the universe as 0.
When you realize that, Viruses don't seem that improbable. It's all to do with organic(every living thing) evolution - Who knows what happened millions and millions of years ago to create the first virus, anti-body, or cell. Wish I knew ^^
Not that I disagree with you. I think it's very astute of you to notice something like that. Ask any molecular chemist and they will tell you that molecules themselves are like tiny mechanisms or even machines. So, your analogy is not too far off. However, virai are undeniably an intricate part of our ecosystems. We wouldn't have oxygen without them as they form a key part of the microscopic ecosystem of the ocean. You're looking in the right direction, though. :-)
@JasonCaesare Correction to myself, there would be oxygen, but not near as much since the destruction of micro-organisms in the top layer of the ocean by ocean virai and the sediment which sinks to the bottom is a source of food for many micro-organisms further down and away from any possibility of photosynthesis. These organisms which scavenge the virus' left-overs form an important part of the food chain which includes plankton which produces half the world's oxygen supply.
You've got a good approach because you straight up doubt lots of facts that science has told us. There is nothing wrong with not being niave.
Have you seen images of Cancer cells? They all look like they're growing thousands of bacteria on their surface. Maybe Bacteria and viruses come out of our own cells... =/
No one can be sure. Our current understandings come from science and love it or like it, all experiments have one or more forms of bias.
@Triplexity I guess with vast funds, one could manipulate a virus for biological warfare, but for one thing, that was not the topic of the discussion. And for the second, no offense, but I'm not so much into conspiracy theories as to believe that one would invest obscene sums into making viri do something that wild type viri do quite well.
Alright...no offense, but you don't get any kind of biology classes in your school (yet?), right......?
If you knew anything about molecular biology or virology at all, you'd see the plain stupidity in your words. Humanity even today is decades away from understanding life well enough to design something as sophisticated as a virus from scratch.
@gabbergandalf667 hey man ... ummm im not tryin to say this nut job iobs right or anythin but humanity being years away from makin nano tech could also be selective disinformation.
Sure. The fact that the earth is a spheroid that revolves around the sun could also be selective disinformation. But do we have any evidence to believe that? No.
@sheshahari I think this whole "viruses are nanotechnology" theory is crap. Think about it... If you where going to make a virus which makes living things sick what would be your reason for doing so? One obvious answer would be to kill off an undesired species. Another possible answer would be population control. What about minor viruses like the common cold? What is the purpose there? To be a minor convenience through the use of super advanced nanotechnology? I don't think so.
you know what this means right? gays are a virus....I am not gay bashing I am just stating a fact.then they try to make other gays and non can reproduce.they live on strait ppl to make more gays O_o ... so watch out there coming for you !!!!
@Triplexity So a GAY is an even more worse virus ! It wants to eat even though he/she/it is an anomaly, an error of reality, a mistake, the biggest...imagine if the first people who apaired were gay.....ooopsss ! Life Shut Down !
And YES viruses were created by man, with the purpose to sell medicine...yeah sounds conspiracy or movies...but remeber the ones in control have for hundreds of years technology that we don't even see in cartoons yet !
Surely that's the reason that there are ten times as many virus particles on earth than there are cellular organisms (way to fuck up an ecosystem in just a hundred years that we know about viri), and most of the billions of different viri being phages that don't infect eucaryotes at all (they only infect bacteria, and could therefore even be utilized to KILL dangerous bacteria).
Seriously, go back to school before starting to babble nonsense on the internet, or you'll look like a fool.
@NYtzaa Viruses have been around since before humanity started recording history. How do you suppose cave men figured out how to make such advanced nanotechnology when they where still working on figureing out how to bang rocks together to make fire? More importantly what medical market exactly did they wan't to promote? It does not make sence at all nomatter how you look at it.
@gabbergandalf667 isn't that how it happens?I am not gay I love boobs to much. but I always thought homosexuality as something that is learned.is it not?I don't have gay friends but i have lesbian friends and they all turned lesbian after they gave up on men.so I came to the conclusion 1)it is nurture not nature to become homosexual 2)most men are cheaters.I am not here to go back and forth doing that "you are a troll" thing i see on youtube comments.
@ReignRealm 1. You automatically and incorrectly assume that a homosexual’s children will be homosexual as well, 2. Homosexuals don’t need straight people to reproduce, 3. You are stating a proposed similarity, not a fact, 4. Your blatant lack of knowledge is disgraceful and embarrassing
viruses [under microscopes] look like tiny machines..they are nanotechnology created by very intellegent lifeforms to keep us in submission and now we ourselves as humans have created viruses [nanotechnology] ex. the Aids virus, H1N1, etc. this video just breaks a history lesson down in a couple mins.
Fantastic video thanks :). I know this sounds a little crazy but what if all living things are based on nanotechnology that can reproduce and pass on programming, maybe we will be able to do this ourselves one day. This would raise the idea of us been created by God, was God a scientist from another race that put us here as part of an experiment, so did we do well or are we the failed dish that needs flushing away ???. Makes ya think, thank you Triplexity
A protein capsid, cant think of any other structure in a cell thats a bubble, derrrr..... I no knows how evoluteshunnzzz worxxxzzz, ddduuuuurrrrrrppppppp!!!!
There are reasons viruses would exist in nature. The bacteriophage helps out the ocean environment, and the harmful ones could be for natural population control.
However, HIV was created, it's completely obvious - reverse transcriptase.
Wait a minute, I have problem with the "virus is not alive". Let's use HIV virus. HIV virus can only be transmitted through body fluid. Say if some contaminated body fluid is dried up and then re-hydrated again, won't the virus no longer active ? If HIV virus is not alive, people can still be infected through airborne.
this video was more like a video about white blood cells ... where the hell is the explanation about how viruses work ... all he said was "they're nanotechnology" .. douche
He did explain how viruses work. He has to explain how white blood cells work more thoroughly to exclaim the beauty behind the HIVirus. How in the world did HIV design itself, where did it come from? It contains envelope glycoproteins that match the cellular receptors on T-cells ( the most important cells of our immune system) BUT HUMANS DID NOT EXIST 7000 years ago! And I assume HIV Appeared in 1900's. I don't think it existed in ancient times.
What I expand of this concept is things of this virus nature exists in a different form. Dormant programs that cannot be seen but the side effects sure can...all resulting in suffering. Its not the gorverning cell body its the root of the actions. Can't blame guys just following orders is a common stance to mindless murder. For they are mechanical walking dead in a sense. Nano teck or not. This hints at the root that cannot be seen with eyes. Do you have ears to hear?
Errr. No. They may be strange, your voice may be a good radio voice and you may speak with conviction, but - no. Viri are not artificial. Oh sure we use them - but they are naturally occurring and NOT from some intelligent being or race deciding to infect us with various problems.
People: if someone speaks with conviction and has a good voice that alone does not validate ANYTHING they say! In this case, think critically.
I'm a nano-biotechnology student and while I do not have my degree yet
Seeds, spores and endospores don't metabolise - so they aren't alive? You need to take a more imaginative scientific approach. Viruses are simply just not life as we know it, but they are life.
@SA300 Viruses interact and affect living things, but no, they're not alive. Remember basic cell theory: the cell is the most basic unit of all life. It has nothing to do with imagination, it has to do with definition. Is it arbitrary? Yes, but that's what the consensus is in biology. You're "imaginative" approach isn't superior, just wrong.
@7Gus Tell me the definition of life. I think your textbook is old . And you didn't answer my question - is that because maybe you can't? Consensus doesn't make something right. It just makes it popular. If consensus is the way then there IS a god (that is, the majority of the human race believes there is). But I see no empirical evidence so, for me, the belief is wrong. But I am in the minority - so 'I' must be wrong?
@SA300 There's quite a difference between a public consensus (to use your example, "god exists" if you accept the general publics consensus on that debate) and a scientific consensus. The scientific consensus, based on the interpretation of the best evidence available to biologists in the field, is that viruses are not living. It seems really important to you that viruses be alive. You've got to convince the scientific community, not me. Their consensus really does mean something.
@7Gus Incidentally, you might care to look up the mimivirus and mamavirus. These are viruses but have a cell-like structure and somewhat more metabolic activity than some bacteria. The latter is even infected by another virus (Sputnik). What do you consider to be the definition of a cell and why do you think that life has to be exclusively cellular anyway? Do you really know your cell biology/microbiology or are you a dabbler without the full capacity to discuss this complex issue?
@SA300 I hope you realize imagination doesnt matter when youre speaking...We gave the sound waves from our mouths meaning, and defined life. Viruses arn't life following the definition they were given. They also arnt living in the sense of bacteria or dogs. I'm fine if you want to say it isnt NOT living, but don't act like theyre alive. Because thats like calling a clock alive since it does things on its own like a virus does.
@Digiscat We can take a definition anywhere we want. Sometimes it helps a discussion, sometimes it's just to be bloody-minded. No-one has answered the question I posed in my first reply. Why is that? Maybe the definition in elementary books is just too simple. Personally I think a better definition of 'life' (like it or not, we need definitions to make science workable) is an entity having the potential to evolve. Viruses have limited independent scope for metabolism but they are able to evolve.
@SA300 And (notwithstanding the issues in my question) just because they can't independently undertake metabolism is not a good reason to exclude them from the 'life' category. Else we would need to exclude many parasites that are lacking in genes for independent metabolism and survival. Think Chlamydia, Rickettsia and Coxiella bacteria. And it's not just bacteria - there are protozoa, fungi and various multicellular organisms that are biochemically deficient and need a host to survive.
@SA300 My definition of a cell is not important; standard definitions of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells can be found in any bio text. I don't think life has to be exculsively cellular. Perhaps there's acellular life somewhere else in the vast universe, perhaps AI will eventually challenge our defn of life. However, currently, life has a definition firmly based in cell theory. I realize issues are complex and nuanced, but it seems you're looking to make this one more contentious than it is.
@7Gus This issue has to be contentious as viruses are perhaps the most important entities (I'd prefer life-forms) on the planet due to their diversity and enormous numbers, having the greatest impact of any organisms on ecosystems (and all that implies, including the status of all other life, including humans). Just to point out, most definitions of life do not define life as 'cellular', but to the 'activities' of biological entities. And it is very easy to find exceptions to those activities.
@SA300 The definition of 'cell' IS important. It refers to an entity with a containment structure (in biological cells it's a membrane). There are other components, that differ somewhat between the pro- and eukaryotes, and the viruses, but some fundamental biochemicals are present, or the genes for their generation. Many viruses have an outer membrane. Viruses commonly have a proteinaceous coat that acts as a containment structure. Thus, viruses could be considered as cells.
@SA300 A protein coat surrounding DNA/RNA doesn't get a virus anywhere near any cell definition I've heard of. Please clarify your definition of a cell as your apparent desire to classify them as cellular gives me the impression that, once again, you verge from scientific consensus on the issue. As for an outer membrane, that applies to viruses that leave cells via exocytosis, and therefore, this is borrowed from the cell it exits. Neat stuff but not compelling re: class. of viruses as cells.
@7Gus I'm not trying to convince you that viruses are cells, but I'm trying to show you that the definition of 'cell' can easily be transferred to viruses. And pinching a bit of host cell membrane (whether nuclear like the herpes viruses or cytoplasmic like the majority of the rest) is no different from the pinching of other cell components that other (non-virus) intracellular parasites do, so that doesn't help your case - unless you are prepared to also exclude them from the 'life' category.
@SA300 "I'm not trying to convince you that viruses are cells, but I'm trying to show you that the definition of 'cell' can easily be transferred to viruses". Carefully read what you wrote here. I hope you'll understand my POV that it seems disingenuous.
@7Gus "I hope you'll understand my POV that it seems disingenuous." I don't mean to be but you're obviously a sensitive guy and so I'm sorry for any offence. I valued our discussion and thanks for that.
@SA300 Whether I'm sensitive or not is completely irrelevant. Also, you infer offence where none was ever taken. This latest reply was unecessarily condescending. Earlier in our discussion you wrote "viruses could be considered as cells" and in a later post you wrote "I'm not trying to convince you that viruses are cells". It seems hardly "sensitive" of me to point out somthing so plainly disingenous! I'm simply objecting to your argumentation strategies; google "logical fallacies @SGU".
@7Gus The fact I suggest that viruses could be considered as cells (based on a wider and more imaginative definition of 'cell') is not the same thing as trying to convince you that they are. I have tried to put to you that there are credible alternative scientific approaches. I suggest you step out of your 'victim' box and relax a little. Maybe read the Nature article (and some of its citations) that I provided to help chill. You're too sensitive for me to discuss this issue any further.
@SA300 Fair enough re: viruses impact on life. However, re: defn of life, one of the 3 main tenents of cell theory states the cell is the basic unit of life. You haven't provided compelling reasons for me to abandon this, and we don't seem to be progressing much on this. Google "are viruses alive" and read the Scientific American article - I enjoyed it and I thought many of the points made were more relevant, interesting & nuanced than "alive vs not.". Let me know if you agree.
@7Gus@7Gus Well 'cell theory' would be rather biased, don't you think? And most practicing scientists wouldn't rely on the textbook definitions but, rather, would appreciate that a 'life' definition just gets one through an undergraduate day and that the nature of the biological universe is not so easily partitioned. The SA article is fine and just expands on my earlier points about the importance of the Acytota.
@7Gus This is just plain untrue and I think it is a good time for our interaction to end in order that you can read more about the views of 'biologists' and not just the 'cell biologists' who you seem to think you know so well. I have been an academic microbiologist for 30 years. I actually DO know scientists from all areas of biology. There is no consensus as you imply. Rather, there are views and ideas which are all confounded by the problematic and artificial definition of 'life' itself.
@SA300 So I'm now not just "sensitve" but a victim too? Wow. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're tense. It's ok to disagree my friend. And you're right, we're both in our corners and apparently not coming out of them. I'll keep my mind open & look forward to further evidence supporting your views. Meanwhile: Ten reasons to exclude viruses from the tree of life - David Moreira & Purificación López-García - Nature Reviews Microbiology 7, 306-311 (April 2009). Adios.
@7Gus You might like to update: Nature Reviews Microbiology 7, 615 (August 2009) | doi:10.1038/nrmicro2108-c1 Reasons to include viruses in the tree of life, Nagendra R. Hegde, Mohan S. Maddur, Srini V. Kaveri & Jagadeesh Bayry
@7Gus Didier Raoult & Patrick Forterre (2008) Redefining viruses: lessons from Mimivirus. Nature Reviews Microbiology 6, 315-319. 'We conclude that two connected natural worlds have evolved in parallel. One form of life expresses ribosomes and comprises three domains: archaea, bacteria and eukarya. The other form of life expresses capsids that produce virions which infect ribosome-encoding organisms (REOs) from each of these three domains.'
@SA300 Thanks for the mimi/mamvirus suggestion. I just quickly read the wiki pages on them for now and they are quite interesting. However, I couldn't find anything to suggest they have a cell like structure as you suggest. With regards to your "dabbler" comment, I love biology and have background. Your comment comes off as a little dismissive. Since you're making the extraordinary claim (viruses are living; not the bio consensus) the onus is on you to provide convincing evidence/arguments.
@7Gus Sorry if I came over as dismissive as that us not what I intended. And thanks for the continued discussion. Anyway, I think your suggestion of consensus is wrong in the first instance and is not supported by the fact that textbooks might (I say 'might' reservedly) suggest that viruses don't fit the 'life' requirements. Textbooks (particularly undergrad and pre-) usually provide simplistic and often outdated information. This is especially true in the area of classification of organisms.
Each human has about 1 trillion+ cells. Each one that divides has the potential to "misfire" creating a viable DNA / RNA segment. Even though the probably is very small consider the number of "experiments" nature conducts every day. 6 B people, 1 T cells or 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That's just people. If you include every cell on the earth multiplied by the tiny probability over 4.5 billion years, the chance of producing a viable stretch of DNA/RNA becomes possible. (Think prions).
This is something I've thought about before, and you may well be right. Virus' are unlike any other "life form", by a milestone.
For the people who DON'T understand that this is a possibility, you first need to understand the fraudulent nature of out society and the lies that it manifests to keep your mind in a box. I'm not saying I know it all, but please start to research mind control, and what it REALLY means to BE mind controlled.
it is not technology dude; it is called evolution; after hundreds of millions of years of evolution of course the virus ended up like a perfect being;
we humans are perfect too.....two arms, two legs, five fingers each limb etc etc natureal evolution is what brings us closer to perfection with each generation......awesome, huh?
These things are anomalous! HPV exist? what is this? HPV?
TheMDFORD1 12 hours ago
I like how your argument is, in essence: "Viruses, coming from the rainforest? Arising in nature? C'mooooon." The truth is that in nature, a whole variety of ordered systems and relationships arise without artificial intervention. This phenomenon is extremely well-substantiated in all of the natural sciences--you might as well be arguing that it's a conspiracy that the Earth is neither too close nor too far from the sun, allowing it to have reached temperatures and environmental conditions that
Aotommo 6 days ago
"According to recent studies 32% of human genome consists of the information encoded by virus-like elements and transposons."
32%? try 8%.
theresbeenamixup 1 week ago
part of the balance of nature, if shit didn't die we wouldnt live or be alive, we are overpopulated to shit, i do however would not exclude the possibility that something human or otherwise created recombinant dna rna virii , it makes sense since it has no "life" how did it begin if there were no "egg" or birth
FINADDICT82 1 week ago
Wow, very interesting, thanks for sharing. Sending some love to all.
electricfemale 1 week ago
Brilliant, your right, it's a nanobot created to keep earth's populations down.
GlobalAwareness2525 2 weeks ago
watch?v=KHAuFAEak5k
slonerider777 1 month ago
I'm just curious, what do we know about adampants? Is he involved in the medical field at all?
melodic218 1 month ago
Comment removed
melodic218 1 month ago
Ok..so you understand how the human immune system works... but you clearly don't understand the evolutionary process.
thatpoopchuteguy 1 month ago
umm viruses ARE animals they look like bugs with a cristal on their back not really a crisral but it looks like one
pokemon05100 1 month ago
I've told my cells not to read this Lyme's disease that I have, but it's not working! So, "Don't read it." ...Hmm, easy for you to say since you don't have Lyme's disease.
edbstrung 1 month ago
@edbstrung Pardon me, what's lyme's disease?
kingmoria 3 weeks ago
Macrophages don't have cell walls.
stopthecavalry 2 months ago
Fag-isite
LivingDeadVideos 2 months ago
Ahahahahahaha.
Dumb bitch.
VisigothViking 2 months ago
@1:05... "No reason for a virus to exist in nature," that's scientifically AND humanly nonsense.
May I remind you that the FDA-approved bacteriophage LMP-102 is widely used to kill Listeria monocytogenes--the bacteria that causes listeriosis? Did you know that EHEC--the deadly strand of E. coli which recently caused a deadly outbreak in Europe--can potentially be attacked by a phage?
No scientist ever sticks a 'good-for-nothing' label on any entity in the biosphere. Only the media does that!
XUltra00 2 months ago
@XUltra00 God does not need a reason, only an opportunity.
luitzenhietkamp 2 months ago
Comment removed
godwithin060988 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XUltra00
Did you ever talk to an NSA/FBI agent about what is going on behind the scenes in Goverment activities?
Did you ever talk with scientists who can PROVE that there are "aliens" out in other planets but are threatened to keep quiet?
The reason Jonathan said what he said is because he IS one of those who talked to agents and scientists for years.
He never claimed that ALL viruses were Man-Made.
Being intellectual isn't enough, having connections with "insiders" is just as important.
godwithin060988 1 month ago
The song in the background is from the album "Expanding Horizon" by Alio die & Mathia Grassow. btw what a strange video
rockorsario 2 months ago
Loved it. Thank you.
Ameshdicto 2 months ago
A conspiracy theory video against viruses. You're an idiot. The music in the background adds a spacial something to your bullshit Sir. Only the uneducated buy this bullshit.
bigboy45454545 2 months ago
i read that viruses were created for the purpose of DNA manipulation when man was created. Anyone who gets their data only from the most commonly available sources (and thats most ppl) this sounds strange and absurd
varvorines 2 months ago
"Viruses are artificial nanotechnology (which does not necessarily mean MAN-MADE) created especially for this purpose [corrupting human DNA]."
This sounds extraordinary. What is your source for this claim?
SirGoP2 2 months ago
That background hum creeps me out.
Dryued 2 months ago
If you want to convince people, maybe you shouldn't treat them like retarded children. "Come on, people", "I'm just being metaphorical", "Ye-uah, I'm suuuure".
I'm sure other people will/have spent time telling you why your conspiracy theory that ties together creationism, nanotechnology and advance alien cultures is wrong, so I won't get into that too much. Sufficient to just say: try to understand the theory of evolution and the concept of empirical data.
Solario392 2 months ago
You say there is no need for this in nature? You don't understand evolutionary processes then.
There is no need for anything in nature, nature doesn't have needs. It exists to replicate. Like you if you have kids.
In your world there's no need for mosquitoes and definitely no need for malaria. Unfortunately they just do their thing. How can your understanding after this nice video editing be so limited.
benbennit 2 months ago
One big argument from incredulity/ignorance. "How could nature do that? Must be intelligently designed." I think Michael Behe has a book you would like.
Textra1 2 months ago
brilliant style of humour!
ickybug 2 months ago
"There's no reason for viruses to exist." There's no reason for cancer to exist either. But it does. It doesn't even reproduce communicably like viruses do. You just need one or two cells somewhere to accidentally divide off a nonliving mass of DNA and coating, and then it'll multiply and mutate forever.
tparadox88 2 months ago
Theory of evolution fully and satisfactorily explains the existence of viruses. Dumbass.
mgoogs 2 months ago
bacteriophages are viruses that attack bacteria. This is nonsense
vmaldia 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrLambonator 2 months ago
Pretty sure that's what happened in I am Legend...
Just something to think about :P
MrLambonator 2 months ago
This was actually a really great and informative video. Shame about the conspiracy :p
Manserd 2 months ago
If virus are nanotechnology, then why did they exist before we had that technology? Warts have been known for ages, the flu the same, yet nanotech was not developed, still is in its infancy. And dont you be talking about no aliens.
And why do animals have virusses as wel? They dont have governments to conspire against.
Powgow 2 months ago
Is there somewhere I can vote for the Most Stupid Video on YouTube?
davangel 2 months ago
@davangel i think there are more braindead vids on youtube then this one. Atleast it is amusing of the facepalm-type.
Powgow 2 months ago
I'm so glad there are people like you who can disprove everything we've been taught, everything that science has learned, based on what you "know". Come on, the world just isn't that exciting.
TheRealJonas72 2 months ago
Dude, viruses have been around for thousands if not millions of years, since long before anyone had even thought of the word 'nanotechnology'.
This video is just typical human arrogance - we can never accept the 'boring' simple explanation, but always have to imagine a conspiracy behind it. "But the Titanic couldn't possibly 'just' have hit an iceberg! And the Twin Towers couldn't possibly have 'just' been hit by planes! And JFK couldn't possibly have been shot by 'just' one guy!" Gimme a break
Terraxos 2 months ago
Like all good conspiracies it's feasible but just because you can't imagine the evolutionary origins of virus' doesn't mean they're nanotechnology. Also driving home the fact that virus' technically aren't living is kind of a red herring. That doesn't mean they didn't evolve. Being curt and dismissive of people who are educated in Sophomore college level biology is also a use of the bandwagon fallacy to convince those less educated that you know what you're talking about.
phatferr 2 months ago
Don't have time to watch it, just tell me who make virii jews or commies? )))
SnarlsAtFleas 2 months ago
So Scientists who have spent the last hundred years or more studying viruses? Or a guy who made a video about stuff he looked up on Google?
chrispower1981 2 months ago
I listen to viruses? I didn't know that.
sondreu1 2 months ago
if evolution is true then its not some outerspace alien tehnology
pghg022 3 months ago
viruses are alien technology
Burn121212 3 months ago
sarcastic cunt...
waheyforgavin 3 months ago
Of course viruses are nanotechnology; everything is at the molecular level. And just because an origin or process seems overly complicated doesn’t mean it’s untrue.
omexamorph 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD Created everything from micro virus to MEGA UNIVERSE.
MrVrsilvestrejr2008 3 months ago
the ignorance is this video ,"oh he uses big words and everything he knows what he's talking about " ,NO! he is talking out of his arse and I'm not even qualified in Biology and I know that . this is basic stuff ,jebus people are so ignorant it's bloody depressing
sausage4mash 3 months ago
@sausage4mash
Please make your own video to enlighten us... ;]
headphones222 3 months ago
@headphones222 first and foremost he is employing the watch makers fallacy this video is creationism in a different guise the subject has been done to death on you tube ,so if you're genuinely looking for enlightenment ( I doubt this ) then look up "watch makers fallacy" on the inter-webs
sausage4mash 3 months ago
@sausage4mash
All he said is that it's "nano-technology"... which is actually arguable, he never said, "Oh my God, this must have been made by something!!!"
headphones222 3 months ago
@headphones222 the watch makers fallacy is often sighted in reference to God but it's applicable to any designer . he suggested that viruses could not evolve ,think you need to watch the video again , I'd agree viruses are like little machines but they're not designed by any intelligence
sausage4mash 3 months ago
@sausage4mash
He even said in a place in the video about how they change the DNA in some areas. Which gives support for a lot of arguments stemming from mutation and an evolution point of view. I think this video was neutral really.
headphones222 3 months ago
@headphones222 it's foolish and ignorant to be neutral about evolution as it's considered a scientific fact .but anyway I think he's suggesting we should consider that the virus may of been designed ,and his fruit loop play list adds strength to my conclusion .
sausage4mash 3 months ago
@sausage4mash
It is considered a fact, like gravity, but it has not been taken to the point of absolute proof like some of the principles in mathematics for instance. Something coming along and showing another way is possible so teaching something AS fact does not MAKE it true as such.
I am not taking any sides here lol
headphones222 3 months ago
@headphones222 I'd not disagree that a scientific fact is not an absolute truth but wow you'd better bring something substantial to the table to challenge it . I think we're mostly in agreement ,just a slight disagreement over what the guy meant ,perhaps we should ask him :)
sausage4mash 3 months ago
@sausage4mash
Aha! fwends? :P
Yeahhhh, I mean certain things taken as something where there probability tends to 1 is stuff like: gravity and light etc... Because before viewing the outcome of me dropping a stone, there is no way you can proof me on how it WILL drop, you can at best say that it most likely will. They are not hard to challenge, its just hard to come up with something which fits observations well and is plausible. ASKKKK HIMMMM
headphones222 3 months ago
we had a huge debate about viruses being alive or not at CTY (if any of u kno what that is)
McWonderAzn 3 months ago
this is TRUE and white people created crack cocaine and AIDS to destroy black people!!! YOUR BIOLOGY TEXTBOOKS ARE LIES !!!!!!!
lerox22 3 months ago
you all are retarded people are still arguing about if viruses are living or not
atomiclick 3 months ago
So what are you trying to say with this video? Are you suggesting aliens or humans artificially engineered viruses to destroy the human race?
nanogeekpro1 3 months ago
...could have preceded formal life as we understand it.
Silkeyn 4 months ago
I was a bit annoyed at how you implied that viruses can't be natural due to their complexity, which is the same argument that creationists make about life (if you ARE a creationist, please stop talking about biology).
Have you ever heard of Spiegalman's monster? It is a "virus" that, when introduced to a nutrient-rich solution, shed it's cell-invasion parts in favor of faster reproduction in the spoon-fed environment, leading to the very real possibility that relatively simple self-molecules...
Silkeyn 4 months ago
Did he seriously imply that they aren't a naturally occurring phenomena? If not than who engineered them? Aliens?
The two arguments I heard were basically that anything that can't reproduce on its own isn't natural, and irreducible complexity. The former is obviously contradicted by every parasitic species. The latter argument is also frequently debunked since the assault of creationist psuedo-science. See for example: watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
animatedream 4 months ago
Many times in natural sciences the simple explanation is the best.. Without wishing to endorse or offend neither evolutionists nor creationist, evidence from xenobiology and associated sciences point to the "alien" origin of many viruses.. At this day human science isnt evolved enough to enginneer a virus, but also to "built up" humans, indicating that somebody/something else has the technology to do that, and time to time modify/enrich human DNA using viruses. Just a theory though!
justbe2one 4 months ago
Thanks for this video and your interesting theory.
justbe2one 4 months ago
Agreed - Very interesting, thanks for publishing it here :)
Organic Life itself has a mathematical probability of existing in the universe as 0.
When you realize that, Viruses don't seem that improbable. It's all to do with organic(every living thing) evolution - Who knows what happened millions and millions of years ago to create the first virus, anti-body, or cell. Wish I knew ^^
UroborosTheSnake 4 months ago
Ew 5:56
IamJustMex3Chocolate 4 months ago
WTH how is this supposed to help me with my hw
IamJustMex3Chocolate 4 months ago
Thank you
ralucard 4 months ago
i didnt come here to listen to your comments on EVERYTHING!
thepoliticalmonkey 5 months ago
is this a sarcastic review?
hotwhire 5 months ago
Not that I disagree with you. I think it's very astute of you to notice something like that. Ask any molecular chemist and they will tell you that molecules themselves are like tiny mechanisms or even machines. So, your analogy is not too far off. However, virai are undeniably an intricate part of our ecosystems. We wouldn't have oxygen without them as they form a key part of the microscopic ecosystem of the ocean. You're looking in the right direction, though. :-)
JasonCaesare 5 months ago
@JasonCaesare Correction to myself, there would be oxygen, but not near as much since the destruction of micro-organisms in the top layer of the ocean by ocean virai and the sediment which sinks to the bottom is a source of food for many micro-organisms further down and away from any possibility of photosynthesis. These organisms which scavenge the virus' left-overs form an important part of the food chain which includes plankton which produces half the world's oxygen supply.
JasonCaesare 5 months ago
You've got a good approach because you straight up doubt lots of facts that science has told us. There is nothing wrong with not being niave.
Have you seen images of Cancer cells? They all look like they're growing thousands of bacteria on their surface. Maybe Bacteria and viruses come out of our own cells... =/
No one can be sure. Our current understandings come from science and love it or like it, all experiments have one or more forms of bias.
medirobe 5 months ago
I swear this narrator guy sounds and acts like Steven Colbert....really funny vid.....lmao****
drnicksorr 5 months ago
@Triplexity I guess with vast funds, one could manipulate a virus for biological warfare, but for one thing, that was not the topic of the discussion. And for the second, no offense, but I'm not so much into conspiracy theories as to believe that one would invest obscene sums into making viri do something that wild type viri do quite well.
gabbergandalf667 5 months ago
@sheshahari
Alright...no offense, but you don't get any kind of biology classes in your school (yet?), right......?
If you knew anything about molecular biology or virology at all, you'd see the plain stupidity in your words. Humanity even today is decades away from understanding life well enough to design something as sophisticated as a virus from scratch.
gabbergandalf667 5 months ago
@gabbergandalf667
I suggest you to google for DNA nanotechnology. You don't have to create a virus from scratch, it's enough to modify an existing one.
Triplexity 5 months ago
@Triplexity Um, so if we can't create a virus from scratch, but can modify a pre-existing one, where did that pre-existing one come from? Magic?
Paged90 2 months ago
@gabbergandalf667 thanks for that tho i understand
sheshahari 5 months ago
@gabbergandalf667 hey man ... ummm im not tryin to say this nut job iobs right or anythin but humanity being years away from makin nano tech could also be selective disinformation.
princevegeta3 4 months ago
@princevegeta3
Sure. The fact that the earth is a spheroid that revolves around the sun could also be selective disinformation. But do we have any evidence to believe that? No.
gabbergandalf667 4 months ago
@gabbergandalf667
They have recreated the polio virus...
headphones222 3 months ago
most people in this video's comment section: scientifically illiterate hillbillies and conspiracy theorists :)
gabbergandalf667 5 months ago
i think its man made. created for biological war? idk thats what i think
sheshahari 5 months ago
@sheshahari
Go back to school
gabbergandalf667 5 months ago
@gabbergandalf667 im currently at school :D 7th grader lol...
sheshahari 5 months ago
@sheshahari I think this whole "viruses are nanotechnology" theory is crap. Think about it... If you where going to make a virus which makes living things sick what would be your reason for doing so? One obvious answer would be to kill off an undesired species. Another possible answer would be population control. What about minor viruses like the common cold? What is the purpose there? To be a minor convenience through the use of super advanced nanotechnology? I don't think so.
MrAwsome514 5 months ago
this guy sounds like tom brady.
ChristianDullavin 5 months ago
you know what this means right? gays are a virus....I am not gay bashing I am just stating a fact.then they try to make other gays and non can reproduce.they live on strait ppl to make more gays O_o ... so watch out there coming for you !!!!
ReignRealm 6 months ago
@ReignRealm
Yeah, the difference though, gays require food, like all living creatures. Viruses don't need food.
Triplexity 6 months ago
@Triplexity So a GAY is an even more worse virus ! It wants to eat even though he/she/it is an anomaly, an error of reality, a mistake, the biggest...imagine if the first people who apaired were gay.....ooopsss ! Life Shut Down !
And YES viruses were created by man, with the purpose to sell medicine...yeah sounds conspiracy or movies...but remeber the ones in control have for hundreds of years technology that we don't even see in cartoons yet !
NYtzaa 5 months ago
@NYtzaa
Surely that's the reason that there are ten times as many virus particles on earth than there are cellular organisms (way to fuck up an ecosystem in just a hundred years that we know about viri), and most of the billions of different viri being phages that don't infect eucaryotes at all (they only infect bacteria, and could therefore even be utilized to KILL dangerous bacteria).
Seriously, go back to school before starting to babble nonsense on the internet, or you'll look like a fool.
gabbergandalf667 5 months ago
@NYtzaa Viruses have been around since before humanity started recording history. How do you suppose cave men figured out how to make such advanced nanotechnology when they where still working on figureing out how to bang rocks together to make fire? More importantly what medical market exactly did they wan't to promote? It does not make sence at all nomatter how you look at it.
MrAwsome514 5 months ago
@ReignRealm
You sure must have some huge homoerotic vein in you if you believe that a homosexual person could ever turn a heterosexual person gay.
gabbergandalf667 5 months ago
@gabbergandalf667 isn't that how it happens?I am not gay I love boobs to much. but I always thought homosexuality as something that is learned.is it not?I don't have gay friends but i have lesbian friends and they all turned lesbian after they gave up on men.so I came to the conclusion 1)it is nurture not nature to become homosexual 2)most men are cheaters.I am not here to go back and forth doing that "you are a troll" thing i see on youtube comments.
ReignRealm 5 months ago
@ReignRealm
What is wrong with you?
patayaicetea91 5 months ago
@ReignRealm if gay was a virus then one could be infected with gayness lloll
maciejwrotek 5 months ago
@ReignRealm 1. You automatically and incorrectly assume that a homosexual’s children will be homosexual as well, 2. Homosexuals don’t need straight people to reproduce, 3. You are stating a proposed similarity, not a fact, 4. Your blatant lack of knowledge is disgraceful and embarrassing
omexamorph 3 months ago
@ReignRealm They're Fagocytes 2.20
clearsunnysky 2 months ago
at least the stuff about the white blood cells was correct.
tingyuyan12 6 months ago
I have seen many shows and have read many articles on Government experimentation with "biologicles".
I belive this 100% I can't prove it, but I believe it.
akrocuba 6 months ago
oh i thought a computer virus.. -.-
dopeanimal 6 months ago
viruses [under microscopes] look like tiny machines..they are nanotechnology created by very intellegent lifeforms to keep us in submission and now we ourselves as humans have created viruses [nanotechnology] ex. the Aids virus, H1N1, etc. this video just breaks a history lesson down in a couple mins.
stopbeingrascist 6 months ago
This is a joke right o.O ?
alphakristjan 6 months ago
Fantastic video thanks :). I know this sounds a little crazy but what if all living things are based on nanotechnology that can reproduce and pass on programming, maybe we will be able to do this ourselves one day. This would raise the idea of us been created by God, was God a scientist from another race that put us here as part of an experiment, so did we do well or are we the failed dish that needs flushing away ???. Makes ya think, thank you Triplexity
eyeswideopennimrod 6 months ago
There is no "reason" for any life to exist, it just worked out that way.
DSBrekus 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so you believe
zenithar6666 6 months ago
Phagocytes have a cell wall? News to me lad.
70Bready 6 months ago
Religion confirmed for virus
Gokiza 6 months ago
viruses were designed to keep under control the planet's bacteria popolation
ArsonStrike 6 months ago
A protein capsid, cant think of any other structure in a cell thats a bubble, derrrr..... I no knows how evoluteshunnzzz worxxxzzz, ddduuuuurrrrrrppppppp!!!!
mmaaxx1198 6 months ago
There are reasons viruses would exist in nature. The bacteriophage helps out the ocean environment, and the harmful ones could be for natural population control.
However, HIV was created, it's completely obvious - reverse transcriptase.
xXSparky117Xx 6 months ago
great stuff, viruses suxz..
efekten 6 months ago
you said: what are the odds for a virus to be created by nature? well what are the odds that a few molecules to connect to create life?
eilam42 6 months ago
Beautiful video, but it would be better without audio.. lol
ilkov 7 months ago
I didn't know Harrison Ford made a documentary on viruses...
LocktOn 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How do you not ... read it?
emoXpatrol 7 months ago
was anyone else shouting at their screens during this hole thing 'ITS CALLED EVOLUTION' - this is the stupidest genius EVER
VTOLAircraftMad 7 months ago
@VTOLAircraftMad dude you read my mind
fdograph 6 months ago
was anyone else shouting at their screens during this hole thing 'ITS CALLED EVOLUTION'
VTOLAircraftMad 7 months ago
Wait a minute, I have problem with the "virus is not alive". Let's use HIV virus. HIV virus can only be transmitted through body fluid. Say if some contaminated body fluid is dried up and then re-hydrated again, won't the virus no longer active ? If HIV virus is not alive, people can still be infected through airborne.
comet666666 7 months ago
@comet666666 It only transfers trough humans , not air , water animalas etc. :)
T0mcat16 6 months ago
You should make more biology vids... hilarious and beautiful. DIG IT!
paxguerilla 7 months ago
The guy sounds high
benhakak 7 months ago
this video was more like a video about white blood cells ... where the hell is the explanation about how viruses work ... all he said was "they're nanotechnology" .. douche
hammad23ijaz 7 months ago
@hammad23ijaz
He did explain how viruses work. He has to explain how white blood cells work more thoroughly to exclaim the beauty behind the HIVirus. How in the world did HIV design itself, where did it come from? It contains envelope glycoproteins that match the cellular receptors on T-cells ( the most important cells of our immune system) BUT HUMANS DID NOT EXIST 7000 years ago! And I assume HIV Appeared in 1900's. I don't think it existed in ancient times.
MyStIcTrE3 7 months ago
Jeez, this guy show is condescending to who ever it is he is talking to.
martinblank2 7 months ago
Alien Selection...
deimos2k6 7 months ago
It's called natural selection, not Alien technology you moron.
ajmkell 7 months ago
lol. life.
redarrowhead2 7 months ago
fagocite... ha.. aids
tubestick00 7 months ago
wow life is so amazing!
WOGI5M 7 months ago
What I expand of this concept is things of this virus nature exists in a different form. Dormant programs that cannot be seen but the side effects sure can...all resulting in suffering. Its not the gorverning cell body its the root of the actions. Can't blame guys just following orders is a common stance to mindless murder. For they are mechanical walking dead in a sense. Nano teck or not. This hints at the root that cannot be seen with eyes. Do you have ears to hear?
winthorne 7 months ago
wish he would stop sitting on that organ.
TheTeaTycoon 7 months ago
@TheTeaTycoon hahahahaaa.. teeheeee! lol..:)
lisakaylanemorris 7 months ago
Errr. No. They may be strange, your voice may be a good radio voice and you may speak with conviction, but - no. Viri are not artificial. Oh sure we use them - but they are naturally occurring and NOT from some intelligent being or race deciding to infect us with various problems.
People: if someone speaks with conviction and has a good voice that alone does not validate ANYTHING they say! In this case, think critically.
I'm a nano-biotechnology student and while I do not have my degree yet
elvegaro 7 months ago
Seeds, spores and endospores don't metabolise - so they aren't alive? You need to take a more imaginative scientific approach. Viruses are simply just not life as we know it, but they are life.
SA300 8 months ago
@SA300 Viruses interact and affect living things, but no, they're not alive. Remember basic cell theory: the cell is the most basic unit of all life. It has nothing to do with imagination, it has to do with definition. Is it arbitrary? Yes, but that's what the consensus is in biology. You're "imaginative" approach isn't superior, just wrong.
7Gus 7 months ago
@7Gus Tell me the definition of life. I think your textbook is old . And you didn't answer my question - is that because maybe you can't? Consensus doesn't make something right. It just makes it popular. If consensus is the way then there IS a god (that is, the majority of the human race believes there is). But I see no empirical evidence so, for me, the belief is wrong. But I am in the minority - so 'I' must be wrong?
SA300 7 months ago
@SA300 There's quite a difference between a public consensus (to use your example, "god exists" if you accept the general publics consensus on that debate) and a scientific consensus. The scientific consensus, based on the interpretation of the best evidence available to biologists in the field, is that viruses are not living. It seems really important to you that viruses be alive. You've got to convince the scientific community, not me. Their consensus really does mean something.
7Gus 7 months ago
@7Gus Incidentally, you might care to look up the mimivirus and mamavirus. These are viruses but have a cell-like structure and somewhat more metabolic activity than some bacteria. The latter is even infected by another virus (Sputnik). What do you consider to be the definition of a cell and why do you think that life has to be exclusively cellular anyway? Do you really know your cell biology/microbiology or are you a dabbler without the full capacity to discuss this complex issue?
SA300 7 months ago
@SA300 I hope you realize imagination doesnt matter when youre speaking...We gave the sound waves from our mouths meaning, and defined life. Viruses arn't life following the definition they were given. They also arnt living in the sense of bacteria or dogs. I'm fine if you want to say it isnt NOT living, but don't act like theyre alive. Because thats like calling a clock alive since it does things on its own like a virus does.
Digiscat 7 months ago
@Digiscat We can take a definition anywhere we want. Sometimes it helps a discussion, sometimes it's just to be bloody-minded. No-one has answered the question I posed in my first reply. Why is that? Maybe the definition in elementary books is just too simple. Personally I think a better definition of 'life' (like it or not, we need definitions to make science workable) is an entity having the potential to evolve. Viruses have limited independent scope for metabolism but they are able to evolve.
SA300 7 months ago
@SA300 And (notwithstanding the issues in my question) just because they can't independently undertake metabolism is not a good reason to exclude them from the 'life' category. Else we would need to exclude many parasites that are lacking in genes for independent metabolism and survival. Think Chlamydia, Rickettsia and Coxiella bacteria. And it's not just bacteria - there are protozoa, fungi and various multicellular organisms that are biochemically deficient and need a host to survive.
SA300 7 months ago
@SA300 My definition of a cell is not important; standard definitions of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells can be found in any bio text. I don't think life has to be exculsively cellular. Perhaps there's acellular life somewhere else in the vast universe, perhaps AI will eventually challenge our defn of life. However, currently, life has a definition firmly based in cell theory. I realize issues are complex and nuanced, but it seems you're looking to make this one more contentious than it is.
7Gus 7 months ago
@7Gus This issue has to be contentious as viruses are perhaps the most important entities (I'd prefer life-forms) on the planet due to their diversity and enormous numbers, having the greatest impact of any organisms on ecosystems (and all that implies, including the status of all other life, including humans). Just to point out, most definitions of life do not define life as 'cellular', but to the 'activities' of biological entities. And it is very easy to find exceptions to those activities.
SA300 7 months ago
@SA300 The definition of 'cell' IS important. It refers to an entity with a containment structure (in biological cells it's a membrane). There are other components, that differ somewhat between the pro- and eukaryotes, and the viruses, but some fundamental biochemicals are present, or the genes for their generation. Many viruses have an outer membrane. Viruses commonly have a proteinaceous coat that acts as a containment structure. Thus, viruses could be considered as cells.
SA300 7 months ago
@SA300 A protein coat surrounding DNA/RNA doesn't get a virus anywhere near any cell definition I've heard of. Please clarify your definition of a cell as your apparent desire to classify them as cellular gives me the impression that, once again, you verge from scientific consensus on the issue. As for an outer membrane, that applies to viruses that leave cells via exocytosis, and therefore, this is borrowed from the cell it exits. Neat stuff but not compelling re: class. of viruses as cells.
7Gus 7 months ago
@7Gus I'm not trying to convince you that viruses are cells, but I'm trying to show you that the definition of 'cell' can easily be transferred to viruses. And pinching a bit of host cell membrane (whether nuclear like the herpes viruses or cytoplasmic like the majority of the rest) is no different from the pinching of other cell components that other (non-virus) intracellular parasites do, so that doesn't help your case - unless you are prepared to also exclude them from the 'life' category.
SA300 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SA300 "I'm not trying to convince you that viruses are cells, but I'm trying to show you that the definition of 'cell' can easily be transferred to viruses". Carefully read what you wrote here. I hope you'll understand my POV that it seems disingenuous.
7Gus 7 months ago
@7Gus "I hope you'll understand my POV that it seems disingenuous." I don't mean to be but you're obviously a sensitive guy and so I'm sorry for any offence. I valued our discussion and thanks for that.
SA300 7 months ago
@SA300 Whether I'm sensitive or not is completely irrelevant. Also, you infer offence where none was ever taken. This latest reply was unecessarily condescending. Earlier in our discussion you wrote "viruses could be considered as cells" and in a later post you wrote "I'm not trying to convince you that viruses are cells". It seems hardly "sensitive" of me to point out somthing so plainly disingenous! I'm simply objecting to your argumentation strategies; google "logical fallacies @SGU".
7Gus 7 months ago
@7Gus The fact I suggest that viruses could be considered as cells (based on a wider and more imaginative definition of 'cell') is not the same thing as trying to convince you that they are. I have tried to put to you that there are credible alternative scientific approaches. I suggest you step out of your 'victim' box and relax a little. Maybe read the Nature article (and some of its citations) that I provided to help chill. You're too sensitive for me to discuss this issue any further.
SA300 7 months ago
@7Gus BTW, viruses can contain more than just nucleic acid. Look up the poxviruses and influenza viruses for info on this.
SA300 7 months ago
@SA300 Fair enough re: viruses impact on life. However, re: defn of life, one of the 3 main tenents of cell theory states the cell is the basic unit of life. You haven't provided compelling reasons for me to abandon this, and we don't seem to be progressing much on this. Google "are viruses alive" and read the Scientific American article - I enjoyed it and I thought many of the points made were more relevant, interesting & nuanced than "alive vs not.". Let me know if you agree.
7Gus 7 months ago
@7Gus @7Gus Well 'cell theory' would be rather biased, don't you think? And most practicing scientists wouldn't rely on the textbook definitions but, rather, would appreciate that a 'life' definition just gets one through an undergraduate day and that the nature of the biological universe is not so easily partitioned. The SA article is fine and just expands on my earlier points about the importance of the Acytota.
SA300 7 months ago
@SA300 Yes, biased by the collective evidence as viewed by the majority of biologists.
7Gus 7 months ago
@7Gus This is just plain untrue and I think it is a good time for our interaction to end in order that you can read more about the views of 'biologists' and not just the 'cell biologists' who you seem to think you know so well. I have been an academic microbiologist for 30 years. I actually DO know scientists from all areas of biology. There is no consensus as you imply. Rather, there are views and ideas which are all confounded by the problematic and artificial definition of 'life' itself.
SA300 7 months ago
@SA300 So I'm now not just "sensitve" but a victim too? Wow. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're tense. It's ok to disagree my friend. And you're right, we're both in our corners and apparently not coming out of them. I'll keep my mind open & look forward to further evidence supporting your views. Meanwhile: Ten reasons to exclude viruses from the tree of life - David Moreira & Purificación López-García - Nature Reviews Microbiology 7, 306-311 (April 2009). Adios.
7Gus 7 months ago
@7Gus You might like to update: Nature Reviews Microbiology 7, 615 (August 2009) | doi:10.1038/nrmicro2108-c1 Reasons to include viruses in the tree of life, Nagendra R. Hegde, Mohan S. Maddur, Srini V. Kaveri & Jagadeesh Bayry
SA300 4 months ago
@7Gus Didier Raoult & Patrick Forterre (2008) Redefining viruses: lessons from Mimivirus. Nature Reviews Microbiology 6, 315-319. 'We conclude that two connected natural worlds have evolved in parallel. One form of life expresses ribosomes and comprises three domains: archaea, bacteria and eukarya. The other form of life expresses capsids that produce virions which infect ribosome-encoding organisms (REOs) from each of these three domains.'
SA300 7 months ago
@SA300 Thanks for the mimi/mamvirus suggestion. I just quickly read the wiki pages on them for now and they are quite interesting. However, I couldn't find anything to suggest they have a cell like structure as you suggest. With regards to your "dabbler" comment, I love biology and have background. Your comment comes off as a little dismissive. Since you're making the extraordinary claim (viruses are living; not the bio consensus) the onus is on you to provide convincing evidence/arguments.
7Gus 7 months ago
@7Gus Sorry if I came over as dismissive as that us not what I intended. And thanks for the continued discussion. Anyway, I think your suggestion of consensus is wrong in the first instance and is not supported by the fact that textbooks might (I say 'might' reservedly) suggest that viruses don't fit the 'life' requirements. Textbooks (particularly undergrad and pre-) usually provide simplistic and often outdated information. This is especially true in the area of classification of organisms.
SA300 7 months ago
NANO technology is potentially THE MOST POWERFUL tool of knowledge we humans have ever known.
ruflychux 8 months ago
Fight fire with fire. The ONLY cure to HIV/AIDS is ONLY NANO technology.
Create mechanical NANO-CELLS to KILL THOSE VIRUSES.
ruflychux 8 months ago
Each human has about 1 trillion+ cells. Each one that divides has the potential to "misfire" creating a viable DNA / RNA segment. Even though the probably is very small consider the number of "experiments" nature conducts every day. 6 B people, 1 T cells or 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That's just people. If you include every cell on the earth multiplied by the tiny probability over 4.5 billion years, the chance of producing a viable stretch of DNA/RNA becomes possible. (Think prions).
tsbrownie 8 months ago
This is something I've thought about before, and you may well be right. Virus' are unlike any other "life form", by a milestone.
For the people who DON'T understand that this is a possibility, you first need to understand the fraudulent nature of out society and the lies that it manifests to keep your mind in a box. I'm not saying I know it all, but please start to research mind control, and what it REALLY means to BE mind controlled.
lemu4444 8 months ago
0:48 I'm a microbiology student and that wasnt what my teacher said...
2ossy 8 months ago
The bubonic plague is caused by bacteria
GiveEmHellMCR 8 months ago
it is not technology dude; it is called evolution; after hundreds of millions of years of evolution of course the virus ended up like a perfect being;
we humans are perfect too.....two arms, two legs, five fingers each limb etc etc natureal evolution is what brings us closer to perfection with each generation......awesome, huh?