Re: A new, CORRECT evolutionary theory
From: Mark (nospam_at_nspam.com)
Date: 12/13/04
- Next message: I.E_Johansson: "Re: Answer to Fridrik Re: Inger's spam"
- Previous message: Alan Crozier: "Re: Answer to Fridrik Re: Inger's spam"
- In reply to: awthrawthr_at_yahoo.com: "Re: A new, CORRECT evolutionary theory"
- Next in thread: awthrawthr_at_yahoo.com: "Re: A new, CORRECT evolutionary theory"
- Reply: awthrawthr_at_yahoo.com: "Re: A new, CORRECT evolutionary theory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:06:49 GMT
that must be a joke. viruses are obligate parasites, as was
pointed out. to do anything, they require a host. In that
"anything" I include the processes of producing the nucleic acids
and proteins that comprise the virus particle. The protein (and
DNA/RNA) consituents don't just happen to be floating around,
they are made in the viruses host. A virus cannot precede it's
host in evolution. The earliest life forms, whatever they were,
needed the ability to self-replicate. Viruses lack this ability.
awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
> A virus made up of a combination of a protein(s), as the primary part,
> and a nucleic acid, as the secondary part. It is also alive. It should
> be obvious that every living thing must eat something. So an question
> could be asked that whatever living thing was first, what was it
> eating? This argument, followed to its conclusion would lead to the
> theory that nothing preceeded anything else.
>
> Viruses can stay dormant or "reassemble themselves from their protein
> constituents if they are given individual nucleic acids to use for that
> purpose. Thus apparently dead viruses 'come back to life' in the
> presence of the proper materials."
>
> It's possible that viruses and bacteria came about at the same time.
> The virus wouldn't need to eat until it picked up a nucleic acid at the
> time that bacteria also appeared. In other words, due to their ability
> to 'come back to life' an infinite number of times, viruses could have
> failed to thrive millions of times until something suitable for the
> virus to parasitize on came along: an unhealthy bacteria, for instance.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Visit http://www.itsnotjustforsex.com
>
- Next message: I.E_Johansson: "Re: Answer to Fridrik Re: Inger's spam"
- Previous message: Alan Crozier: "Re: Answer to Fridrik Re: Inger's spam"
- In reply to: awthrawthr_at_yahoo.com: "Re: A new, CORRECT evolutionary theory"
- Next in thread: awthrawthr_at_yahoo.com: "Re: A new, CORRECT evolutionary theory"
- Reply: awthrawthr_at_yahoo.com: "Re: A new, CORRECT evolutionary theory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|