Rapid HIV evolution avoids attack
On seeing this bit of news on BBC, I was filled with apprehension whether HIV is the designated scourge of Gods for the 21st century.A long time ago, I was taught that viruses are not 'alive', while bacteria are. Viruses are mere arrangements of molecules which invade host cells and attempt to replicate themselves.
A virus entrenches itself in the building blocks of life and attempts to reproduce itself. If faced with opposition from immune systems, the virus evolves to protect itself from attack.
There are some striking observations which can be made here -
- Is this not, the best testament to Darwin's theory of evolution?
- Keeping the assumption that viruses do not have 'life', does this mean that non-living entities can evolve on their own?
- If an entity evolves, defends and reproduces, isn't this sufficient to prove that it is 'alive'?
3 comments:
I think the issue here is semantics.
What is life? What is a virus? If you suitably modify those definitions, you won't see a contradiction.
A virus is not living in that it cannot do what people have considered the basis of the definition of life: independently reproduce.
Kill all hosts, and the virus will not survive. It is contact with the living beings that causes the evolution of the virus - it cannot evolve on its own because it sin;t the individual that evolves, it's the species, and the species cannot exist without reproduction. Evolution is a term that has no meaning if the changes that are developed are not passed on.
Hope that made sense!
PS. On non-living evolution: learning systems in computers!
@ camphor -
it made sense! semantics is the grey area here.
now i am confused about what is it exactly which makes a thing alive. independent reproduction...that shouldn't be taken as the basis of whether a thing is alive.somehow i can't seem to accept that.
the learning systems in computers are indeed trying to evolve! maybe one day, as they show in the movies, they will outgrow us, and maybe redefine what life is, all over again.
I guess the definition of life has always been based on the species and not the individual. And it makes sense to me that reproduction is the basis of that defintion - if you want a clear line at all - otherwise the lines blur.
After all, is music alive? What about religion? What about say, the tectonic plates?
Post a Comment