4 ms·

Purpose of viruses? At the risk of sounding pedantic or snarky, that sounds like intelligent design. The “purpose” of viruses is to optimize making more viruses

by vibrio 3y ago

Purpose of viruses? At the risk of sounding pedantic or snarky, that sounds like intelligent design. The “purpose” of viruses is to optimize making more viruses. Sloppy viral biology may allow some transfer of genes, and if that helps viruses replicate, then that activity may be codified. Please pardon, Over sensitive biologist here.

baerrie 3y ago
You could make a broader claim that a “purpose” is just filling a niche in an ecological system. In this case, that niche could be enforced by advantages given to an overall ecosystem by virus/transposon gene transference. But I guess it is more of a philosophical question, can a purpose exist without an intelligence validating it? If so, you could argue everything has a purpose, if not then perhaps nothing does
- vibrio 3y ago
  This is reasonable. A purpose sounds like a predetermined goal, which isnt how I think about viruses. They could have an effect that leads to a benefit, npbut that to me seems different than purpose. Again maybe me being pedantic, but I’ve studied on viruses and bacteria for a good amount of time so I that may lead me to think differently. I’m not intending to be judgmental.
ijidak 3y ago
It doesn't sound pedantic, it sounds dogmatic. How do you definitively know that viruses have no purpose? The parent is free to make a statement about purpose.
- vibrio 3y ago
  Just going by the definition of purpose, which I would take as the reason viruses exist. I think there could have a purpose in their “actions”, such as changing enevelope tropism to broaden target cell range, or more tightly binding a cellular protein to inhibit antiviral defenses. But to me, a non-living entity like a virus itself having a purpose for existence beyond making more virus sounds philosophical or religious— which is fine, but just not how I think about it.
aodonnell2536 3y ago
Why must this “purpose” you outline be mutually exclusive with the idea of Intelligent Design?
- vibrio 3y ago
  I don’t know. Do hydrogen atoms have a purpose? Do rocks have a purpose? I think of them having properties that maybe can be applied towards a purpose. To me Purpose implies specific intent. I’m not sure where that intent comes from for any given hydrogen atom.
  - aodonnell2536 3y ago
    I believe you’re conflating purpose with function. It seems we both agree that any attempt at assigning purpose to material objects or phenomenon is dubious at best. I think your reason for this belief is a complete rejection of the idea of Intelligent Design. As for my view, in the case that we do live in an Intelligently Designed world by some Creator, the relative gap between our respective intelligences would be too large to even comprehend. There would be no point in assigning purpose based on our observations, we can really only describe what things are and how we best understand them to function. As for intent, I agree there is no intent that can be supposed for something as one dimensional as a hydrogen atom, but perhaps intent emerges at a larger scale (e.g. life and the universe) Not trying to get too into the weeds of a religious discussion as I’m mostly agnostic, but I was surprised to see such a rejection of Intelligent Design
    - vibrio 3y ago
      I wouldn’t say outfight rejection of intelligent design. If one studies viruses, much time has to be spent considering evolutionary aspects, just due to their numbers, variability, and life cycle. The involvement of an Intelligent Creator and their intents is not something I know how to test or control for. I believe there has to be a mental boundary there until that component is objectively available.
      - 3y ago

by vibrio 3y ago

baerrie 3y ago

You could make a broader claim that a “purpose” is just filling a niche in an ecological system. In this case, that niche could be enforced by advantages given to an overall ecosystem by virus/transposon gene transference. But I guess it is more of a philosophical question, can a purpose exist without an intelligence validating it? If so, you could argue everything has a purpose, if not then perhaps nothing does

vibrio 3y ago
This is reasonable. A purpose sounds like a predetermined goal, which isnt how I think about viruses. They could have an effect that leads to a benefit, npbut that to me seems different than purpose. Again maybe me being pedantic, but I’ve studied on viruses and bacteria for a good amount of time so I that may lead me to think differently. I’m not intending to be judgmental.

ijidak 3y ago

It doesn't sound pedantic, it sounds dogmatic. How do you definitively know that viruses have no purpose? The parent is free to make a statement about purpose.

vibrio 3y ago
Just going by the definition of purpose, which I would take as the reason viruses exist. I think there could have a purpose in their “actions”, such as changing enevelope tropism to broaden target cell range, or more tightly binding a cellular protein to inhibit antiviral defenses. But to me, a non-living entity like a virus itself having a purpose for existence beyond making more virus sounds philosophical or religious— which is fine, but just not how I think about it.

aodonnell2536 3y ago

Why must this “purpose” you outline be mutually exclusive with the idea of Intelligent Design?

vibrio 3y ago
I don’t know. Do hydrogen atoms have a purpose? Do rocks have a purpose? I think of them having properties that maybe can be applied towards a purpose. To me Purpose implies specific intent. I’m not sure where that intent comes from for any given hydrogen atom.
- aodonnell2536 3y ago
  I believe you’re conflating purpose with function. It seems we both agree that any attempt at assigning purpose to material objects or phenomenon is dubious at best. I think your reason for this belief is a complete rejection of the idea of Intelligent Design. As for my view, in the case that we do live in an Intelligently Designed world by some Creator, the relative gap between our respective intelligences would be too large to even comprehend. There would be no point in assigning purpose based on our observations, we can really only describe what things are and how we best understand them to function. As for intent, I agree there is no intent that can be supposed for something as one dimensional as a hydrogen atom, but perhaps intent emerges at a larger scale (e.g. life and the universe) Not trying to get too into the weeds of a religious discussion as I’m mostly agnostic, but I was surprised to see such a rejection of Intelligent Design
  - vibrio 3y ago
    I wouldn’t say outfight rejection of intelligent design. If one studies viruses, much time has to be spent considering evolutionary aspects, just due to their numbers, variability, and life cycle. The involvement of an Intelligent Creator and their intents is not something I know how to test or control for. I believe there has to be a mental boundary there until that component is objectively available.
    - 3y ago