ON a global scale, what virus has claimed more lives than any other virus in human history?
142732
Smallpox, definitely. It was responsible for around 300-500 million people in the 20th century alone (and its been around way longer than that). Smallpox was eradicated in 1979, but there are still cultures of it here in the U.S. and in Russia.
271281
There are five kingdoms. \n\nIt is disputed which kingdom viruses belong in because it is disputed whether viruses are living things since they do not reproduce (without a host cell) and they do not metabolize food or catalyze energy (without a host cell)\n\nHowever, bacteria is part of the kingdom monera so likely viruses would be in that same kingdom
171580
It is possible that some people have more resistance to AIDs than others. This has been conjectured for years. No one really knows for sure, however. And it is all of the populations of Northern Europe that suffered from the plague that might have more resistance, not just people in Iceland.
718999
There were as many diseases in the past as we have today. The only difference is that we did not know they existed and people just died younger.
837231
Dunno - there are some 300 species in the world - at least half of which are in the USA - however many India has, they bring on little nasties like malaria and encephalitis,  so the only answer I can think of is FAR TOO MANY
794156
there are no known viruses that do that
316798
It does appear to be true that viruses (and other pathogens) can evolve in their virulence - the severity of their symptoms. On one extreme, it is obviously not an ideal thing for a virus to kill its host before it is transmitted to another host. Consequently only viruses that "hold off" until they can get transmitted will survive. Viruses may show limited virulence anyway, because they have trouble with the immune system, or just don't cause very severe symptoms. However there is evidence that reducing the transmission rate of a virus in a population - however that might be done - causes the evolution of lower virulence. Some of that evidence is for HIV, which appears to show lower virulence here in the US (because transmission rates are lower due to public health efforts) than strains in Africa, where transmission rates have been high. This knowledge provides interesting possibilities for public health and medicine. The link below provides someone' lecture notes on the topic. The references at the bottom may be useful.
587146
I would have to say the Maldive Islands. There is far more marine life than anywhere else. Coral, manta-rays, sharks, turtles, eels can be encountered on a single dive... awesome!
135333
Humans are the highest life form on Earth because we are the most complex. The fact that you are even asking this question proves that. Do you think any kangaroos are hopping around thinking, "Why are HUMANS the highest life form?" \nWe were given abilities and gifts (or we evolved) that set us apart from other life forms. I think cognitive skills are the main difference. Yes, a mosquito could transmit a virus that could kill a human, but once a problem is recognized, human beings have the capacity to solve it. In this situation, a vaccine could be developed and problem solved. No other life form on Earth has that ability.\n\nPS: You look gahjus in the new pic!
154438
I heard it came from some natives engaging in sexual contact with the monkeys, getting infected with the virus and passing it on to a human partner.I have absolutely no refference material for this speculation tho, it's something i heard a long time ago.
64571
Must be around 6 billion. Wow, to think I remember back when the world population was around 4 billion. No matter how many people die off, they keep popping back up like crabgrass.
102892
at this point, I am very concerned since only insects outnumber the birds in the world and they are airborn. The mutation could occur at any moment and infect humans. This is how the flu of 1917 or so occured and spread rapidly
1005800
Exactly...it's hard to say because people are always dying and new lives are always coming into the world.  I would say just over 6 billion.
83493
No, that's why wars happen and massive epidemic viruses. Nature has its way of underpopulating, but if science continues keeping people that should die at their old stages from dying maybe someday we could get overpopulated. Therefore we should move to another planet...hehe
304423
Bacteria are self-supporting life forms.  They live.  Viruses are non-living hijackers that have to hijack other cells to live.  They are just DNA bits or possibly RNA, and by themselves they don't do anything.  But they get into cells and re-program the cells to make more viruses, instead of doing whatever that cell was doing before.
1049646
archae bacteria...virus are not animals since they don't contain both DNA and RNA at the same time...most scientists consider virus as not living...the composition of matter are the cells...its a pleasure helping you...
691030
Viruses are said to be both living and non-living because it is simply a matter of opinion. Scientists can't really agree as to what viruses really are, (they don't belong to any of the five kingdoms you know!).\nSome people say that they are non-living because they aren't cells and don't metabolise, they are merely a bundle of DNA or RNA in a protein capsid.\nHowever they must survive, thus they invade other cells and use the cell to replicate their own genetic material. So the fact that they reproduce (even in the simplest way) has caused other scientists to regard them as living.\nThis duality is unique to viruses (as far as I know!) and is a sign of a primitive organism not an evolved one.\nThink about it, if something is so siple people don't know whether it is alive or dead it can't be very evolved