Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Are Viruses Alive?

Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 8:29:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think it doesnt really matter if we consider them alive or not.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 12:02:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 8:29:14 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think it doesnt really matter if we consider them alive or not.

I guess maybe I should have posted this in the Philosophy forum.

Let's say you capture a virus from the air and stick it under a microscope, what do you see?

You see a static object, it doesn"t move or change it just sits there doing nothing, is it alive?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 12:28:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 12:02:30 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:29:14 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think it doesnt really matter if we consider them alive or not.

I guess maybe I should have posted this in the Philosophy forum.

Let's say you capture a virus from the air and stick it under a microscope, what do you see?

You see a static object, it doesn"t move or change it just sits there doing nothing, is it alive?

Things that are alive can also just sit there and do nothing, too. Just because it doesnt move, doesnt mean its not alive.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 4:49:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 12:28:37 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:02:30 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:29:14 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think it doesnt really matter if we consider them alive or not.

I guess maybe I should have posted this in the Philosophy forum.

Let's say you capture a virus from the air and stick it under a microscope, what do you see?

You see a static object, it doesn"t move or change it just sits there doing nothing, is it alive?

Things that are alive can also just sit there and do nothing, too. Just because it doesnt move, doesnt mean its not alive.

Can you think of any examples of other things that are alive that don't move or change and just sit there doing nothing?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 5:07:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 4:49:08 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:28:37 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:02:30 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:29:14 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think it doesnt really matter if we consider them alive or not.

I guess maybe I should have posted this in the Philosophy forum.

Let's say you capture a virus from the air and stick it under a microscope, what do you see?

You see a static object, it doesn"t move or change it just sits there doing nothing, is it alive?

Things that are alive can also just sit there and do nothing, too. Just because it doesnt move, doesnt mean its not alive.

Can you think of any examples of other things that are alive that don't move or change and just sit there doing nothing?

My grandfather, for one. There are also many bacteria that can remain frozen, and literally for all intents and purposes, "dont move" at all, but are still alive.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 6:24:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.
What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think the taxonomic division between life and non-life wasn't really created for biology. It was created for less precise purposes, like hunting and gathering, farming, food preparation, and caring for the sick and helpless. So it may not be the best way to think of biology, even though the term itself helps define biology's limits.

Culturally too, the definition of life varies. In modern medicine, we're inclined to see brain-death as the end of human life, even if other biological processes continue in the body afterwards. But there are plenty of organisms without brains, so that's not a great definition. And there are cultures that believe life persists beyond organic death -- sometimes for hours; sometimes for weeks; and there are cultures that impute life to things we don't normally think of as living -- stones and stars, for example.

I think viruses expose a technical problem with our taxonomy. Rather than trying to argue over where they fit, I think we'd do better exploring abiogenesis and the possibilities of xenobiology and revisiting the taxonomy itself.

Hope that helps.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 8:11:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 5:07:50 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:49:08 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:28:37 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:02:30 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:29:14 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think it doesnt really matter if we consider them alive or not.

I guess maybe I should have posted this in the Philosophy forum.

Let's say you capture a virus from the air and stick it under a microscope, what do you see?

You see a static object, it doesn"t move or change it just sits there doing nothing, is it alive?

Things that are alive can also just sit there and do nothing, too. Just because it doesnt move, doesnt mean its not alive.

Can you think of any examples of other things that are alive that don't move or change and just sit there doing nothing?

My grandfather, for one. There are also many bacteria that can remain frozen, and literally for all intents and purposes, "dont move" at all, but are still alive.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines alive as, having life not dead or inanimate.

Even frozen bacteria doesn't qualify as alive.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 8:22:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 8:11:22 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 5:07:50 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:49:08 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:28:37 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:02:30 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:29:14 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think it doesnt really matter if we consider them alive or not.

I guess maybe I should have posted this in the Philosophy forum.

Let's say you capture a virus from the air and stick it under a microscope, what do you see?

You see a static object, it doesn"t move or change it just sits there doing nothing, is it alive?

Things that are alive can also just sit there and do nothing, too. Just because it doesnt move, doesnt mean its not alive.

Can you think of any examples of other things that are alive that don't move or change and just sit there doing nothing?

My grandfather, for one. There are also many bacteria that can remain frozen, and literally for all intents and purposes, "dont move" at all, but are still alive.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines alive as, having life not dead or inanimate.

Even frozen bacteria doesn't qualify as alive.

Inanimate is defined also as "Spiritless, sluggish, dull".
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 12:09:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A virus does not have cellular organization.
A virus use its own energy, or metabolize its own "food".
A virus is not responsive to environmental changes
A virus does not internally regulate, or have a homeostatic state.
A virus does not get more complex throughout its various cycles.
A virus does not reproduce sexually or asexually.
A virus is not specifically adaptive of its own accord.

While holding some qualities to some degree, on the whole, a virus is not "living".
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Fuzzed
Posts: 45
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 1:16:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 8:29:14 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think it doesnt really matter if we consider them alive or not.

It does.
Biology is heavily reliant on categorizing all life.
Thats why it was such a large thing to move fungus's to their own kingdom.

Im a vet student and weve gone over this a bit.
For something to be alive it must be able to: Consume and reproduce on its own.

All bacteria can reproduce on their own, they may need to do it within a host, but they are all able to consume nutrients and reproduce.

Virus's cannot do either. They are in affect just DNA or RNA in a capsule and nothing more. This DNA/RNA uses others systems to multiply as they have no ability to do so themselves.

This is further confirmed by another thing you would have to consider if it is alive or not - a prion.
A prion is like a ultra-simplified virus.
If a bacteria is tiny in comparison to a eurkryotic cell, and a virus is tiny compared to a bacteria cell, then a prion is 1000 times smaller then the smallest known virus.

It is nothing more then a free floating protein. Its only real function is to float freely, and hijack other similar proteins, turning them into replicants, while doing damage to whatever host their in (as many proteins are want to do).

Prions, by the way, are responsible for the cannibal disease Kuru, Scrappy, and Mad Cow Disease.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 5:55:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 1:16:22 PM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:29:14 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think it doesnt really matter if we consider them alive or not.

It does.
Biology is heavily reliant on categorizing all life.
Thats why it was such a large thing to move fungus's to their own kingdom.

Im a vet student and weve gone over this a bit.
For something to be alive it must be able to: Consume and reproduce on its own.

All bacteria can reproduce on their own, they may need to do it within a host, but they are all able to consume nutrients and reproduce.

Virus's cannot do either. They are in affect just DNA or RNA in a capsule and nothing more. This DNA/RNA uses others systems to multiply as they have no ability to do so themselves.

This is further confirmed by another thing you would have to consider if it is alive or not - a prion.
A prion is like a ultra-simplified virus.
If a bacteria is tiny in comparison to a eurkryotic cell, and a virus is tiny compared to a bacteria cell, then a prion is 1000 times smaller then the smallest known virus.

It is nothing more then a free floating protein. Its only real function is to float freely, and hijack other similar proteins, turning them into replicants, while doing damage to whatever host their in (as many proteins are want to do).

Prions, by the way, are responsible for the cannibal disease Kuru, Scrappy, and Mad Cow Disease.

When a virus copies itself how do each of the copies create their own capsules?

Is it coded in the DNA or RNA to construct the shell?
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 6:03:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 8:22:31 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:11:22 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 5:07:50 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:49:08 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:28:37 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:02:30 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:29:14 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think it doesnt really matter if we consider them alive or not.

I guess maybe I should have posted this in the Philosophy forum.

Let's say you capture a virus from the air and stick it under a microscope, what do you see?

You see a static object, it doesn"t move or change it just sits there doing nothing, is it alive?

Things that are alive can also just sit there and do nothing, too. Just because it doesnt move, doesnt mean its not alive.

Can you think of any examples of other things that are alive that don't move or change and just sit there doing nothing?

My grandfather, for one. There are also many bacteria that can remain frozen, and literally for all intents and purposes, "dont move" at all, but are still alive.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines alive as, having life not dead or inanimate.

Even frozen bacteria doesn't qualify as alive.

Inanimate is defined also as "Spiritless, sluggish, dull".

It would be interesting to discuss whether or not a frozen bacteria is alive. I would say no it's not.
Fuzzed
Posts: 45
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 8:07:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 5:55:11 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/24/2015 1:16:22 PM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:29:14 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think it doesnt really matter if we consider them alive or not.

It does.
Biology is heavily reliant on categorizing all life.
Thats why it was such a large thing to move fungus's to their own kingdom.

Im a vet student and weve gone over this a bit.
For something to be alive it must be able to: Consume and reproduce on its own.

All bacteria can reproduce on their own, they may need to do it within a host, but they are all able to consume nutrients and reproduce.

Virus's cannot do either. They are in affect just DNA or RNA in a capsule and nothing more. This DNA/RNA uses others systems to multiply as they have no ability to do so themselves.

This is further confirmed by another thing you would have to consider if it is alive or not - a prion.
A prion is like a ultra-simplified virus.
If a bacteria is tiny in comparison to a eurkryotic cell, and a virus is tiny compared to a bacteria cell, then a prion is 1000 times smaller then the smallest known virus.

It is nothing more then a free floating protein. Its only real function is to float freely, and hijack other similar proteins, turning them into replicants, while doing damage to whatever host their in (as many proteins are want to do).

Prions, by the way, are responsible for the cannibal disease Kuru, Scrappy, and Mad Cow Disease.

When a virus copies itself how do each of the copies create their own capsules?

Is it coded in the DNA or RNA to construct the shell?

The Capsid (shell)is built of the most efficient shapes in nature, triangles, that they simply form around them from the invaded hosts own outer layers as it leaves.

They are, for all intents and purposes, self assembling structures as they rely on different forces (weak attractive, repulsive) that arise from the relative position of said proteins making up the container.

A virus may not be alive, but that doesnt mean its not worth studying.. they are absolutely intriguing.
Fuzzed
Posts: 45
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 8:11:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 6:03:54 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:22:31 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:11:22 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 5:07:50 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:49:08 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:28:37 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:02:30 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:29:14 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think it doesnt really matter if we consider them alive or not.

I guess maybe I should have posted this in the Philosophy forum.

Let's say you capture a virus from the air and stick it under a microscope, what do you see?

You see a static object, it doesn"t move or change it just sits there doing nothing, is it alive?

Things that are alive can also just sit there and do nothing, too. Just because it doesnt move, doesnt mean its not alive.

Can you think of any examples of other things that are alive that don't move or change and just sit there doing nothing?

My grandfather, for one. There are also many bacteria that can remain frozen, and literally for all intents and purposes, "dont move" at all, but are still alive.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines alive as, having life not dead or inanimate.

Even frozen bacteria doesn't qualify as alive.

Inanimate is defined also as "Spiritless, sluggish, dull".

It would be interesting to discuss whether or not a frozen bacteria is alive. I would say no it's not.

There is a frog which, essentially, has anti-freeze in its body.
During winter, it finds a burrow , digs in, and pushes all of its liquids out into its skin. It, therefor, freezes absolutely solid for the whole winter, until it is thawed.

Waterbears, what is thought to be the worlds most resiliant multi-celled organism, can survive being completely frozen for decades.

In both cases these creatures are alive, for once brought into proper temperatures their bodies re-animate.
If they stay frozen for too long or are structurally damaged while in hibernation, they will not, because they were essentially killed while being frozen.

So the question is... did freezing the bacteria compromise its anatomy in any lethal manner, or can it return to life?
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 9:43:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 8:11:59 PM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/25/2015 6:03:54 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:22:31 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:11:22 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 5:07:50 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:49:08 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:28:37 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:02:30 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:29:14 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think it doesnt really matter if we consider them alive or not.

I guess maybe I should have posted this in the Philosophy forum.

Let's say you capture a virus from the air and stick it under a microscope, what do you see?

You see a static object, it doesn"t move or change it just sits there doing nothing, is it alive?

Things that are alive can also just sit there and do nothing, too. Just because it doesnt move, doesnt mean its not alive.

Can you think of any examples of other things that are alive that don't move or change and just sit there doing nothing?

My grandfather, for one. There are also many bacteria that can remain frozen, and literally for all intents and purposes, "dont move" at all, but are still alive.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines alive as, having life not dead or inanimate.

Even frozen bacteria doesn't qualify as alive.

Inanimate is defined also as "Spiritless, sluggish, dull".

It would be interesting to discuss whether or not a frozen bacteria is alive. I would say no it's not.

There is a frog which, essentially, has anti-freeze in its body.
During winter, it finds a burrow , digs in, and pushes all of its liquids out into its skin. It, therefor, freezes absolutely solid for the whole winter, until it is thawed.

Waterbears, what is thought to be the worlds most resiliant multi-celled organism, can survive being completely frozen for decades.

In both cases these creatures are alive, for once brought into proper temperatures their bodies re-animate.
If they stay frozen for too long or are structurally damaged while in hibernation, they will not, because they were essentially killed while being frozen.

So the question is... did freezing the bacteria compromise its anatomy in any lethal manner, or can it return to life?

Would you say an apple seed is alive?
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 9:54:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 8:07:34 PM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/25/2015 5:55:11 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/24/2015 1:16:22 PM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:29:14 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think it doesnt really matter if we consider them alive or not.

It does.
Biology is heavily reliant on categorizing all life.
Thats why it was such a large thing to move fungus's to their own kingdom.

Im a vet student and weve gone over this a bit.
For something to be alive it must be able to: Consume and reproduce on its own.

All bacteria can reproduce on their own, they may need to do it within a host, but they are all able to consume nutrients and reproduce.

Virus's cannot do either. They are in affect just DNA or RNA in a capsule and nothing more. This DNA/RNA uses others systems to multiply as they have no ability to do so themselves.

This is further confirmed by another thing you would have to consider if it is alive or not - a prion.
A prion is like a ultra-simplified virus.
If a bacteria is tiny in comparison to a eurkryotic cell, and a virus is tiny compared to a bacteria cell, then a prion is 1000 times smaller then the smallest known virus.

It is nothing more then a free floating protein. Its only real function is to float freely, and hijack other similar proteins, turning them into replicants, while doing damage to whatever host their in (as many proteins are want to do).

Prions, by the way, are responsible for the cannibal disease Kuru, Scrappy, and Mad Cow Disease.

When a virus copies itself how do each of the copies create their own capsules?

Is it coded in the DNA or RNA to construct the shell?

The Capsid (shell)is built of the most efficient shapes in nature, triangles, that they simply form around them from the invaded hosts own outer layers as it leaves.

They are, for all intents and purposes, self assembling structures as they rely on different forces (weak attractive, repulsive) that arise from the relative position of said proteins making up the container.

A virus may not be alive, but that doesnt mean its not worth studying.. they are absolutely intriguing.

So the outer cell wall of the cell the virus invaded becomes the shell for the new virus copies?
Fuzzed
Posts: 45
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 7:13:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 9:54:35 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/25/2015 8:07:34 PM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/25/2015 5:55:11 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/24/2015 1:16:22 PM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:29:14 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think it doesnt really matter if we consider them alive or not.

It does.
Biology is heavily reliant on categorizing all life.
Thats why it was such a large thing to move fungus's to their own kingdom.

Im a vet student and weve gone over this a bit.
For something to be alive it must be able to: Consume and reproduce on its own.

All bacteria can reproduce on their own, they may need to do it within a host, but they are all able to consume nutrients and reproduce.

Virus's cannot do either. They are in affect just DNA or RNA in a capsule and nothing more. This DNA/RNA uses others systems to multiply as they have no ability to do so themselves.

This is further confirmed by another thing you would have to consider if it is alive or not - a prion.
A prion is like a ultra-simplified virus.
If a bacteria is tiny in comparison to a eurkryotic cell, and a virus is tiny compared to a bacteria cell, then a prion is 1000 times smaller then the smallest known virus.

It is nothing more then a free floating protein. Its only real function is to float freely, and hijack other similar proteins, turning them into replicants, while doing damage to whatever host their in (as many proteins are want to do).

Prions, by the way, are responsible for the cannibal disease Kuru, Scrappy, and Mad Cow Disease.

When a virus copies itself how do each of the copies create their own capsules?

Is it coded in the DNA or RNA to construct the shell?

The Capsid (shell)is built of the most efficient shapes in nature, triangles, that they simply form around them from the invaded hosts own outer layers as it leaves.

They are, for all intents and purposes, self assembling structures as they rely on different forces (weak attractive, repulsive) that arise from the relative position of said proteins making up the container.

A virus may not be alive, but that doesnt mean its not worth studying.. they are absolutely intriguing.

So the outer cell wall of the cell the virus invaded becomes the shell for the new virus copies?

Precisely, the whole living arrangement of a virus is its hijacking of others systems.
This may seem complex enough to suggest a form of the most basic life but, once again, enter the Prion, which is nothing more then a protein, absolutely, and yet can hijack other healthy proteins and turn them into exact copies of itself.

As for the apple seed, I think the best way to close the definition is - are its cell's still alive? It can dry out, be frozen, and so on.. but many cell's have evolved to deal with these issues through forms of semi-hibernation for periods of time. Being inactive does not mean being dead.

The perfect example of this life despite inactivety, is this story:
"Oldest Bacteria. In October of 1999, scientists discovered 250-million-year-old bacteria in ancient sea salt beneath Carlsbad, New Mexico. Researchers claim that they revived these microscopic organisms in a laboratory after being in a state of 'suspended animation'."
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 3:08:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think virus are a good way to show the difference between "alive" and "dead" is pretty arbitrary. Matter is matter, there's really no thing that conclusively makes matter alive. In the end, it depends of course on what you consider "alive" to be. For most biologists, the structure must be able to reproduce, react to the environment, and feed. In this case, I believe virus can be considered alive, but pointing out they need other organisms in order to live (as any parisitic life form). Some others say autopoiesis is the real feature that separates the living from the dead, and in this case, virus would be dead.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 6:02:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 7:13:32 AM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/25/2015 9:54:35 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/25/2015 8:07:34 PM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/25/2015 5:55:11 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/24/2015 1:16:22 PM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:29:14 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think it doesnt really matter if we consider them alive or not.

It does.
Biology is heavily reliant on categorizing all life.
Thats why it was such a large thing to move fungus's to their own kingdom.

Im a vet student and weve gone over this a bit.
For something to be alive it must be able to: Consume and reproduce on its own.

All bacteria can reproduce on their own, they may need to do it within a host, but they are all able to consume nutrients and reproduce.

Virus's cannot do either. They are in affect just DNA or RNA in a capsule and nothing more. This DNA/RNA uses others systems to multiply as they have no ability to do so themselves.

This is further confirmed by another thing you would have to consider if it is alive or not - a prion.
A prion is like a ultra-simplified virus.
If a bacteria is tiny in comparison to a eurkryotic cell, and a virus is tiny compared to a bacteria cell, then a prion is 1000 times smaller then the smallest known virus.

It is nothing more then a free floating protein. Its only real function is to float freely, and hijack other similar proteins, turning them into replicants, while doing damage to whatever host their in (as many proteins are want to do).

Prions, by the way, are responsible for the cannibal disease Kuru, Scrappy, and Mad Cow Disease.

When a virus copies itself how do each of the copies create their own capsules?

Is it coded in the DNA or RNA to construct the shell?

The Capsid (shell)is built of the most efficient shapes in nature, triangles, that they simply form around them from the invaded hosts own outer layers as it leaves.

They are, for all intents and purposes, self assembling structures as they rely on different forces (weak attractive, repulsive) that arise from the relative position of said proteins making up the container.

A virus may not be alive, but that doesnt mean its not worth studying.. they are absolutely intriguing.

So the outer cell wall of the cell the virus invaded becomes the shell for the new virus copies?

Precisely, the whole living arrangement of a virus is its hijacking of others systems.
This may seem complex enough to suggest a form of the most basic life but, once again, enter the Prion, which is nothing more then a protein, absolutely, and yet can hijack other healthy proteins and turn them into exact copies of itself.

As for the apple seed, I think the best way to close the definition is - are its cell's still alive? It can dry out, be frozen, and so on.. but many cell's have evolved to deal with these issues through forms of semi-hibernation for periods of time. Being inactive does not mean being dead.


The perfect example of this life despite inactivety, is this story:
"Oldest Bacteria. In October of 1999, scientists discovered 250-million-year-old bacteria in ancient sea salt beneath Carlsbad, New Mexico. Researchers claim that they revived these microscopic organisms in a laboratory after being in a state of 'suspended animation'."

No its cells are not alive.

They don't have any metabolic processes going on inside them.

There is nothing going on in there, nothing.
Fuzzed
Posts: 45
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 8:59:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 6:02:37 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/26/2015 7:13:32 AM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/25/2015 9:54:35 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/25/2015 8:07:34 PM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/25/2015 5:55:11 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/24/2015 1:16:22 PM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:29:14 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think it doesnt really matter if we consider them alive or not.

It does.
Biology is heavily reliant on categorizing all life.
Thats why it was such a large thing to move fungus's to their own kingdom.

Im a vet student and weve gone over this a bit.
For something to be alive it must be able to: Consume and reproduce on its own.

All bacteria can reproduce on their own, they may need to do it within a host, but they are all able to consume nutrients and reproduce.

Virus's cannot do either. They are in affect just DNA or RNA in a capsule and nothing more. This DNA/RNA uses others systems to multiply as they have no ability to do so themselves.

This is further confirmed by another thing you would have to consider if it is alive or not - a prion.
A prion is like a ultra-simplified virus.
If a bacteria is tiny in comparison to a eurkryotic cell, and a virus is tiny compared to a bacteria cell, then a prion is 1000 times smaller then the smallest known virus.

It is nothing more then a free floating protein. Its only real function is to float freely, and hijack other similar proteins, turning them into replicants, while doing damage to whatever host their in (as many proteins are want to do).

Prions, by the way, are responsible for the cannibal disease Kuru, Scrappy, and Mad Cow Disease.

When a virus copies itself how do each of the copies create their own capsules?

Is it coded in the DNA or RNA to construct the shell?

The Capsid (shell)is built of the most efficient shapes in nature, triangles, that they simply form around them from the invaded hosts own outer layers as it leaves.

They are, for all intents and purposes, self assembling structures as they rely on different forces (weak attractive, repulsive) that arise from the relative position of said proteins making up the container.

A virus may not be alive, but that doesnt mean its not worth studying.. they are absolutely intriguing.

So the outer cell wall of the cell the virus invaded becomes the shell for the new virus copies?

Precisely, the whole living arrangement of a virus is its hijacking of others systems.
This may seem complex enough to suggest a form of the most basic life but, once again, enter the Prion, which is nothing more then a protein, absolutely, and yet can hijack other healthy proteins and turn them into exact copies of itself.

As for the apple seed, I think the best way to close the definition is - are its cell's still alive? It can dry out, be frozen, and so on.. but many cell's have evolved to deal with these issues through forms of semi-hibernation for periods of time. Being inactive does not mean being dead.


The perfect example of this life despite inactivety, is this story:
"Oldest Bacteria. In October of 1999, scientists discovered 250-million-year-old bacteria in ancient sea salt beneath Carlsbad, New Mexico. Researchers claim that they revived these microscopic organisms in a laboratory after being in a state of 'suspended animation'."

No its cells are not alive.

They don't have any metabolic processes going on inside them.

There is nothing going on in there, nothing.

I get what your saying, and im not arguing that you have some sturdy logic in your concept. One of the signs of life is metabolic process, which is why a virus will never be alive.

However if we can only categorize a creature as dead or alive, and it previously had metabolic process prior, and that exact same creature with the exact same DNA would return to such a function after a period of suspension naturally, then you can determine it was a living being in natural evolutionarily created stasis.

Take a seed. A group of cell's, often kept as tough as possible so they could survive the harsh environment.
A seed from a now extinct Judean Palm Tree in Israel was germinated in Israel.
It was 2000 years old.
It cells's wouldve only survived in a state of near perfect stasis.
Was it dead and returned to life?
If so, why cant other things that are killed return to living function naturally and only things that suspend life can?
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 7:04:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 8:59:06 PM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/28/2015 6:02:37 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/26/2015 7:13:32 AM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/25/2015 9:54:35 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/25/2015 8:07:34 PM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/25/2015 5:55:11 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/24/2015 1:16:22 PM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:29:14 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

I think it doesnt really matter if we consider them alive or not.

It does.
Biology is heavily reliant on categorizing all life.
Thats why it was such a large thing to move fungus's to their own kingdom.

Im a vet student and weve gone over this a bit.
For something to be alive it must be able to: Consume and reproduce on its own.

All bacteria can reproduce on their own, they may need to do it within a host, but they are all able to consume nutrients and reproduce.

Virus's cannot do either. They are in affect just DNA or RNA in a capsule and nothing more. This DNA/RNA uses others systems to multiply as they have no ability to do so themselves.

This is further confirmed by another thing you would have to consider if it is alive or not - a prion.
A prion is like a ultra-simplified virus.
If a bacteria is tiny in comparison to a eurkryotic cell, and a virus is tiny compared to a bacteria cell, then a prion is 1000 times smaller then the smallest known virus.

It is nothing more then a free floating protein. Its only real function is to float freely, and hijack other similar proteins, turning them into replicants, while doing damage to whatever host their in (as many proteins are want to do).

Prions, by the way, are responsible for the cannibal disease Kuru, Scrappy, and Mad Cow Disease.

When a virus copies itself how do each of the copies create their own capsules?

Is it coded in the DNA or RNA to construct the shell?

The Capsid (shell)is built of the most efficient shapes in nature, triangles, that they simply form around them from the invaded hosts own outer layers as it leaves.

They are, for all intents and purposes, self assembling structures as they rely on different forces (weak attractive, repulsive) that arise from the relative position of said proteins making up the container.

A virus may not be alive, but that doesnt mean its not worth studying.. they are absolutely intriguing.

So the outer cell wall of the cell the virus invaded becomes the shell for the new virus copies?

Precisely, the whole living arrangement of a virus is its hijacking of others systems.
This may seem complex enough to suggest a form of the most basic life but, once again, enter the Prion, which is nothing more then a protein, absolutely, and yet can hijack other healthy proteins and turn them into exact copies of itself.

As for the apple seed, I think the best way to close the definition is - are its cell's still alive? It can dry out, be frozen, and so on.. but many cell's have evolved to deal with these issues through forms of semi-hibernation for periods of time. Being inactive does not mean being dead.


The perfect example of this life despite inactivety, is this story:
"Oldest Bacteria. In October of 1999, scientists discovered 250-million-year-old bacteria in ancient sea salt beneath Carlsbad, New Mexico. Researchers claim that they revived these microscopic organisms in a laboratory after being in a state of 'suspended animation'."

No its cells are not alive.

They don't have any metabolic processes going on inside them.

There is nothing going on in there, nothing.

I get what your saying, and im not arguing that you have some sturdy logic in your concept. One of the signs of life is metabolic process, which is why a virus will never be alive.

However if we can only categorize a creature as dead or alive, and it previously had metabolic process prior, and that exact same creature with the exact same DNA would return to such a function after a period of suspension naturally, then you can determine it was a living being in natural evolutionarily created stasis.

Take a seed. A group of cell's, often kept as tough as possible so they could survive the harsh environment.
A seed from a now extinct Judean Palm Tree in Israel was germinated in Israel.
It was 2000 years old.
It cells's wouldve only survived in a state of near perfect stasis.
Was it dead and returned to life?
If so, why cant other things that are killed return to living function naturally and only things that suspend life can?

I think we simply have not defined "alive" adequately. It's more a semantic problem then anything else.

Viruses are alive when animated by a cell just like an apple seed is animated by water, soil and sun.

It becomes alive and makes copies of itself using its environment as the fuel.
GDBH
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 7:29:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

They can;t reproduce on their own, they don't change over time, so no.
The measure of a good politician these days seems to be his ability to bull$hit.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 7:34:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 7:29:17 AM, GDBH wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

They can;t reproduce on their own, they don't change over time, so no.

Don't change over time?

Well we know that is wrong (I hope).

They evolve faster then anything else alive on earth!
GDBH
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 7:35:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 7:34:10 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/30/2015 7:29:17 AM, GDBH wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

They can;t reproduce on their own, they don't change over time, so no.

Don't change over time?

Well we know that is wrong (I hope).

They evolve faster then anything else alive on earth!

OOP. forgot. But if you want to prove them to be living things u gotta prove they dont need a host to reproduce.
The measure of a good politician these days seems to be his ability to bull$hit.
Fuzzed
Posts: 45
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 8:30:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 7:34:10 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/30/2015 7:29:17 AM, GDBH wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

They can;t reproduce on their own, they don't change over time, so no.

Don't change over time?

Well we know that is wrong (I hope).

They evolve faster then anything else alive on earth!

Outside of a host they can never duplicate, and without duplication in the host, they can never change as they are completely inert until they make contact with a target cell.

Bacteria can be made to duplicate without host cells, if their given the right nutrients and surroundings, and some can duplicate outside of a host all together, like salmonella.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 8:45:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 7:35:07 AM, GDBH wrote:
At 4/30/2015 7:34:10 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/30/2015 7:29:17 AM, GDBH wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

They can;t reproduce on their own, they don't change over time, so no.

Don't change over time?

Well we know that is wrong (I hope).

They evolve faster then anything else alive on earth!

OOP. forgot. But if you want to prove them to be living things u gotta prove they dont need a host to reproduce.

Virus and seed both need a certain environment to be in place for them to grow and both take resources from that environment to make copies of themselves.

An apple seed needs the soil as a virus needs its cell, no apple trees grow in a vacuum.
GDBH
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 8:46:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 8:45:03 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/30/2015 7:35:07 AM, GDBH wrote:
At 4/30/2015 7:34:10 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/30/2015 7:29:17 AM, GDBH wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:05:44 PM, Accipiter wrote:
Some say they are just an elaborate chemical reaction not worthy of the title "alive" and others say they are living things.

I am sure there are probably other theories I haven't heard of regarding the question so if you know of one please describe it.

What do you think, are viruses alive?

They can;t reproduce on their own, they don't change over time, so no.

Don't change over time?

Well we know that is wrong (I hope).

They evolve faster then anything else alive on earth!

OOP. forgot. But if you want to prove them to be living things u gotta prove they dont need a host to reproduce.

Virus and seed both need a certain environment to be in place for them to grow and both take resources from that environment to make copies of themselves.

An apple seed needs the soil as a virus needs its cell, no apple trees grow in a vacuum.

The virus has to infect the host and seeds dont.
The measure of a good politician these days seems to be his ability to bull$hit.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 3:20:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You guys are having semantic problems.

There is a clear difference between inanimate matter and animated matter, putting viruses in the same group as other animated matter is no great leap.