Viruses: Living or non living?

living or non-living?

Living!	46.4%	[ 39 ]
Non-living!	53.6%	[ 45 ]
Total Votes:			[ 84 ]

[Plata Plomo y Sangre]

Exoth XIII

Tactical Leg Sweep

Exoth XIII

Touching Hair

An ancient, simple but incredibly advanced piece of self-sustaining code that is harmful but also vital to pretty much all living organisms.

I do consider them to be alive, not like you, I or a cell but similar to an advanced A.I.

AIs are sentient, but technically not alive.
A virus is neither sentient, nor is it alive, going by the current standard.

A virus is a self-sustaining biological entity. That is life by almost any standard.

The phrase "self sustaining" is a bit misleading, you seem to imply here that it performs homeostasis, has a metabolism, and many other things characteristic of life.

It's no more alive than a ribosome, which is every bit as self sustaining.

No, that's not what was implied whatsoever. Self-sustaining implies none of those things. Self-sustaining is exactly what it sounds like, without any inference on your part; the ability to sustain itself with independent effort. Unless of course you're contending that the only apparent metric for life is metabolism and homeostasis, which would exclude many microorganisms including prions and protozoa, which have no metabolism or homeostasis respectively.

[Ask Jappleack]

Viruses remind me of nanobots. So I wonder how they originated.

[Exoth XIII]

Tactical Leg Sweep

Exoth XIII

Tactical Leg Sweep

Exoth XIII

Touching Hair

An ancient, simple but incredibly advanced piece of self-sustaining code that is harmful but also vital to pretty much all living organisms.

I do consider them to be alive, not like you, I or a cell but similar to an advanced A.I.

AIs are sentient, but technically not alive.
A virus is neither sentient, nor is it alive, going by the current standard.

A virus is a self-sustaining biological entity. That is life by almost any standard.

The phrase "self sustaining" is a bit misleading, you seem to imply here that it performs homeostasis, has a metabolism, and many other things characteristic of life.

It's no more alive than a ribosome, which is every bit as self sustaining.

No, that's not what was implied whatsoever. Self-sustaining implies none of those things. Self-sustaining is exactly what it sounds like, without any inference on your part; the ability to sustain itself with independent effort.

Metabolism and homeostasis are both processes that require independent effort to sustain the life form.

Quote:

Unless of course you're contending that the only apparent metric for life is metabolism and homeostasis, which would exclude many microorganisms including prions and protozoa, which have no metabolism or homeostasis respectively.

1. There are more requirements than that, I just gave those as offhand examples of requirements not fulfilled by virii.
2. Prions aren't alive.
3. Protozoa don't have any homeostasis processes? Yep, I think we're done here.

[Plata Plomo y Sangre]

Quote:

Metabolism and homeostasis are both processes that require independent effort to sustain the life form.

Okay, and? A combustion engine requires fuel in the form of gasoline, while a steam engine requires steam. I hope it's clear why stating that all engines are steam engines is putting it nicely, silly.

Quote:

1. There are more requirements than that, I just gave those as offhand examples of requirements not fulfilled by virii.

Except as far as I can tell, you're pulling them out of your a**.

Quote:

2. Prions aren't alive.
3. Protozoa don't have any homeostasis processes? Yep, I think we're done here.

Prions aren't alive? Yep, we're definitely done here.

[The Aged God]

They're nonliving but perform living actions. Sorta like how robots are non-living but can so living actions.

[Exoth XIII]

Tactical Leg Sweep

Quote:

Metabolism and homeostasis are both processes that require independent effort to sustain the life form.

Okay, and? A combustion engine requires fuel in the form of gasoline, while a steam engine requires steam. I hope it's clear why stating that all engines are steam engines is putting it nicely, silly.

I don't think you understand your own metaphor.
You're trying to assert that a piston is an engine. It's not.

Quote:

Quote:

1. There are more requirements than that, I just gave those as offhand examples of requirements not fulfilled by virii.

Except as far as I can tell, you're pulling them out of your a**.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC516796/?tool=pmcentrez
Google is your friend.

Virologists generally consider viruses to be "straddling the edge of life;" not quite meeting all the conditions to be simply called "alive."
http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/

Quote:

Quote:

2. Prions aren't alive.
3. Protozoa don't have any homeostasis processes? Yep, I think we're done here.

Prions aren't alive?

Unless you're going by some obscure definition, a prion is an infectious malformed protein. There are enzymes that perform more life processes.

[Zombie Lord Moses]

My biology knowledge is nil (I expect this will demonstrate itself), but I'll ask if it's necessary to form such a hard dichotomy between living and nonliving; is the question itself appropriate? What about the chemical structures preceding what are considered living organisms in abiogenesis? Whatever they are or might hypothetically be.

[azulmagia]

They are undead.

[1012222345466778575765q]

Viruses are non-living. They simply do not meet the requirements to be living.

They are non-cellular
They have no metabolism

[Plata Plomo y Sangre]

Quote:

I don't think you understand your own metaphor.
You're trying to assert that a piston is an engine. It's not.

Actually, I do. You're trying to assert all engines must be steam engines to be engines, as I stated earlier. They don't.

Quote:

Except as far as I can tell, you're pulling them out of your a**.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC516796/?tool=pmcentrez
Google is your friend.

Virologists generally consider viruses to be "straddling the edge of life;" not quite meeting all the conditions to be simply called "alive."
http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/

It is mine, it seems, seeing as neither link shows any justification for your idea that all living things MUST perform homeostasis or have metabolism to be considered alive.

Also, google is your friend.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/060808/full/454677a.html

Whoops, looks I too can randomly point to virologists that agree with my opinion as if it has to do with my point. Got anything else?

[Sage Feathers]

Since viruses aren't self-sustaining, I like to compare them to robots. The shell is there, but you need the energy of the cell to make it work.

[Jubilant Sunrise]

Tactical Leg Sweep

Exoth XIII

Tactical Leg Sweep

Exoth XIII

Touching Hair

An ancient, simple but incredibly advanced piece of self-sustaining code that is harmful but also vital to pretty much all living organisms.

I do consider them to be alive, not like you, I or a cell but similar to an advanced A.I.

AIs are sentient, but technically not alive.
A virus is neither sentient, nor is it alive, going by the current standard.

A virus is a self-sustaining biological entity. That is life by almost any standard.

The phrase "self sustaining" is a bit misleading, you seem to imply here that it performs homeostasis, has a metabolism, and many other things characteristic of life.

It's no more alive than a ribosome, which is every bit as self sustaining.

No, that's not what was implied whatsoever. Self-sustaining implies none of those things. Self-sustaining is exactly what it sounds like, without any inference on your part; the ability to sustain itself with independent effort. Unless of course you're contending that the only apparent metric for life is metabolism and homeostasis, which would exclude many microorganisms including prions and protozoa, which have no metabolism or homeostasis respectively.

A virus is not self-sustaining, however. They cannot perform basic processes like reproduction without "leeching" the ability from a cell. This is the exact opposite of self-sustaining. The use of another "thing" is most certainly not using independent efforts to sustain itself.

Ignoring this fact, despite what you may believe, things which cannot reproduce (individually), have no self-sustaining metabolism, and have no ability to maintain internal states is the exact opposite of a living thing. Furthermore, protozoa have a contractile vacuole organelle which maintains homeostasis. As for prions, they are not alive anyways, so arguing as if the fact that they have neither an ability to maintain homeostasis and have no metabolism makes any difference is like arguing that the fact that baseball is a sport makes a difference in whether or not cheer-leading is a sport.

[Bubblegum Glaze]

This can be a really heated topic =/
I think virus are non-living, because they require hosts...

[curio__petra]

I believe they are non living as they require a host. I tend to think of them as being similar to mitochondria, as mitochondria require that endosymbiosis in order to carry out their function, and viruses cannot "survive" without a host.

[The_Names_Masayuki]

In my oppinion Viruses are non-living machine like things. Think of them as little nano machines that invade other living cells distort there mRNA and DNA to help them reproduce and BAM!!!! That's what makes them seem like living organisms cause they act like parasitic organisms and stuff.....so yeah, that's all I got right now my heads not clear enough at the moment, just drank some Jack and smoked a cigar, so I'm a bit wowzered at the moment sweatdrop