I think that virus is a living thing.... If its not a living thing... how does it
reproduce.............
sharkkiller(5)
5 points
3 years ago | Side: Virus
Viruses actually cannot be classified as either living or non living -
Support | Dispute | Clarify
Living points -
↑ Hide Replies
i) they reproduce
Cuaroc(5349) Disputed
ii) they have genetic material
iii) they can move on their own(very silly point but it must be taken
into consideration)
2 points
It reproduces by putting it's genetic material into a cell causing the cell to produce the
virus.
Non - living points -
2 years ago | Side: No, viruses are non-living.
i) they are acellular (their body has no cellular substance and not even Support | Dispute | Clarify
a nucleus but it does have a nuclear material coated with protein)
RubyTuesday(1)
ii) they don't respire
iii) they don't need nutrition or moisture
In most places viruses are considered an intermediate form between
the living and the non-living.But people say they are living yo be on
the positive side and also the living points are more speculative than
the non-living points.
iamdavidh(4848)
Yeah.. they're alive.
1 year ago | Side: Yes, viruses are living.
Support | Dispute | Clarify
opi_um(1)
3 years ago | Side: Yes, viruses are living.
Support | Dispute | Clarify
2 points
Viruses do need a host to function, but they do have the ability to function. Think of it
like this: the virus is dormant or off until it invades the host cell which acts a switch
and turns the virus's functions on
2 points
Viruses are living, the distinction between a life form and its environment is arbitrary,
just as humans would not be alive without a large planetary host, viruses need a host
3 points
cell to reproduce.
130 days ago | Side: Yes, viruses are living.
So is a plant.
"Self-aware" is the landmark a living thing must meet. Humans and
many animals = self aware.
Plants, Viruses, Mold, Embryo = not self aware.
Alive yes, but not aware of their state of being and incapable of
knowing the difference.
3 years ago | Side: Yes, viruses are living.
Support | Dispute | Clarify
bilbosm(2)
1 point
Of course they are living...if they meet all the characteristics of life...which they do. :D
It also says they can die...and living things can't die if they are not alive.
1 year ago | Side: Yes, viruses are living.
Support | Dispute | Clarify
Support | Dispute | Clarify
Link_W0207(1)
↑ Hide Replies
1 point
i think they are living because like it says that for something to be living it has to be
2 points able to reproduce and it also says that you can kill a virus and you can kill a human
A plant is not closely related to a virus, nor is it probably even
too. Viruses have cells with in them because that is how they transfer and us as
distantly related to a virus. It needs to be able to do all the life
humans have cells too.
process on its own.
1 year ago | Side: Yes, viruses are living.
3 years ago | Side: No, viruses are non-living.
Support | Dispute | Clarify
fishyperson(168) Disputed
Support | Dispute | Clarify
gowynn77
↑ Hide Replies
1 point
iamdavidh(4848) Disputed
3 points
Why they are living
- They can die
Humans arn't closely related to plants either. Are we dead or are
they?
- It is possible for them to reproduce
3 years ago | Side: Yes, viruses are living.
- Part of their virions is made up of the genetic material made from DNA or RNA
Support | Dispute | Clarify
1 year ago | Side: Yes, viruses are living.
↓ Show Replies
Support | Dispute | Clarify
lno(15948)
3 points
Well I'm no biologist, that's for sure, but I always thought they were
living.
3 years ago | Side: Yes, viruses are living.
Support | Dispute | Clarify
markocheese(5)
I see it like this:
- They have evolved
imrigone(767)
2 points
It is a tough call, for sure. I have taken a fair amount of biology courses by this point,
and the curriculum has always erred on the side of no, but my last teacher said that
he believes they are, at least in a way that is quite a bit different from the traditional
definition thereof. A friend of mine who is a professional microbiologist says that the
point is really moot, but because of their intrinsic interaction with life and the fact that
2 points
they can be "killed", they should be dealt with as if they are alive, no matter the truth.
As far as "killing" them, that is more or less a man-made concept. For instance, fire
All living things require other things to live and to eventually
certainly is not alive, but it can be "killed" by exhausting the fuel source or depriving it
reproduce and viruses are no different. We're all missing SOMETHING,
of oxygen (both are good ways to kill many organisms). We don't consider it killing,
They're just missing bits that are particularly strange to us.
just a cessation of activity. So, the failure of proper functioning of a virus could be
Take vitamin C. Most animals can synthesize it naturally, but humans termed likewise as cessation of activity, as opposed to death.
consume it frequently enough that we've lost the ability to synthesize
Also, the current theories of abiogenesis propose the concept of protobionts,
it. Without it, we would die and never reproduce.
molecular entities that are subject to natural selection and composed of amino acids
Viruses probably came about in a similar way. They started out having and basic RNA. These things are considered to be a sort of pre-life, the intermediate
reproductive pieces, but they encountered the reproductive machinery stage between inactive organic molecules and true life. Some scientists view viruses
in their environment enough that their own wasn't needed any more, as being very similar to the concept of protobiont. Presumably it would be one that
so they lost it.
was instigated by pre-existing bacteria or emerged wholly independently, but either
Take this analogy: say humans create a machine that creates babies way developed into an entity that "survives" entirely on the genetic material of other
organisms, and never needed to evolve into true life to propagate.
for people using their own DNA from a saliva sample. This machine
becomes so popular that no one does it the traditional way any more. I will tag this as "no", but I could see (and have seen) good arguments for either side.
(bare with me, it's a thought experiment) Our sex organs would be
3 years ago | Side: No, viruses are non-living.
redundant, so we would eventually lose them. Would humans still be
Support | Dispute | Clarify
alive if they outsourced reproduction to environmental machinery? I
fishyperson(168)
think so.
1 point
I think the definition of "alive" needs to be simply "has self replicating
Viruses are non living because they do not do all of the seven life processes needed.
molecules" without specifying that it must contain the machinery
for something to be alive it must do all of these.
required for replication within itself.
3 years ago | Side: Yes, viruses are living.
3 years ago | Side: No, viruses are non-living.
Support | Dispute | Clarify
Support | Dispute | Clarify
Cuaroc(5349)
qwertyuiop29(4)
2 points
Cuaroc(5349)
1 point
Viruses are not cells. they lack cell membranes and don't have other components of
living cells
1 point
2 years ago | Side: No, viruses are non-living.
They require a host cell to reproduce. they are nothing but chemicals
Support | Dispute | Clarify
outside a host cell.
2 years ago | Side: No, viruses are non-living.
Support | Dispute | Clarify