Virus!!!!

[Tim_Lou]

are virus living?

 

whats your opinion?

 

i believe that they are living...they have structure, and a reproduction method, variation in "species", mutation as adaptation.....

[Evanescence]

hey,

 

ok i have thought about this myself but there is one simple problem -

 

all living things have 7 characteristics:

 

MOVEMENT, RESPIRATION (release energy from food), SENSITIVITY (respond to changes), GROWTH (increase in size), REPRODUCTION (producing off-spring), EXCRETION (getting rid of waste products) and NUTRITION (eating)

 

as far as i know, virusues one have one of these: REPRODUCTION. they duplicate themselves, but they do not move freely, respond to changes, increase in size, get rid of waste or eat.

 

although, maybe the 7 characteristics of living things are totally wrong? i'll leave this one open.

[Tim_Lou]

well, but virus is way too complex from normal matter, right?

and nobody has ever succeed to create a virus! (have they?) just like people cannot create organisms.

 

scientists can produce non-living matters but not virus and organisms.

 

and also, virus can mutate just like adaptation for organisms.

 

yeah, virus may not seem to be living, but is it OK to call them particles???

[Tim_Lou]

+, they react when they find a host cell, can a piece of metal do this?

[Tim_Lou]

movement doesnt count as a necessary characteristic of living organisms.

 

plants do not move.

 

: )

[Evanescence]

as ridiculous as it may sound - you could actually say that plants do move in some way. they *do* bend towards the sun to enable them to absorb more light for energy. at least i think you can safely say that this is movement of some sort, even though very little.

 

with regards to the virus, just because scientists cannot create them, but does that mean that they are living things? or perhaps virusues are just a unique exeption to the characteristics of living things? an investigation into this would be a good idea i think.

 

any ideas?

[Tim_Lou]

virus is somewhat between living and non-living.

 

it may be an early form of live.

well, since they are very successful in the nature, thus no evolutions are needed and they remain this form of "life".

 

people say that virus DO NOT have all the characteristics of an organism. but in the other way around, virus DO have characteristics of living things that many non-living things dont have.

[Evanescence]

thats a good point looking at it from that point of view. i suppose we can say that viruses are not *dead* as a matter of speaking then? but we can still not surely say they are *living* either...so i'm kind of in between things here!

[sundog]

I'm certainly no expert in any field, but here's my 2 cents.

 

What if computers reach the stage where they learn, develop their own free thought and have a sense of being. Even though it may not move, grow or reproduce independently, could we ever say its alive? Or will it be simulating life?

If we do call it life, then a what point?

Just how different is a computer virus and a real world virus? (apart from one is man made).

 

A virus maybe no more or less alive than a computer virus, which can respond to a command, carry out a predetermined function and replicate. By itself it's just a piece of stored information with only the potential to do these things.

 

Perhaps we may need to be flexible with the characteristics that define life.

 

It seems the the characteristics of life are not always evident. Take seeds, spores and pollen etc. They only have the potential, given the right environment/elements, to move, consume, grow and reproduce.

 

Are they actually alive while in a dormant state?

 

So is a virus alive? I think it is, at some level.

 

I'm open to the idea that life may exist elsewhere in the cosmos, but not necessarily as we know it. (but that's another topic)

 

 

Just a some thoughts.

 

 

 

sundog

[Tormod]

Interesting question. I frankly don't know if virus are alive or not. But they sure can cause trouble...

 

Here is a page with a Q&A about this exact question -

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99171.htm

 

I think it is fair to say that all plants "move". It think motion is not necessarily always external, either (for example, internal energy flows). Look at moss and lichen - they sit very still on the ground (fixed to rocks, for example) but they are very much alive.

 

Tormod

[Michaelangelica]

Here is a weird blog on the subject.

The guy is either mad or a genius.

 

Hydrogenbond will love it:)

 

http://thevirusproject.blogspot.com/

[HydrogenBond]

One may be able to model virus as wave forms but it doesn't have to be that complicated. All that is required is looking at the hydrogen protons. Chemistry builds upon electrons orbitals that circulate about atomic nuclei composed of protons and neutrons. Where life differs from most of chemistry is connected to making use of a third layer of chemistry. The hydrogen proton can move on top of electron orbitals to create a third layer of chemistry. This is evident in pH, where hydrogen protons can move from water to water, with the electron orbitals staying put on the oxygen atoms. This special third layer of chemistry has properties of its own which define the fundamental basis of life.

 

Modern biochemistry uses layers one (nucleus) and two (orbtials) instead of layers one, (nucleus) two (orbitals) and three (hydrogen proton). The result is empricism instead of logic. Logic requires layer three. While empiricsm is useful for lumping layers two and three. But this creates a level of uncertanity because layers 2 and 3 can act independantly, with layer three often having a mind of its own apart from the expectations of layer 2 chemistry.

[LJP07]

Viruses should be classed as non-living due to the reasoning that they need the host cell to either take part in two processes:

 

1. Lysis of the cell.

2. Taking over DNA for future stages until it's ready.

 

Therefore, they can't live on their own and only start " living " when they take over the cell, because of this viruses are non-living, they require a medium by which they can support, and destroy but on their own , what characteristics do they share with living organisms, not enoughm therefore their classification should be non-living.

[moo]

But many parasites can't live on their own. The parasitic shrub mistletoe comes to mind. :warped:

 

moo

[LJP07]

Checking the definitions of Parasite and Virus, :

 

Parasite: An organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

 

Virus: An ultramicroscopic (20 to 300 nm in diameter), metabolically inert, infectious agent that replicates only within the cells of living hosts, mainly bacteria, plants, and animals: composed of an RNA or DNA core, a protein coat, and, in more complex types, a surrounding envelope.

 

Now I think from those definitions that a Parasite is not a Virus!?

A Parasite can live on the organism Eg. Ectoparasite like Athletes Foot, but a Virus has to take over the cell DNA, this is getting me confused now, Maybe the above statement is wrong? Why are the definitions slightly different.

[moo]

I didn't mean to imply that a virus is a parasite. I was referring to your statement "Therefore, they can't live on their own" as a reason they are not alive. Sorry. :warped:

 

moo

[ronthepon]

Yeah, Viruses are not parasites, simply because they do not obtain nutrition for themselves. They simply hi-jack the mechanics of the cell they invade.

 

Yup, viruses are nothing but crystalline protein forms properly arranged. When close to their host, then they begin to get active. They make additions to the genome of the victim cell, so that the cell begins to produce more viruses.

 

So this way, the viruses never actually reproduced at all. All they did was to throw a bunch of genes at the lump already present in the cell. So what if the bunch of genes is an excellent template for their mass production?

 

However, when they do get near cells, they do display signs of being living, anyway. Afterall, they too are forms controlled by their own genetic matter too. They too perform life-life activities when they infect the living cells.

 

They are not non living. Are they living? Are the two options mutually exclusive and exhaustive?