Biological Viruses
Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department
- Jack Dudeman
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:43 pm
- Location: Knoxville, TN USA
Biological Viruses
I was having a conversation with a friend about germs and such, and we got on the topic of viruses and whether or not they are forms of life. The discussion that ensued was very interesting, and I was wondering what you guys think.
The criteria defined for life contradicts some behaviors and attributes of viruses, but they clearly seem like life forms to me. But, I'm no virologist.
The criteria defined for life contradicts some behaviors and attributes of viruses, but they clearly seem like life forms to me. But, I'm no virologist.
Was it for this my life I sought?
Maybe so, maybe not.
Maybe so, maybe not.
- Sunni Daez
- Posts: 3645
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 1:33 pm
- Location: ~A blissful state of mind~
Viruses are NOT lifeform... they have no 'life' they do not eat... the do not metabolize, they do not have cells.... they may be a portion of what life is created from... but a part does not make a whole... they are made up of DNA and RNA and a bit of protien... but that does not define life

Run...Dragon...Run!!!
- Nixit
- Posts: 2307
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:06 pm
- Location: Your imagination...
- Sunni Daez
- Posts: 3645
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 1:33 pm
- Location: ~A blissful state of mind~
Nixit wrote:They are not life because they are dependant on other living cells to reproduce. They satisfy all the requirements needed to be considered living, except that they are not independant.
Not all ...but many...
Wikipedia
It has been argued extensively whether viruses are living organisms. They are considered non-living by the majority of virologists as they do not meet all the criteria of the generally accepted definition of life. Among other factors, viruses do not possess a cell membrane or metabolise on their own. A definitive answer is still elusive due to the fact that some organisms considered to be living exhibit characteristics of both living and non-living particles, as viruses do.
I recall.. in microbiology.. the instructor drew a diagram of a virus on the overhead..and I remember her comment..."Now doesn't that scare you to death?"


Run...Dragon...Run!!!
- Jack Dudeman
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:43 pm
- Location: Knoxville, TN USA
See, that's the deciding factor for me: I can't look at a diagram, or an image of a virus and say that it is not a form of life. It has DNA or RNA, so therefore, it is some type of living thing. It has no cell structure, but it sure looks like it's alive to me.
This is, of course, my opinion. As it has not officially been determined whether or not viruses should be considered life.
I think if the criteria for life is rewritten to include viruses, then it will be much easier to replicate life in a laboratory, which has been impossible so far. I don't know if that is a good thing or bad, but maybe viruses should have a classification of their own. If they already do, then I'm just ignorant to it, I suppose. I'd love to hear anything anyone has to say on the topic.
This is, of course, my opinion. As it has not officially been determined whether or not viruses should be considered life.
I think if the criteria for life is rewritten to include viruses, then it will be much easier to replicate life in a laboratory, which has been impossible so far. I don't know if that is a good thing or bad, but maybe viruses should have a classification of their own. If they already do, then I'm just ignorant to it, I suppose. I'd love to hear anything anyone has to say on the topic.
Was it for this my life I sought?
Maybe so, maybe not.
Maybe so, maybe not.
- Nixit
- Posts: 2307
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:06 pm
- Location: Your imagination...
Jack Dudeman wrote:See, that's the deciding factor for me: I can't look at a diagram, or an image of a virus and say that it is not a form of life. It has DNA or RNA, so therefore, it is some type of living thing. It has no cell structure, but it sure looks like it's alive to me.
This is, of course, my opinion. As it has not officially been determined whether or not viruses should be considered life.
I think if the criteria for life is rewritten to include viruses, then it will be much easier to replicate life in a laboratory, which has been impossible so far. I don't know if that is a good thing or bad, but maybe viruses should have a classification of their own. If they already do, then I'm just ignorant to it, I suppose. I'd love to hear anything anyone has to say on the topic.
Aren't they classified as... viruses?
It's interesting, but viruses remind me of Oobleck.
Just because you're older, smarter, stronger, more talented... doesn't mean you're BETTER.
- Mykey
- Posts: 954
- Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:00 am
- Location: Berne, IN
- the_antisocial_hermit
- Posts: 3695
- Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 4:04 pm
- Location: Hollow.
- Contact:
- Stan
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:29 pm
- Location: KENTUCKY, USA
- AoM
- Posts: 1806
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 12:52 am
- Location: Right where I want to be.
But they don't reproduce with their own species. They don't self-proprogate. They don't require any form of nutrition. They're bits and pieces of life's building blocks (DNA, RNA, amino acid chains) that mess up actual living beings. If anything, they're anti-life.
So no, not alive. But not as unalive as a rock. I vote for hidden option C: Semi-alive.
So no, not alive. But not as unalive as a rock. I vote for hidden option C: Semi-alive.
-
- Posts: 4649
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:23 pm
- Mykey
- Posts: 954
- Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:00 am
- Location: Berne, IN
- Valsum
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:13 pm
- Location: Madrid, Spain
- Contact:
- fishfin
- Posts: 490
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:38 pm
- Location: Nanning, China
-
- Posts: 950
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:49 pm
- Location: My Mistress's Playroom
Return to “Non-Cantr-Related Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest