Biological Viruses

General chitchat, advertisements for other services, and other non-Cantr-related topics

Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department

Is a biological virus a life form?

Yes
15
60%
No
10
40%
 
Total votes: 25
User avatar
Jack Dudeman
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: Knoxville, TN USA

Biological Viruses

Postby Jack Dudeman » Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:55 am

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.
Was it for this my life I sought?
Maybe so, maybe not.
User avatar
Sunni Daez
Posts: 3645
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 1:33 pm
Location: ~A blissful state of mind~

Postby Sunni Daez » Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:17 am

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
Image

Run...Dragon...Run!!!
User avatar
Nixit
Posts: 2307
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:06 pm
Location: Your imagination...

Postby Nixit » Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:53 am

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.
Just because you're older, smarter, stronger, more talented... doesn't mean you're BETTER.
User avatar
Sunni Daez
Posts: 3645
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 1:33 pm
Location: ~A blissful state of mind~

Postby Sunni Daez » Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:03 am

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?" :lol:
Image



Run...Dragon...Run!!!
User avatar
Jack Dudeman
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: Knoxville, TN USA

Postby Jack Dudeman » Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:09 am

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.
Was it for this my life I sought?

Maybe so, maybe not.
User avatar
Nixit
Posts: 2307
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:06 pm
Location: Your imagination...

Postby Nixit » Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:22 am

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.
User avatar
Mykey
Posts: 954
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Berne, IN

:

Postby Mykey » Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:39 am

Idea excellent, it agree with you.
Last edited by Mykey on Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
the_antisocial_hermit
Posts: 3695
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 4:04 pm
Location: Hollow.
Contact:

Postby the_antisocial_hermit » Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:47 am

Mykey wrote:They reproduce. They got nucleic acids. Sure, why not?
They may be very primitive, but my standards are low;)


Let's hope they don't get too low.. ;)
Glitch! is dead! Long live Glitch!
Remember guys and gals, it's all Pretendy Fun Time Games!
User avatar
Stan
Posts: 894
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:29 pm
Location: KENTUCKY, USA

Postby Stan » Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:39 am

Reproduction seals it for me...life form.
Stan wrote:I've never said anything worth quoting.
User avatar
AoM
Posts: 1806
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 12:52 am
Location: Right where I want to be.

Postby AoM » Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:59 am

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.
west
Posts: 4649
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:23 pm

Postby west » Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:20 am

I wasn't aware biology was based on opinion polls.
I'm not dead; I'm dormant.
User avatar
Mykey
Posts: 954
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Berne, IN

:

Postby Mykey » Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:56 am

I think, that you are mistaken. I can prove it. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.
Last edited by Mykey on Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Valsum
Posts: 668
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:13 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Postby Valsum » Fri Jun 16, 2006 7:30 am

I'd say they are life forms indeed. As opposed to death forms. Although some of them cause death.

:roll:
"Opera Dei, plasmatio est hominis" (St. Irenaeus of Lyon)
User avatar
fishfin
Posts: 490
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:38 pm
Location: Nanning, China

Postby fishfin » Fri Jun 16, 2006 7:31 am

They are not minerals so they must be eather animals, vegstibles, or imaginary.
The following statement is not true.

The previous statement is not true.
Antichrist_Online
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: My Mistress's Playroom

Postby Antichrist_Online » Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:26 pm

In my book they are non-living organic matter.
Mistress's Puppy

Return to “Non-Cantr-Related Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest