 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| User | Post | ||||||||||||||
| Sweet Kassy Molassy Posts: 685/886 |
But parasitic organisms can still replicate using thier own genetic machinery. Virii cannot. | ||||||||||||||
| Yoronosuku Posts: 1133/1239 |
It may not be a live, but I see a problem with people saying it isn't because it is a parasyte and does not eat/reproduce on its own. Clearly, parasites like worms are...well parasites but they are still alive ._. just sayin'
don't deny it is not alive. | ||||||||||||||
| Sweet Kassy Molassy Posts: 675/886 |
Originally posted by Rom Manic Nope. They are not cells. They are a strand of nucleic acid (usually RNA) and a protein cap... and maybe a lipid bilayer. And "a virus" isn't a group of anything. It's one virus. They cannot self-replicate, so are not organisms. If it's not a living organism, it's not alive. | ||||||||||||||
| spiroth10 Posts: 116/145 |
FYI, there are living things that cannot function without each other. it's called a parasite, look it up. Also, viruses can live without a host. If they couldn't they'd never spread. They'd die the second you coughed.
the real issue as to why we debate if viruses are living or not is because they defy the cell theory and the current definition of life. In other words, people are too god d*** arrogant, and unwilling to accept that there very well may be (and is, in the case of the virus) non-cell based life. they are also arrogant enough to allow themselves to define life, and insist their definition is correct. Anything developed by humans is essentially flawed. from math to religion, science to art, everything we do is flawed, as is anything any other organism ever does anywhere in the universe. but that is a debate for another time. my issue is that one day, we may very well come in contact with a being from some other world, either equal, smarter, or a bit dumber than us, and these creatures won't be made of cells. however, at this point, we will have already found ton's of animals out there, but a debate won't rise to ask if they are living until one says something. because one does not need energy, is one not alive? I think it is. I think it's better than us, actually. science is going the way of religion. what research is being done is hardly efficient or useful, and what research that is important, is terminally flawed because we are unwilling to rewrite the book and admit we were wrong. The definition of life is one of those things. Hell, lets say I find something. It's the same as me IQ wise, can talk, run, play, think, but does not eat, reproduce, or grow. according to our definition of life, this is not alive because of the 3 things it cannot do. I say we need to redefine life, and anyone who has issues with it should be ignored. Earth is not the center of the universe, and even here there are anomalies. my definition of life would be vague as hell: 1) acts in some way on its own, without any stimuli. thats it. I say anything that actually acts in some way without the intervention of another is alive. An involuntary movement counts, a heartbeat counts, or in the case of a virus, infection counts. this would still effectively separate life from non-life, like, lets say a rock. a rock can't do anything but be a rock, unless you throw it, but it cannot throw itself, so it is not alive. if sand moved underneath it, it would be an environmental stimulus, and not a self-controlled event. so a rock, by my definition, would still not be alive, no matter what. maybe I went to far. I dont think I care. It's 12:30 AM and Im done here. | ||||||||||||||
| the real wart Posts: 30/66 |
Since a virus is not an living organism. When it is gone, you don't say it is dead but destroyed. They are more like an eating bore worm machine that lives inside you making you terribly ill. | ||||||||||||||
| Peardian Posts: 1659/1757 |
I know it's not technically "alive", as it does not meet the requirements to be a living organism, (namely, being able to function freely outside a host) but it definately seems lifelike. Probably because it's made of rogue genetic material.
Besides, if they were alive, we could kill them. | ||||||||||||||
| spiroth10 Posts: 109/145 |
I think they are alive.
whats more is, I think they are actually better suited to life than we are. For we cannot defeat them, and aids is a very likely end to the entire human race, eventually. Hell, if aids every evolves (which it does rapidly, thats why we cannot effectively treat it) to an airborne form, it would kill all but a few (10%) Europeans (mostly male) who are effectively immune to it's effects. This would effectively eliminate our entire race. if you are interested, They believe these people are descendants of people who survived the black plague due to a mutation where they do not have the proper receptors on their cells. They can still be carriers, though, and spread it to others. wouldn't it be fun, though, to travel through the universe only to find that somewhere else, viruses evolved in place of cells (it is possible) and sentient life that is virus-based instead of cell-based exists out there somewhere. Remember, cells are how things work here on earth, but the universe is a HUGE place, and other living things made up of totally unknown building blocks (or known things, such as virii) out there. | ||||||||||||||
| Crayola Posts: 87/94 |
You must meeet all requirements of a living organism to be qualified as the textbook definition of alive.
1.Moving parts of the body 2.Producing offspring 3.responding and reacting 4.Getting food to stay alive 5. Getting rid of waste 6.Turning food into energy 7.Getting to adult size | ||||||||||||||
| Ailure Posts: 2255/2602 |
I consider a computer to be more alive than a virus. I mean, most virues works really simple, it carries some malicous DNA/RNA that it spreads around to cells, who fools into creating infinite numbers of viruses until it... well die. 
True though, viruses are usually built up with some biological matter but then viruses are orginally produced by infected cells or bacterias after all. :/ | ||||||||||||||
| Ogama Dobe Posts: 35/102 |
In my opinion, viruses are basically the same as a robot. Robots may be able to simulate a life-like appearance however, that doesn't make them living because we have control over them for the most part. Viruses are similar although we don't have control over them. They too make a simulation of life. Since we do not call a robot alive then why should we call a virus alive?| Schweiz oder etwas |
Posts: 1858/2046 The main thing that stops a virus from being classed as a living thing is its inability to reproduce of its own accord or with another virus of the same type. It has to multiply inside of another being in order to reproduce, like a parasite.
| A virus really is just a natural robotic automaton. There isn't much of a debate, they're just in between alive and not alive, and are thus not classed as either, rather than be classed as both. Metal Man88 |
Posts: 513/701 I believe it to be in-between our rather puny, vague definitions of 'alive' and 'dead', as it moves more like a robot than a living thing, and appears to be unable to reproduce without otherwise compromising other living things. That in mind, it seems to be primitive enough to prevent it from being entirely inert, so it's mostly a gray area. I'd say it should have its own classification. | Rom Manic |
Posts: 456/557 Well, a virus is really anything that damages your system on short term scales, but normally you would have to take a LONG time to find just one cell of the bacteria. I would imagine picking up a cold, for instance, is done by absorbing, inhaling, or ingesting a large portion of the virus. | Darkdata |
Posts: 843/983 Originally posted by Rom Manic Originally posted by meafewpostsago Also most if not all of them are smaller than a cell. Rom Manic |
Posts: 453/557 A virus is a group of single cell organisms acting in a malicious manner when in contact with other living organisms. They are quite alive. | Xkeeper |
Posts: 4927/5653 A virus is like a robot. Neither alive nor dead.
| It's just a mechanism that accomplishes something. Darkdata |
Posts: 841/983 A virus is something that has eluded people for a while. The main question being is if it's alive or dead.
| On one hand, one cannot say that viruses grow, develop or die. Viruses also cannot replicate on their own, though they can do so with a host cell. As a virus is nothing but DNA/RNA and a protein coat. It also is not made of cells and therefore goes opposite the cell theory proposed by Theodore Schwann, as viruses are not made up of cells. On the other hand, a Virus must get "food". Some organisms, such as animals, eat other living things for energy. Other organisms, such as plants, harness the Sun's energy to make their own food. Because viruses aren't cells and have no activity within it, it has no need for food. However, the virus-controlled host cell needs material and energy to reproduce the viruses. Maybe viruses can fit the requirement that life forms need to obtain and use energy. Also the virus does evolve through rapid reproduction causing genetic errors, so could be another reason. I personally this a virus is non-living. To me they feel more like a parasite machine that only can live with a host. Also nothing can kill a virus (ie penicillin). Also as stated above they are not made of cells, the building blocks of life. Also if we classify a virus as alive would that mean that we would have to classify the other smaller infectious particles such as viroids, satellites and prions? |
