/sci/ - Science & Math

It lives. But it has to "borrow" cell's metabolic machinery in order to do that.

Define life? Oops we just stepped into philosphy....

I think viruses should be 'living'. No non-living object ever has any desire to reproduce.

non living.
They don't have a metabolism, they don't produce waste, etc.

They are really just (and are frequently called) mobile genetic elements. Like a plasmid, but outside the cell. Is a plasmid alive? a transposon?

>>1849292
they dont have desires. based on your definition of a desire, only the highest mammals can have desires.

IT DOESN'T MATTER

>>1849299
Programmed function then. Plants purely live to reproduce.

>>1849306
i dont really know what you are getting at. viruses are just strands of RNA.
plants on the other hand are "programmed" for a function as a virus is and theyre organisms. so why a virus but not a plant?

>>1849268

it is the anti matter to working DNA. It is not as much a living thing as a clump of DNA from our own blood.

... uhh anti matter to matter, virus to working DNA?

I'm thinking it's non-living. I mean you can't base it off the characteristics of life, since many inanimate objects, such as rocks and machines follow the characteristics. It does not have both DNA and RNA like cells, either.

>>1849315
Both are living.

I don't understand what you're getting at either.

not living (they don't reproduce, other thing reproduce them)

>>1849292

Crystals are non-living and they reproduce

>>1849322
That's growing, not reproducing.

Rust grows.

Sailing away on the crest of a wave, it's like maaaaagic

ITT: non-biologists.

Campbell and Reece's introductory biology textbook defines life in the first chapter, and even show how viruses are not alive as they do not meet the requirements.

And remember, this chapter is before chapter two, which starts with "water is a polar molecule..."

>>1849329
ITP: A TEXTBOOK SAID IT THEREFORE IT MUST BE TRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

>>1849329

Did they explain why it isn't a living thing?

>>1849326
Crystals grow AND reproduce, unless you manage to make a perfect crystal, which rarely if not then never occurs in nature.

>>1849338
Define reproduce for me, and I'll give you my definition of it and we can see what we're getting at here.

>>1849335

When dealing with the fringes of science your troll argument makes a bit more sense.

But dealing with intro books that have to define what polar is? Yeah, the shit in those is 99.99999% true.

/sci/ - I don't understand what you're getting at

>>1849301
I feel your pain, anon.

>>1849335

I think your rage-gland just clicked.

AP Bio student here; not that I have any desire in biology but we had memorize all of the requirements needed to achieved by the specimen to be considered 'living'

A virus is not considered living, HOWEVER, it is also not considered non-living. Basically, it's neither. Though those are just technicalities.

>>1849346
>>1849344
I think textbooks, especially a shitty one like Reese and Campbell's, are not always correct.

The superior Raven & Johnson states it's debated if viruses are living or non-living.

It doesn't live, it has to follow 7 characteristics of a living things chart, it doesn't follow all of them, therefore, not living.

>>1849350

OP here. What do you think it fits better into?

Non living.

>>1849337

Here are the seven requirements for life:

(page fucking 3)

1. Biological order
2. Evolutionary adaptations
3. Response to environment
4. Physiological regulation
5. Energy processing (anabolism)
6. Growth and development
7. Reproduction

Criteria 4,5 and 6 are indisputably not met. 7 is arguably not met as life can reproduce intrinsically, while viruses cannot intrinsically reproduce. 3 is arguable as viruses do not respond to their environments proximately, only ultimately (evolutionarily).

Only 1 and 2 are met without dispute.

>>1849358
Personally I think the virus can fit in either category, although I personally side a bit more with 'living'.

It's missing a lot of chief metabolic functions - if you were to ask someone who studies metabolic biochemistry, they'd tell you it's not considered a living organism, which is true.

If you asked a microbiologist, they'd probably bring up the reproduction argument and how it contains genetic material that can create new copies of it. Along with how it will seek a suitable host - siding with the more living side of the argument.

Being a chronobiology major, it would've been considered living maybe 50 years ago, and now it's considered neither.

Thank you anon

Fucking proteins, how do they work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prions

What about those pesky little critters known as "Prions".

Are they alive or not?

>>1849358
I would say consider it's living, but again, that wouldn't be correct if you follow the strict characteristics that life "MUST" follow to be considered, life.

But I'm sure those characteristics will be dumped sooner or later, as our knowledge expands and we potentially find life that isn't from Earth

OP here again.

I guess I should have made this question like this:

Is the virus a living or non-living thing? Give an explanation for this.

>>1849364
/thread

if you disagree, give a different definition and explain why it makes more sense than this one.

amazing how we posted the same thing at exactly the same time.

ARE YOU A WIZARD?

>>1849374
>>1849373

I don't even know anymore.

It attach itself to other shit so it is living.

Why would anything in the universe attach itself to other shit?
Serious.

>>1849394
Fucking magnets, how do they work?

>>1849394

Water molecules to Hydrogen or vice versa.

>>1849394

>burr attaches to my fleece
>it is alive

>>1849394
HOLY SHIT

WE FOUND OUT WHY MAGNETS WORK


THEY'REEEEEEEEEEEEE ALIVEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Non-living. It's non-living most of it's existence.

>>1849403
This is really ironic, because it is alive.

Unless you meant this as a subtle joke, in which case, you get a hearty pat on the back.

>>1849420

Reason?

>>1849407
>>1849403
>>1849402
>>1849401
>>1849380
>hurrrrr comparing life to forces
Viruses can swim in their habitat's environment and eat other cells and then reproduce. Magnets are pulled together due to electromagnetic forces.

>>1849477

>eat cells

>100,000 viruses can fit in a cell

>>1849477
>Viruses can swim
No they can't, there is no motile virus.
>Eat other cells
No they don't.

viruses have no feelings so their not alive

>>1849510
DERP

>>1849511
Collectivist fag detected?

>>1849511

can you prove that viruses feel anything? No? Then shut up

If a virus is alive then computer programs are also alive and we're all mass murderers

>>1849518
It was that you implied that something has to have feelings to live.

>>1849518
Viruses can react to various stimuli, so yeah we can see if it's capable of physical feeling.

>>1849537

So can various elements.

This is a question for philosophy more than science. Personally I think they're alive. It reproduces, it uses energy, it reacts to its environment. I think it's close enough to be called life.

>>1849542
checkmate atheists

>>1849548

trolling

>>1849364

i detect a troll

How about this. Maybe a virus living inside an animal is a part of that animal and is therefore alive.

They're subject to natural selection, they evolved out of prior "life"forms, so I say they are. My definition.

No. Scientifically it's not a living creature or living thing, it's just a microbe with various programming, functions, and behaviors on it's own (albeit limited in this area).

If you want to debate whether or not it's philosophically alive, go somewhere else and keep this shit off of /sci/.

viruses aren't living, and neither are we. no one is alive.

>>1849573
why would god create something with ideas and functions and not give it life?

If viruses are alive then plasmids are alive, and if plasmids are alive then you're all retarded.

>>1849578
Because he can.

>hurr durr metabolism
don't be so narrow minded, faggots.

life=any self-replicating molecule

>>1849385
>>1849353
>>1849345
>>1849335
>>1849326
>>1849320
>>1849306
>>1849292
Tripfags make dumb happen.

>>1849555
I think it's close enough to be called life is a philosophy.

>>1849364
>shitty arbitrarily decided criteria
you might as well quote the bible...

>>1849598

trolls used to be efficacious, now they are just faggots

viruses are a no-living piece of a living structure. when a virus found an animal cell, it turns into a pseudo-living parasitic form. viruses are zombies.

>>1849609
i'm serious.
"life" as currently defined should be renamed as "metabolic life" and declared a subset of life.
another subset would be "non-metabolic life", such as virii and prions.
life itself should be defined as "ordered form capable of self-replication"

Living. They reproduce.

>>1849617

So do some bacteria. They are still classified as "living"