/sci/ - Science & Math

sexy beautiful viruses that way ----->

no srsly, if they aren't life what the fuck they want? Why they must give me AIDS?

Well, in Higher (Scottish university entrance degree) biology, we learned that the only sign of life they show is reproduction, and of course even this has to be done with the "machinery" of a host cell. This implies that they can't do so much as move, so they're certainly at the very outskirts of the definition "living", I'd say. Obviously, I'm not a biologist, so everybody feel free to contradict me.

calling a virus a living organism is like calling a protein a living organism

it just don't get into that category

>>1984373
>>1984362

So they're like, uhmm zombies?

They are barely considered alive by biological standards. They are between complex self replicating molecules, and simple single celled organisms.

they are biological nanomachines

>>1984362
Fuck your university then.

>>1984394
Sorry, "degree" was a mistake. It's the university entrance qualification, as in what the universities examine and judge when deciding whether to allow you to study there.

they don't count as alive. things that are 'alive' do the following:
1. reproduction (sexually, or through binary fission)
2. growth
3. response to stimuli
4. metabolism

virus's can reproduce, but not on their own, they have to parisitise a living cell.
they do none of the other 4.

This actually pisses me off... I mean these things fuck around causing destruction and millions of deaths and they're EVEN NOT ALIVE?
I mean a fucking bacteria, it is living it wants to survive and well it do what he gonna do...

But really fuck viruses they're miscroscopic zombies

yes they are alive... virologist...

that shitty requirements list you got from highschool as to "what constitutes life" is a load of shit

In a host cell viruses can fill a definition of life. Outside of a host cell they are very much dead.

Friggen living dead.

They are alive. They are immortal.

>>1984407
>Implying one definition is more correct than another

It's all a priori anyway

They have genes, they evolve, they self replicate. I think that constitutes life.

>>1984409

not dead, dead implies 'used to be alive' virus's were never alive.

>>1984407
What are the criteria of life that virologists work with, then? There must be some, or "alive" is a useless term.

>>1984422
>they self replicate
nope

>>1984416
They can not survive a mass extiction of hosts. Compare the viruses of archaea to the viruses of other lifeforms and you will see how many have went down with their hosts.

>>1984427
Self replicate, using another cell to help, but they don't have to be made or replicated by a larger organism.

>>1984428
>you will see how many have went down with their hosts.
>have went down
>went

They are alive they build toilets.

>>1984401
That definition was given by some morons who didn't even know what life is,its very old.

Life,biologically speaking is a chemical system that feeds and reproduces.

If it doesnt feeds/consumes then it would just be a pile of chemicals like other chemical formations.

If it doesnt reproduce its just like other chemical formations.

Thats the main difference between plain chemical formations(oxygen,hydrogen etc) and chemical systems(biological).

>>1984441
>but they don't have to be made or replicated by a larger organism.
... yes they fucking do!

Does a virus die on it's own after x years?

>>1984468
No. No cell makes viruses on its own just because.

>>1984464
But viruses don't eat.

>>1984464
viruses don't feed.

>>1984426
as long as it has some sort of amalgam of nucleic acids (DNA or RNA or whatever) that can be read and produce something, it's "alive", especially RNA

but this whole "alive" bs is really a highschool belief, when you get deeper into biology you kinda grasp the fact that nothing is really alive, all is mechanism

disagree all you want, prove to me how ignorant you are...

>>1984476
no, it isn't alive.
...or i guess you can say it i imortal, depending on [you're/you are] point of view.
>>1984481
virus's require the use a living cell to reproduce.

>>1984481
You are obviously being stupid on purpose. GTFO.

Virus is a life form,whether uses hosts or doesnt have cells etc.
If its a system that reproduces and consumes to reproduce(they are interdependent) that its life.

The problem arises because most people have a very traditional way at understanding the naked underlying mechanism.

Am waiting for a challenger to appear.

>>1984484
Viruses FEED.
Am telling you again.
You have a VERY traditional way at looking life.
Feed != eating a burger and having teeth.

>>1984491
>nothing is really alive

...lol, dumass.

>>1984514
orl, faggot? what do they eat then?

>>1984522
why yes, dumas was a great author!

>>1984500
So a particle simulation on my computer is alive?
_it consume electric energy
_it replicates itself

if something is alive, it has the capacity to die. there is a difference between me,a corpse, and a brick wall. one is alive, one is dead, and one was never alive.
a corpse still contains DNA, so by your logic, (directed at retard 'virologist') a corpse is 'alive'

work out what the word 'alive' means, then come back. untill then. GTFO.

also, /thread

>>1984491
>>1984491
>>1984491
I pretty much agree.
If you go deep you'll see the naked Life.
Viruses are a life form,just because they reproduce and and "feed" in a different manner doesnt make the less life.

And yes,if you look at it very objectively biological systems are alive as much rocks and water is alive,just chemical reaction within.

>>1984548
...so in conclusion, a virus cannot die, so it was never alive, if it cant be killed, it isnt alive, and was never alive. thats my point...in case it wasn't already obvious....yeh.

>>1984549
it would help a lot if you explained how viruses feed

>>1984541
Thats shallow argument.
It doesnt reproduces,replicating != reproduce
reproduce != copying

everything is made out of atoms, atoms arent alive therefore nothing is.

>>1984549
robosomes, tRNA's, enzymes etc are not themselves 'alive' but the organism that contains them IS alive.

>>1984560
Viruses "feed" on host cells.
You must realize that "feed" is just a way to take from enviroment or other life forms and use it for yourself and reproduce yourself.
Viruses also evolve,they dont just copy themselves.

>>1984567
how do you know atoms aren't alive

>>1984567

this brick is red, this brick is made out of atoms. atoms arn't red, therefore nothing is red. so this brick isn't really red.

...or

YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED!

>>1984575
Now you are repeating my point.
That you have a traditional and shallow view of what life is.

ITT:

>Implying that "alive" is not just certain arbitrarily chosen complex electrochemical systems.

>>1984580
a guess

>>1984578
/THREAD

>>1984588
the brick isnt really red we just see it that way, you moron.

>>1984578
>>1984566

So now you introducing evolution.
Your arguments are bland.

Let's say someone build a Von Neumann's self-replicating machine. Is it life?

>>1984578
its true that virus's can evolve, but they do not feed.
to feed, they would have to engulf molecules, and synthesise them as new parts of themselves. this doesn't happen, they manipulate a host cell into copying the viral RNA and making new virus's and the cell uses molecules it has to build the virus, but this isn't feeding, the virus never engulfs the entire cell, it merely manipulates it.

>>1984594
Nice one,pretty much summed up the whole Life subject in one sentence.

>>1984578
so, if I may ask, what part of the host cell does the virus actually consume in order to create and expend energy? and by your definition a nuclear reaction is alive as the free neutrons "feed" on nearby unstable atoms to create more free neutrons thus reproducing. I think you need to get your definitions straight.

>>1984611
And THIS is how VIRUSES FEED.
Stop being so close minded,they FEED on their own way.
You take "feed" very literally.
Eating,consuming etc are very broad,you just speak by the highschool book what "eating" is.
You dont see the big picture.

>>1984588
I had a hearty lol.

Sir, you made my day.

>>1984603

my needles is made of atoms. atoms are not pointy, therefore nothing is pointy, so my needle isn't really pointy.
or any other of billions of examples... twat.

>>1984588
The brick reflects radiation that makes it appear red to us (from white light). In green light, the brick is black! Is this going anywhere?! NO!!!

>>1984613
Simply by the example you given only shows you dont have the slightest clue of what you're talking about.
I dont like to attack to the messenger but being stupid is another thing.
Viruses use cells to live and reproduce,they are a electrochemical system,a complex chemical formation that sustains itself by feeding(or "manipulating"/using/exchanging/steal/whatever ,because you take words too literally) on cells to survive and reproduce themselves.

>>1984626
if i roll a snowball down a hill, it collects more snow along the way, snow sticks to it, the snowball increases in size. the snowball is 'feeding' on snow, would you argue that this snowball is alive?
i can replicate this snowball, the snowball cannot self replicate (same as a virus can't) and similar to the virus, the snowball needs a living host to do its replicateing for it.
I break the snowball into 2 pieces, roll them about in my hands, and they are spherical again, both are the same size as the origional snowball before it rolled down the hill.

...

and yet, this snowball is not alive, neither is a virus. a snowball cannot be killed, a virus cannot be killed.
oulkholl fdaf

>>1984662

...sorry, that end bit was my captcha...wrong box lol...

>>1984662
but what about them mutations they does?

Am the guy that supports viruses are alive,but the atom thing is very silly.

>>1984630
are you stupid? the needle is pointy cuz atoms are solid. So, tell me what kind of magical property of the atom, do you credit for being alive, hm?

>>1984682
this water is wet because ATOMS ARE SOLID!!!

oh... wait a minute....

>>1984682
...you best be trolling nigger.
the needle is pointy because it is very thin at one end.
...
alive things have this
>>1984401

>>1984610
Somebody answer this

>>1984675

... on the way down the FUCKING hill, my hypothestical FUCKING snowball, seemed to aquire a bit of FUCKING gravel, as well as snow, to add to its FUCKING self.
so the FUCKING snowball isn't quite the FUCKING same as it used to FUCKING be.
so it has FUCKING mutated!
...alive much?

>>1984709
... fine
Von Neumann's self-replicating machine is not life.
...done.

>>1984719
you could have explained that a little less rudely, although my intentional redneckery must have been a catalyst. Either way, I learned something to day, and I thank you

So let's say "life" is more a phylosophical concept rather than a scientific one?

>>1984610
Same goes for homo sapiens, buddy.
Still dont get it?

Fuck off EK

>>1984734

YOU!

READ THESE:
>>1984662
>>1984719
PHILOSOPHICAL MY ASS

>>1984731
yeh, could have i guess...
really? what did you learn? did you think virus's were alive before, and i have convinced you otherwise?
...actually my snowball analogy was pretty fucking good if i do say so myself.... that 'herp derp feeding is not so complicated as having jaws and saliva DEEERP' guys seems to have royally fucked off...

Talking about this is meaningless

Its just an ambiguous definition. Just accept some things dont fit into your nice yes or no categories.

>>1984746
nah, fuck you!

>>1984726
>Von Neumann's self-replicating machine is not life.

I wanted a pro-alive virus opinion, thanks
also DEFINE EVOLUTION

>>1984753
Well, I wasn't sure if they were alive, and now your examples have convinced me that they most certainly are not.

>>1984765
mutations n' shit, dude.

the strong one live, the weak one die, the strong get reinforce, etc.

>>1984783
mutation is a passive process.

>>1984761
but it can fit into the Rhizome with my homeboy Deleuze!

>>1984761
this guy might have a point...
consider that at the beginning of the earth there was no life (im so seriously... any creationists here can fuck off so hard...) and now there is life, that has evolved and gradually become more complicated, there will be no discreet change, its a continuous spectrum... it will have started out as just simple organic molecules that managed to be self replicating...gradually becoming more complex as they evolve.
and at no generation gap can you just dump the marker "everything before this is not alive, everything after this is alive" because it makes no sense, as the things either side of this marker would be so similar. (parent/daughter)

>>1984793
not to be rude, but your point?

>>1984765
>also DEFINE EVOLUTION
this will suffice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
>>1984766
oh cool. as a rule of thumb, if it can't be killed, its not alive. (virus's can be broken apart, by heat etc, but this doesn't count as killing them. also, in GCSE exam, writing "enzymes are killed by the high temperature" gets you no marks, you have to say they are 'denatured' as enzymes are not alive)

>>1984799
But just a little before you were so passionate that viruses are not life forms.

>>1984828
>>1984828
Lemme ask you something mate, if viruses are not a different kind of life form, what are they?

ITT semantics and biological teleology.

They're alive if we choose to call them so, as most microbiologists now seem to do. Definitions can change to encompass new views.

>>1984842
>I am not him
Anyway, they're like... ah fuck, just read the thread you lazy cunt, I'm through repeating myself

everything is pretty much alive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz4lFeqJPdU&feature=related
link related.

>>1984859
No, you just dont have an explanation.
I read the thread.
A side says they are life forms another says they are NOT.
It doesnt say what ARE they.
Obviously they are NOT a chemical Element,but a something more complicated.
Please if your answers are like "i dont want to repeat myself" then dont answer at all,especially if there wasnt anything to repeat.

Just admit it, viruses are just a different kind of life form.

Something that got separated from the rest of evolution.
Its not your classical life but its definitely some kind of it.

>>1984831

it no longer matters, pic related

at some point along the tree of life, it will have been very difficult to distinguish whether a certain 'organism' was alive or not, however this doesn't exist anymore, everything to the left of the red line is not alive, and everything to the right of the line is alive.
the things that still exist are only those 'organisms' that have survived until the present day, so even though at some point these 'organisms' moved very close to the red line nad were hard to distinguish, they are not now. virus's are far enough to the left, and are certainly not alive, for reasons already mentioned,
obviously the graph isnt to scale, so dont call me out on the innacuracy of it, it is merely a visual tool to help try and make a point.

>>1984719

Make up your fucking mind, please:

When somebody said a computer program, you said that was replicating, copying itself. When the snowball rolls, it mutates, and as ti mutates, it is not alive.

A mutated organism is not alive??? Because evolution and benign tumours prove you very wrong.

Viruses mutate, shall I add

>>1984842
simple RNA molecules in a protein coat.
>>1984892
>Obviously they are NOT a chemical Element,but a something more complicated.
methane is not an element (it contains elements, as everything does..well, not everything...most things ;) ...yeh)
is methane alive? no.

>>1984866
yes thats the most obvious.
You're missing the point.
Life is just a chemical system, not wandering elements here and there.
With your definition everything can be life and everything can be dead.
We just draw the life between what actually is something more complex then elements and have certain functions, that we call life.

That vid is merely about semantics, nothing more.

>>1984895
And not very long ago we had two kingdoms of life...

arbitrary divisions along a spectrum are notoriously mercurial.

>>1984765
the less adapted an individual is to its environment the more likely it fails to reproduce

ps. define "DEFINE"
--
>>1984314
A virus is a small infectious agent that can replicate only inside the living cells of organisms
--
depends on your definition of "alive" really.
but I suppose in a sense they could be said to "live"

>>1984909
>When somebody said a computer program, you said that was replicating, copying itself.
nope, i didn't answer that point i think... post reference me if you think i did.
>Viruses mutate, shall I add
...and so does my 'FUCKING' snowball, shall i add. ;)

>>1984916
the tree of life has three domains: Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya.
erm, which one of these do viruses belong to again?

>>1984912
i think that by that definition nothing can be dead.
guess this thread is about semantics, anyway.

>>1984945
I believe they're eukaryotic or something. I'm rusty on biology

>>1984911
>>1984911
>simple RNA molecules in a protein coat.

Which means?
That its non-alive just like methane?

Also the snow ball example was UTTER failure, it only works for the naive and uneducated.

If you want to be taken seriously stop using silly examples.

I dont see methane evolve and become resistant to "vaccines" and survive/reproduce itself by using other life forms.

Thats what we do,use other life forms (plants and animals) to reproduce and survive.

Evolving ,changing ,resistant has nothing to do with ridiculously dumbed example you've given.
Its a MAIN attribute of evolution,it has Memory,that builts on itself to protect the life form.

You dont have the slightest clue of what you're talking about.

>>1984945
Non cellular life isn't a domain, though perhaps someone will get around to erecting it if we can agree on a definition of life. Most of us are too lazy or busy to bother.

One thing any biologist can't avoid though is the knowledge that clades will change, often very quickly and repeatedly.

>>1984965
... no, eukaryotes have a nucleus. viruses do not
also, i fixed my graph, pic related.
origin of life should be on the red line, at the point when all alive things converge. viruses arn't alive, and don't converge at this point, they have an earlier common ancestor with the alive organisms.

idk looks alive to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A409yO-G1Mk

>>1984969
the analogy wasn't silly, it proved a point that 'feeding' cannot be so vague as that anon intended for it to be.
>resistant to "vaccines"
nothing becomes resistant to vaccines themselves. do you know how vaccination works? the body's immune system 'learns' the protein configuration on the outside of an invader (very simplistic, but you get the idea) and can make complimentary antibodies to bind to the intruder, should more show up.
if the viruses mutate, the antibodies don't work anymore, but the virus hasnt become resistant to the vaccine, just resistant to the antibody that was created because of the vaccine. anyway, we are off topic and i am rambling, next point:
>Thats what we do,use other life forms (plants and animals) to reproduce and survive.
big difference, we feed on them, we don't manipulate [there/they're] genetic equipment to create copies of ourselves. we can die, we are alive, we can feed. viruses cannot feed, they cannot die.
>it has Memory
no, viruses have no memory
>You dont have the slightest clue of what you're talking about.
nice ad hominim there, cheers.
here i am trying to have a rational discussion... oh wait >>1984719
;)
nah, but seriously, check my pyramid.
<----

>>1984981
"Not alive line"?
i lol'd.
Everyone can make a graph on what they believe, it wont change shit.
Its YOUR opinion.

>>1984969
autopoesis does not constitute life.

>>1985020
pirates of the carribean much?
;D

>>1984981
EK, I don't necessarily agree or disagree with your chosen definition of "life," I'm just pointing out that it's

1) old.

2) arbitrary and thus subject to debate.

and
3) not consistant with modern trends towards classifying even the simplest of replicating organisms as "life" in order to underpin theories of abiogenesis.

>>1984981
I think that's very unlikely that there were viruses before living organisms. There would be no way for viruses to reproduce, so how would they exist? I think viruses are basically genetic messengers created by animal organisms to share bits of genetic material with other organisms.

>>1985025
the 'not alive line' was in reference to this
>>1984799
this graph isn't my opinion, its not what i believe, this is just how it is.
get a dictionary, look up the word 'alive' (preferably an advanced scientific dictionary) there are some prerequistites for something to 'count' as being alive. i didn't write the dictionary, this is just how it is.
fact: everything alive had a common ancestor at some point, i deliberatly didn't but a scale on the time axis...but it was a long time ago.
also, its quite probable we do have a common ancestor with viruses, i can't see how we couldn't, but anyway, this common ancestor will have been before the origin of life.
keep in mind, every line that doesn't reach the top is a representation of an 'organism' that has gone extinct. things that touch the top of the 'time' axis are the things that still exist today, including viruses, but viruses are still not alive.

>>1985071
an excellent point! +1000 internets for you sir, and for that, you can have another ammendment of my highly coveted lifegraph
;)

>>1985080
>this graph isn't my opinion, its not what i believe, this is just how it is.

Only because biologists past have chosen to call it so. There is no sacred definition, only the current description... and this description seems to be at its pivoting point.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alive
...doesn't really help... i hoped there would be a good scientific definition of what counts for something being alive....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
hmm, slightly better, enjoy some tasty tasty copypasta:
>Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive, where life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:[12][14]

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

and this
>Viruses are most often considered replicators rather than forms of life. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life",[18] since they possess genes, evolve by natural selection,[19] and replicate by creating multiple copies of themselves through self-assembly. However, viruses do not metabolize and require a host cell to make new products. Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life, as it may support the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.

>>1985116
thats bullshit; the earth itself is alive! i know cuz you can even talk with it when really high!

>>1985147
But we agree that there is a spectrum, that there exist ancestors to this group that don't fit the description...

Think about how cladistics has changed taxonomy by including the common ancestor... we deal mostly in clades now, not grades. Because of this we find organisms grouped in with their descendants based on phylogeny rather than physiology.

>>1985128
fact: words have meanings. the meanings are universally agreed upon, or, more accurately, when words are made, a definition is stuck with them, so people can make sense of the word.

>>1985168
Except in paleotaxonomy, where we define our words and give evidence to support our definitions knowing all along that it's arbitrary, will be debated, and will change in time.

>>1985168
how can you believe in meaning if it is just a theory?

>>1985190
You're doing it wrong...

You should be far more suspicious of a biologist who uses the word "fact."

WHY ARE THEY HERE? Where did they come from? Fuck, I hate getting sick.

>>1985190
wut?

How do I tripfag? I'm a huge faggot.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
jk I love you ek

>>1985231
hmm...perhaps i should... i suppose there is no difference between a namefag and a tripfag anyway...

>>1985231
testing...

EK, I've enjoyed reading your arguments, you support your views well.

The only point I'm trying to make is that WE decide where to draw those lines, and others accept our decisions blindly. Because of this WE aren't bound by the opinions of others, nor can we afford to be blindly accepting of them. We're actually in the business of questioning existing opinions and revising them.

You aren't wrong, but perhaps in time you should ask if those you're quoting might be...

>>1985080
>>1985080
>>1985080

>this common ancestor will have been before the origin of life
BUT THEY ARE NOT ALIVE?

>ANCESTRY BEFORE ORIGIN OF LIFE
>ANCESTRY BEFORE LIFE

>ANCESTRY
>BEFORE LIFE

GTFO OF MY /SCI/

>>1985246

>>1985220
yep, thats about how much sense there is in your retarted talk of whats alive is or isnt.

and...copypasta does what?

life=metabolism, therefore viruses are not a lifeform.

>>1985258
ah! it comes up bold! so nobody can impersonate me...the real me is EK, with that string of letters, that is not bold! aha!
cool...
you drove me to this!!!

>>1985262
the fuck? why did the tripcode change?
erm... k, i'll just leave the namebox alone now...then it should stay as this for ever...

>>1985248
good point....
if in future, life is redefined to count anything that contains genetic material...oh wait..dead cells in a corpse...
erm.
well, yeh, if its redefined as to count anything that can evolve...then viruses will count as alive, and thats good enough for me.
...
..evolve by genetic means that is...so snowball adding gravel doesnt count as evolving btw... just to seperate my own analogy from the new meaning of 'life' that could potentially be made...

>>1985249
the very first replicating molecule was not alive, but it is an ancestor to all living things, and more, because the daughter molecules it produces, with variation, eventually go on to become complex.

>>1985080
thats our difference EK.
Am fighting against the dictionary on "life", how we shouldn't take it as it is, you argue with me using the dictionary, we're on the different level of arguing.

I can also say that viruses are not alive by using dictionary and strict science.

But the debate here is not about who will prove what is written somewhere but go beyond of what is written, prove our points beyond of some definitions made a long time ago.

Otherwise we could just cite webpages that what would be our "debate".

>>1985267
"Upon submission, the server will generate the hash unique to that particular word or phrase."

...the fuck? so it should still work... maybe it was in capitals before...

>>1985284
That is a rank and grade truth.

It is also a cladistic untruth.

In which direction is taxonomy going? Traditional ranks or phylogenetic clades?

>>1985298
no idea whats up with this...

ITT: people arguing for their handpicked, clear-cut, no-exceptions-allowed definition of 'Life' as if their lives depend on it while actual biologists go with a nebulous 'May or may not be alive' or 'On the edge of life' or 'Depends on the definition of life'.

>>1984945
Assuming the viruses-evolving-from-unicellular-organisms scenario, possibly all three.

>this thread

>>1985304
erm, i don't fully understand... but by my logic, i should be right about that...
>>1985287
oh, OK. yeh theres no point in arguing over definitions in a dictionary.
we can have a good argument about whether viruses 'should' count as being alive.
hmm... thread seems like its ending...been interesting though... i like it when you guys make me think :)

>>1985331
heheh! not my tripcode! i can no longer be impersonated! muahahahahh!

>>1985342
how do we know you are the real EK>

>thos throd

testing a theory i have...attempt 1/2
real EK here btw.

>>1985398

>>1985398
>>1985401

ok, disregard.

>>1985367
lol, i suppose you don't... but the one i am uses THIS tripcode from now on. :D

They have legs, necks, and heads. they also make people very sick

their pretty much just really tiny insects, possibly what modern day spiders evolved from

real EK here, testing

>>1985336
>oh, OK. yeh theres no point in arguing over definitions in a dictionary.
>we can have a good argument about whether viruses 'should' count as being alive.


Thats what we're doing here, dictionary says viruses are not alive, we're having an argument that potentially disproves that definition.
Dictionary=widely accepted definition of a word.
Its not about dictionary itself, i assume you realize that.

Look, it is obvious that viruses ARE a kind of life form, you say "if it cannot die then its not alive" well, thats an opinion not a fact, we couldn't know the real facts, if we did we wouldn't having this debate.

Your point on viruses are not alive is based on what strict science defines as alive.
But my point is that those strict definitions are not completely valid.

Viruses are definitely not something simple like elements or simple formations, that is accepted by every biologist i asked.

So far every one of them said "they aren't alive or alive", it shows that even the experts know viruses are more than non-alive.

I wanna say that you just defend scientists, instead of questioning them.
Because OBVIOUSLY not even THEMSELVES have drawn a clear line, yes the "official" line is drawn, but thats just a formality, biologists know thats not the case.

Its like me saying that x looks blue only because you wear blue glasses and in reality is gray and you say NO, its not gray, its blue because i wear blue glasses!

Its not wrong but its totally outside of the opponent's point.

>>1985336
Is a whale a fish? It is if we define fish as a vertebrate animal having fins and living in water...

Rank and grade gives us information about the physiology of organisms, but not always so much about their relationships.

Cladistics seeks better resolution by identifying ancestors and descendents even when they're very physiologically different. It also seeks to rule out unrelated organisms that happen to be similar otherwise...

A clade is a group of organisms having a common ancestor + that common ancestor...

By including the ancestor in the clade, we won't ever have an ancestor that isn't a basal member of the clade...

So let's get a clade called "life." It will include all things defined (rank or grade) as life, as well as their common ancestor... The common ancestor won't fit the descriptions used to erect the clade... but it will still be part of the clade.

So the clade "life" includes basal ancestors that aren't alive by the definitions used to produce the clade...

Thus the arbitrary, physiological definition of life works fine for rank and grade taxonomy, but biologists have moved on to cladistics now because it provides more, better information, and a measureable, scalable, reproducible method of classification.

It also nullifies your description of life.

>>1985456
>So far every one of them said "they aren't alive or alive"
... doesn't sit well with me. everything must be either alive or not alive.
its like everything must either be red or not red. and INB4 what about shadows, or air, or something that doesn't even have a colour...
well then i say it counts as NOT red.
...also INB4 different shades of red... "this thing is orangey red, is it still red? how about now? how about now? still red? really? coz its kinda yellow now dontcha think?"
...crap, maybe i should have picked a more discreet example...
...actually no, this will do, life isn't discreet, neither is biological complexity.
...am i pissing all over my own argument?
...erm. yeh, anyway, thanks for the posts. been an interesting read.

>"they aren't alive or alive
lol i just realised that makes no sense, but i didn't pick up on it before...
i know what you meant anyway.
"they arn't alive or not alive"

>>1985499
Yes i meant "the aren't dead or alive".

You skipped the rest of the post though.
This whole argument is about definitions.
Where to draw a line.
Also in the phrase you answered is just said what biologists said to me.

Its seems to me there is a big difference between replicating,changing,etc chemical systems and regular chemical formations.
The former i would call it life forms, if you have to draw the line, that is.

Viruses are alive using this definition, but viruses are 'dead' using the official definition.

Its matter of perspective, mine being a more substantial.
You should realize that last decades we had great advancements in evolutionary biology, and that definition of life is VERY outdated.

>>1985604
i didn't skip through the rest of the post, i just agreed with it, so i didn't have anything else to complain about :)

>>1984314
Viruses are just genetic data and a delivery system.

An extremely basic explanation: they infect a host, hijack the cell's system for encoding proteins and genes, and then replicate themselves by recreating more genetic data encased in a delivery system; at some point in this replication process they burst the infected cell and each replicated viral agent begins the process anew.

They're like the Agent Smith of the biological world, but without the menacing accent.

>>1985637
Holy shit this thread got long.

>>1984389
Spot on. Created and sent by us in the future to ensure we don't act like viruses ourselves (we have a sense of humor and irony, don't we) and fuck up all resources to the point of self-annihilation. We're just protecting ourselves by making ourselves sick, ldo.