/sci/ - Science & Math

>no

Better question. Is there a logical scientific reasoning for the definition of life, or is it just arbitrary and arguing over "are viruses alive" an argument about semantics?

>>9721564
All definitions are ultimately arbitrary, but as limited beings, we can't do science without them, and viruses fail in several sections of the current definition of life.

>>9721564
nope, just needless arguing about where to put a dividing line on a continuum

>>9721556
Yes.
If left for millions of years under the right circumstances it would evolve into a creature

>>9721603
Not true, this is what biologist would consider 'adaptationalist' fallacy.

I'm not actually having a dig, but no, for many complex reasons, a virus being left for millions of years would not with 100% certainty would not evolve into a more complex organism.

If you would like some texts or books that explain why this, to our best understanding is true, I'd be more than happy to post some.

As for the question - it's hard to day. As another poster said, it depends what you call 'life' or living. The natural sciences are under the assumption given the observations, that conciousness and brain activity, no matter how complex or simple, is just that - algorithms that have strategies and outcomes depending on environment.

no they can me from transposons
They're just self-propagating mistakes

>>9721556
Is fire alive?

>>9721687
have we started the fire?

>>9721589
>Life is a spectrum
holy shit I never considered this

>>9721638
I'm no biologist but I know that a strand of RNA produced us over time. I naturally assume anything that reproduces and mutates could eventually do the same.

>>9721556
no

viruses are unable to do metabolic activity on their own and frankly cant do anything without a host

>>9721761
>unable to do metabolic activity on their own and frankly cant do anything without a host
that doesn't mean it can't be classified as life.
Can a tapeworm do anything with a host?

>>9721762
Yes. Next question.

>>9721556
Shoulda covered this in elementary school, but:

Requirements for a given system to be considered life are as follows:

1. Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state

2. Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – 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 time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.

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 chemotaxis.

7. Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.

Now, you'll notice that viruses fail a few of these qualifications, and thus do not fit the current scientific definition of life.

Nearly all scientific definitions have some sorta gray zone, and are indeed lines drawn in a spectrum, but this is true of nearly everything in the universe since the dawn of time. You need to draw dividing lines in the spectrum to work with it at all. So, until that entirely human definition is changed, as we're the only creatures we know of that makes definitions, that's all ya got.

>>9721755
And it's a fair misconception. Much like how Aristotle thought fire went up because it was reaching for the heavens.

Humans didn't come from just one rna strand. Humans came from 3.5 billion years of evolutionary biology - starting from tiny molecules (DNA) which through primitive selection pressures replicated themselves with mutations along that split them from their original lineage and led them on separate, but 'deterministic' paths.

Much like how a pig will never grow wings (it would be incredibly advantageous for a pig to be able to fly), it won't because it's genome, through various selection pressures, genetic variance and arguably most importantly - what it biologically has to work with, will never afford it to do that.

If every single cell organism was destined to become a multicellular complex concious organism, we wouldn't have single cell organisms anymore like viruses.

>>9721688
No it was already burning.

>>9721859
s-since the world's been turning?

>>9721556
If viruses aren't alive then plants aren't alive either. Simple as that. Minimum requirement must be a brain.

>>9721922
Plants qualify: >>9721776

>>9721945
random arbitrary restrictions that randomly restrict the intended meaning of the english word 'life'

>>9721960
All definitions are ultimately arbitrary. Scientific ones tend to be more restrictive than their colloquials, as you need to be able to prove something fits said definition.

Do I discuss stuff with the retards in this thread?
Daym

>>9721960
I think you meant to say commonly accepted diagnostic criteria to determine if something falls under a certain state or not.

plants are alive because they fit that criteria.
viruses are not because they do not.

>>9721588
Name one scientific inquiry that depends on defining viruses as "alive" or not.
Whether we call them life or not makes not a whit of difference to how we understand their operation.

>>9722235
They are indeed few and far between (abiogenesis research, for instance), but the lines are more important for other things, and you need a detailed definition that rules those out, lest you end up with absurdities such as cars or red mud being alive. Prions and viruses end up in a gray zone as a result, but it's a much narrower gray zone than some other definitions, and serves its purpose.

No need to get upset about it. The viruses don't.

>>9721556
Is the Sun alive?

If being alive means seeking ways to reproduce then yes, viruses are alive.

no lipid bilayer therefore not alive

>>9721776
>5. Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.

This, I think is the most if not only important qualifier for life. Everything else is redundant/superfluous in that it aids but isn't necessary 100% always necessary for adaptation. All the other requirements just confuses/obfuscates and narrows our view on what forms life can take.

Scientific definitions should be simple and short. Not 7 bullet points long with unnecessary redundancies.

>>9722292
But you can't say a computer virus is alive can you? And viuses don't adapt to their environment the same way a monkey would adapt to changes. The viruses that fail to infect simply get destroyed or stay passive. I would argue they only evolve, they don't adapt.
Like a crow would figure out how to bend a piece of wire and use it as a hook, that's adaptation.

>>9722292
Also, I know this next part won't sit well with others but I think life should be classified by it's method or methods of its adaptation.

For instance, a rough idea of how this look would be:
All non-cloned (or asexually reproducing) DNA based life is evolving. It uses a simple process of elimination to adapt to it's environment.
There's some life that's mobile and adapts to it's environment by changing it's location.
Other life adapts itself to it's environment by changing the environment itself by building nests or burrow.
I think humans are highest order in that they're self conscious so they're able to adapt their thoughts to adapt to their environment.
Humans are about to break into a new region where they not only adapt their thoughts, but can adapt their DNA/bodies to suit their environment. There's theorized alien life that can do this naturally kinda like primitive shape shifting.

I know I'm missing much and that's not very well defined but that's just the general idea.

>>9721981
>Daym
Well there is at least /one/ retard ITT...

>>9722252
Viruses have nothing to say about abiogenesis, they are latecomers to the game of life on Earth. Can't be a parasitic organism without a host.

>>9722276
And so are rocks, because if you break a rock, you get TWO rocks!

>>9722292
>>5. Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment.
>This, I think is the most if not only important qualifier for life.
Then rivers are alive. There's a reason there are seven criteria, and its not because scientists love to overly complicate things. Seven is the fewest number that covers everything we want to consider "alive".

>>9722318
Asexual organisms also evolve, dimwit.
>lets classify life by some totally meaningless and arbitrary criteria, rather than a taxonomic or genotypal classification that might be actually useful!
Yeah, let's not do that.

>>9722347
But the rock isn't seeking to reproduce anon

>>9722361
Prove the virus is.

>>9722363
It injects its genetic info into cells to replicate itself. It's a parasite.

>>9722374
It multiplies spontaneously in the right environment, just like a rock being hit by a hammer. There can be no talk of volition when speaking of a virus, it is an object, not an agent.

>>9722382
A rock only "multiplies" if an outside force acts on it. And it doesn't even multiply because it's still the same thing.

If I break a human into two pieces I don't have two humans, I have two bits of the same human.

>>9722344
Actually they do, as there are theories running about suggesting they may have once been slowly self replicating but left that strategy while the remainder became food or otherwise went extinct. It also isn't the only field viruses fail at, and RNA sitting in red mud, which does self replicate, isn't considered life for similar reasons.

>>9722292
I got a computer virus you might wanna download. But I'm glad to see, like so many around here, you've decided your personal definition is better than one tens of thousands of scientists from separate fields came together and decided upon and have been refining for nearly a century.

...and if you think seven bullet points is a long scientific definition, school is really going to suck for you.

>>9721556

There's no simple answer to this question. First you have to understand that the 7 criteria of life typically touted by biologists aren't intended to mean that our everyday common-sense perceptions are accurate. On the macroscopic level, "living" -vs- "non-living" is a useful distinction, but when you look at the level of molecules it breaks down into a question of how many gay anuses can fit into a trans-condom, the answer being zero.

I'd say the fact that they have no metabolism proves they aren't alive.
Show me a single living thing without metabolism.

>>9721556
Depends on definition of life used, current one says no. Some people think we should change the definition, others don't.

Regarding metabolism, the issue with virus is that they use other living things to do that work. I am not an expert, but don't eucariotic cells use mythocondria (which have their own rna) the same way? The only difference is symbiosis vs. parasitism (speaking in general terms of course)

>>9721808
>If every single cell organism was destined to become a multicellular complex concious organism, we wouldn't have single cell organisms anymore like viruses.
You're ignoring the fact that over time it could separate into many different strands of RNA and many of of those strands could change to become many different kinds of cellular organisms and so forth.

Grammar nazi here, you say virii (Latin plural of virus) not viruses,

>>9721556
>retards will fall for this bait

>>9721887
THE FIRE RISES

>>9721556
First let's ask when does a man die? Does he die when his heart stops? No. Does he die when his brain stops working? No. A man dies when he is forgotten!

Remember your Anscestors and the Giants you stand upon, fight for a better world, for your children, and most of all for yourself.

>>9721603
so would water with a bunch of shit in it, doesn't make it alive

>>9721744
You’re on the spectrum too buddy

>>9721776
This. /thread

>>9722647
mitochondria (and chloroplasts) have been assimilated into the cell
Most of it's DNA has been transferred to the nucleus you can safely consider it a part of the cell and not an endosymbiote

>>9721688
ryan started the fire

>>9722623
viruses

>>9723112
True, but, maybe we are just talking about different facets in a broad spectrum

>>9723278
Me again. I wasn't aware the rna of mitocondria was assimilated into the dna of the cell.

>>9721603
No such thing as evolution don't be silly

is artificial intelligence alive?

>>9721776
Here we go!

>1. Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state
Holly shit, everyone is actually dead during cold winters.

>2. Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
Detroit is a cell, primarily made of steal and rocks. Most organelles don't make it out in functioning order.

>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.
Oil refineries are my spirit animals. No surprise, coming from an American though.

>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.
Aw no! As soon as I stop eating, I'm dead! No wonder fat people exist!

>5. Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Fair enough. But 5. wasn't enough? You had to make 6. and 7. just to say these same concepts slightly differently?

>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 chemotaxis.
So... Pretty much everything? A compound would react to some other compound whether it's in a test tube, rock or your mom.

>7. Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.
Mules aren't actually alive. They're good fakers though.

>>9723354
Most of your retorts aren't really that good. As well, general consensus is that defining alive vs not alive is arbitrary at best. It's analogous to asking a physicist to define time without cyclical logic. You're trying really desperately to show how these rules of defining life are not great but you forgot the baseline rule of biology that every biologist will tell you at one point or another. Do you study biology because this level of nitpicking is engineeringesque

>>9723354
>response to stimuli
You know when plants start to dehydrate they have to make a decision to produce proteins that hold on to water depending on the conditions. It's not a simple 1 to 1 reaction, it's a response to a stimulus.

>>9723354
Being deliberately obtuse doesn’t make your arguments valid. Also the points are meant to be looked at as a whole and within context.
> being this American

>>9723399
In other words a chain with the length of two chain links is not a chain.
>>/chainreaction

>>9723406
Not so much deliberacy as it is apathy. Because why would I take anyone/anything on 4chan seriously?

>>9721556
They killed billions
Maybe more

>>9722928
Where do you think all life came from?
If you could trace your ancestry back far enough you'd end up at a single strand of RNA

>>9721653
Wrong. Viruses have genes unique to them.

>>9723354
>Holly shit, everyone is actually dead during cold winters.
Not so long as they maintain that 98.6 body temperature.

>Detroit is a cell, primarily made of steal and rocks
That's pushing it, but lots of better examples of things are, which is why we have more than one requisite.

>Oil refineries are my spirit animals. No surprise, coming from an American though.
See above.

>Aw no! As soon as I stop eating, I'm dead! No wonder fat people exist!
You continue growth and maintenance between meals. Stop eating long enough, and you will die, but will even continue growth and maintenance for a few hours after death, as parts of you remain alive. Some things pull a suspended animation state which might have been a better gray zone example.

>Fair enough. But 5. wasn't enough? You had to make 6. and 7. just to say these same concepts slightly differently?
Cuz some things do the first five and don't do 6 and 7, or do 6 and 7, and not the first five (nevermind the fact that there used to be 18 of these things.)

>So... Pretty much everything? A compound would react to some other compound whether it's in a test tube, rock or your mom.
1:1 reaction is not response to stimuli.

>Mules aren't actually alive. They're good fakers though.
Some (not many, but some) mules (and hinneys) aren't sterile, but their offspring usually are. There are donkules (or jules), with a donkey father and a mule mother, and hules with a horse father and a mule mother. And, of course, their cells reproduce.

In anycase, "Life" is a continuous spectrum, as indeed is all matter and energy in the universe - man draws lines, nature doesn't.

>>9723502
+like

>>9723442
many mutations

>>9722361
Not him and this actually doesn't actually contradict your ultimate point, but living things aren't necessarily "seeking" to reproduce, the concept of "intent" is more metaphysical than anything and is impossible to objectively determine as being possessed by an organism or anything else. An not an expert by any stretch but I believe the idea of biological reproduction goes beyond "one rock split into two rock!" and instead has to do specifically with it replicating the genetic(or an analogous structure if we want to consider hypothetical alien life) information to produce a "copy" organism that in turn reproduces. I believe this is why life is sometimes considered to be a reaction or chain of events rather than an object or a property of one.

Fucking semantics discussion on /sci/...

No, fucking viruses aren't alive.

>>9721556
doesnt belong here.. discussing definitions and semantics.

>>9721556
no they're literally just a protein surrounding a strand of DNA that encodes for making for viruses. Thats not always true, but most of them are like that. Also by most definitions of life they aren't alive, since the only thing they can do is inject their DNA into a cell until the cell lyses or the cell dies from not being able to perform anything except virus formation. Its basically like asking if our DNA is alive or if telomerase is alive.

no, they lack the tools to replicate without a host.
/thread

>>9723828
>threading your own post
>>9723810
>most of them are like that
Citation?

>>9723845
source: the characterization of a virus
doesn't need a source

endlessly arguing over the definitions of words does nothing to advance science or knowledge

>>9723887
How is middle school going?

>>9723845
Literally just look it up. You know what a virus is? It’s a piece of DNA that mutated and started acting violently. Most viruses originate from their host. That’s why we call them the bird flu and swine flu.

What I meant by most is aids and some others function weird because our cells have sensors to make sure something bad isnt entering them, but HIV evolved a lipid membrane and receptor to be able to trick and enter a cell with the protein and DNA still intact. The guess is that it’s a virus that got contained in a lipid membrane as it exited and then evolved to function like that. At least that’s what I remember.

>>9723887
Yeah I’m with>>9723889
That’s what a lot of biology is. What do you think the taxonomy is? Or how biologist determine evolutionary lineage.

>>9722680
well fuckii youii

>>9722680
Semantics nazi here, but you probably mean 'Vocabulary nazi', not 'Grammar nazi'.

>>9722731
nigger here
kek

>>9723990
Taxonomy is not about the definition of words you fucking mongoloid.

>>9721776
>Requirements for a given system to be considered life are as follows: ....
What should be the punishment for biologists theorizing?

>>9721776
Pure garbage

Life is

Self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution

>>9724563
Which viruses are not.

>>9724563
>>9724579
Define 'self-sustaining'. Can a plant self-sustain?

These definitions do not represent useful theories, they are a lax categorization tool at best.

>>9724453
It’s not about the definition of words, but is a science involving arguing how to classify something.

>>9724611
True, but i was going by what you replied to.

>>9724586
>Can a plant self-sustain
Yes. Why is this even a question?

>These definitions do not represent useful theories, they are a lax categorization tool at best.
Then what is even the point of this thread?

https://www.le.ac.uk/se/centres/sci/selfstudy/org.htm

>>9724627
It can't live without sunlight etc. though, so the definition is not that clear. Do you think the definition excludes viruses? To me it's not clear at all. Is it about reproduction? Humans can't reproduce without a partner.

>>9723885
>>9723989
Virus, viroids, etc can be dsDNA, ssDNA, dsRNA, ssRNA. I was asking if he has a source for the statement that the majority of viruses on earth are double stranded dna. You absolutely should have citations for that because the abundance of Rna viruses are extremely important to plant immune system, and there is a whole branch of viruses of single strand rna without protein coats.
As well you're describing only phage going through lytic lifecycles but you're missing lysogenic where they will not even be active while inserted within gDNA .

>>9725366
Bro a virus is genetic information protected by a protein that has the capacity to infect a living cell
no citation needed

Unless the official definition of life changes then no they're not alive.