/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11182299]

Have you ever thought about how weird viruses are? They’re not living things. They’re just...things....that scramble your cells

[Anonymous No.11182332]

>>11182299
"life" and "non-life" is not a binary. It's a continuum and our choice of cutoff to artificially create a binary is just an arbitrary social construct.

[Anonymous No.11182339]

>>11182299
Life has a weird definition. I was taught that viruses are considered to be living entities when they are taking control of a cells ribosomes, and non living genetic satellites when in capsid form.
The truth of the problem lies in the question "when does a group of self assembled molecules become considered a living being?"
There is nothing fundamentally different in the chemistry of a bacteria and the ingredients that compose it. There is no 'soul-tag' in the molecules making up any cell or multicellular organism.
Perhaps what we call life isn't just "things made of cells" but rather an emergent phenomenon of certain arrangements of matter that allow for any sort of experience, that is subjected to evolution and possesses the capacity to replicate upon interacting with compounds in the environment. Viruses all satisfy these conditions. Their only weird difference is that they lack metabolic processes.

[Anonymous No.11182343]

>>11182339
life is a semantic definition created by apemen

[Anonymous No.11182345]

>>11182299
>They’re not living things.

In your opinion. This shit is totally arbitrary, and I consider them alive. Literally just semantics.

[Anonymous No.11182349]

How will humans cope when they discover living gas clouds without a shred of DNA in alien galaxies?

[Anonymous No.11182370]

>>11182343

so really when you think about....blacks/niggers aren't actually people.

[Anonymous No.11182378]

>>11182349
they wont because humans will never leave earth
just like our distant ocean living ancestors didn't leave the ocean
the machines we create will be the next species

[Anonymous No.11182381]

>>11182378
Actually immortality is nigh and genetic modification to become superhumans will leave machines in the dust. Why create a weapon when you ARE a weapon?

[Anonymous No.11182383]

>>11182381
It’s physically impossible for living organisms to surpass machines in their viability as space colonizers.

[Anonymous No.11182384]

viruses - the not missing link between natural crystal formation and organic life as well know it based on our current style of discourse which separates crystal formation form plant growth for whatever reason.

[Anonymous No.11182388]

>>11182349
Rosie O'Donnell already exists.

[Anonymous No.11182405]

>>11182381
Why send meat body into space when you can send von neumann machines into space to replicate indefinitely and turn the galaxy into a factory

[Anonymous No.11182500]

>>11182332
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.11182506]

>>11182405
Our VNM galaxy/multigalaxy ruling overlords would rule us

[Anonymous No.11182555]

>>11182299
Where do viruses come from? How are they created?

[Anonymous No.11182576]

>>11182405
paying billions so that people locked up in tin cans have to sniff at their own farts for years is too irresistible

[Anonymous No.11182580]

>>11182555
my favorite is that they are degenerated bacteria

[Anonymous No.11182581]

>>11182299
They are demons.

[Anonymous No.11182583]

>>11182555
Viruses hijack cells to produce more viruses. How exactly viruses originated isn’t known for sure, and it’s possible that viruses evolved multiple times. They might even be the remnants of RNA-world life that lived on Earth before cells evolved.

[Anonymous No.11182630]

>>11182555
DARPA's time travel.

[Anonymous No.11182819]

>>11182555
Someone once described them to me as rogue communication or intercellular interaction processes created by mutated, damaged, abnormal or otherwise deformed cancer like cells that act independent of the cellular structure of the cell itself once released and continues to be carried out whenever cellular communication or similar chemical interaction allows for it in other similar biological agents.

[Anonymous No.11182864]

>>11182332
Can’t tell if you are beig sarcastic about non binary gender, but you aren’t wrong. But its more a scientific/ medical construct than a social one.

[Anonymous No.11183369]

I’m not sure of anything spookier in all of nature, now that you mention it

[Anonymous No.11183383]

>>11182583
Actually viroids are basically just living RNA, so viruses could have branched off from just that, and it does go to show such lifeforms could have existed.
I mostly agree with >>11182819 as I don't think viruses or viroids could be relics of the very first lifeforms on Earth due to their dependence on other cells.

[Anonymous No.11183420]

>>11182555
New virus particles come from the existing virus.
The "parent and child" system itself seems to be stemming from viral reproduction. Prokaryotes do not reproduce, they just divide and possibly fuse again.

[Anonymous No.11183588]

If they weren’t living they wouldn’t be active.

[Anonymous No.11183591]

>>11182299
Have you ever thought about how weird virioids are? They're not even expressing genes, but they're still going around replicating in plants and sometimes affecting gene expression in the host. The only virus that comes close is to that is Hep D.

[Anonymous No.11183600]

>>11182332
>>11182339
>>11182343
>>11182345

>"life" and "non-life" is not a binary.
Yes it is. A cell is both alive and the fundamental unit of the living.

A virus is neither a cell nor composed of cells therefore it is not alive

[Anonymous No.11183611]

>>11183600
U must be a biologist lol

[Anonymous No.11183612]

>>11183383
>I don't think viruses or viroids could be relics of the very first lifeforms
To call the "relics" of the "RNA world" are both misnomers, it isn't like you'd have had RNA life forms and then suddenly DNA life forms, it's a gradual change as the benefits of DNA show themselves over RNA. The DNA world still uses lots of the strategies of RNA world (like non-WC pairing in the transcriptome, reverse transcriptases, I guess arguably even exon/intron systems in eukaryotes), but is more able to tightly control RNA (often through RNAses or even more exotic systems like CRISPR) because there's this persistent record/computer in the form of the DNA.

>>11183600
https://youtu.be/51TIEpAgu8M

[Anonymous No.11183615]

>>11183600
>Yes it is. A cell is both alive and the fundamental unit of the living.
That's an arbitrary binary we impose on a continuum of systems.

[Anonymous No.11183616]

>>11182332
Life is a social construct and a spectrum.

[Anonymous No.11183625]

>>11182383
For the moment, no computer has survived longer than the average human.

[Anonymous No.11183626]

>>11183625
Fug.

[Anonymous No.11183632]

>>11183600
Your definition of life is binary. It's also arbitrary, the fact that you define it that way means nothing. Why did you even reply?

[Anonymous No.11184360]

>>11183383
>Actually viroids are basically just living RNA, so viruses could have branched off from just that

DNA viruses exist, and viruses are quite different from viroids.

>due to their dependence on other cells.

That’s just evolution. They were forced into another niche.

[Anonymous No.11184365]

>>11183600
>A cell is both alive and the fundamental unit of the living.

I don’t agree with your arbitrary definition of life consisting only of cells.

[Anonymous No.11184370]

>Why yes, I do believe viruses are alive. How could you tell?

[Anonymous No.11184371]

>>11183625
The lifespan of the average human is about how long we’ve been building computers, and the capabilities and miniaturization of computers has increased greatly during that time, so of course we have no operating computers older than the average human.

[Anonymous No.11184378]

>>11182349
Probably how they responded in Polaris desu

[Anonymous No.11184394]

>>11184378
If only we could make the full detailed picture of the history of life. The most interesting stuff happened before 2 billion years ago.

[Anonymous No.11184398]

>>11184394
Honestly our best bet is to find another location where life is in the very earliest of stages and observe how nature orders itself to reach the point we're at

[Anonymous No.11184444]

>>11184371
What i wanted to highlight is that we have zero proof that computer can survive for a long time.
And if your old computer, if it is still working, is probably already completely obsolete.

DNA is extremely efficient to store and transfer the information. A primordial parameter for a stable "life" form.
Computer are not able of such a feat. Therefore, they are far from being able to surpass human.

[Anonymous No.11184585]

>>11184394
is there a name for the "first replication", or whatever it might be called?

[Anonymous No.11184588]

>>11184585
Abiogenesis?

[Anonymous No.11184599]

>>11182555
Government lab.

[Anonymous No.11184602]

>>11184599
Suspiciously not wrong.

[Anonymous No.11184608]

>>11182381
While intelligence and muscle mass can be somewhat increased its pretty much only possible to acheive a 30% increase before viability of life starts to decline.
Essentially while the capacity to generate superhumans will exist, the metabolic rate at which their bodily processes occurred would ensure a natural limit was imposed before health effects such as organ failure presented themselves.
That isn't to say it couldn't be offset by the introduction of third party systems to aid with the immense biological demands, but at that point your building a cyborg, not a pure super human.
Plus you've got complications with tissue rejection and infection coming into play there as well.

[Anonymous No.11184612]

yep

[Anonymous No.11184623]

>>11184585
That's what I would call the first virus.
It's a pretty big assumption that replication or reproduction is the main definition of life.
DNA seems to be the in the most natural state when it is looped on itself. The fact that all prokaryotic viruses have dsDNA genomes kinda weakens the RNA world theory. You guys here need to study more, this is supposedly the crown board on the whole internet and you discuss here how to lose weight and ufo sightings. Kinda disappointing.

[Anonymous No.11184641]

>>11184612
me in the pic

[Anonymous No.11184644]

>>11182332
This.

[Anonymous No.11184709]

>>11182555
>>11182580
I have heard that viruses have genes that encode for cellular membranes which they shouldn't have which supports this idea. But it could also just be genetic material they picked up

[Anonymous No.11184714]

>>11184709
>cellular membranes
They are lipids. Genes don't code for lipids.

[Anonymous No.11184743]

>>11182349
Gas clouds are too entropic to store information, if you can’t store information you can’t reproduce or be (alive)

[Anonymous No.11184747]

>>11182864
Gender characteristic is Bi-modal
Usually you can easily differentiate between genders making them binary, but there are cases when it's not so clear cut.

[Anonymous No.11184818]

>>11184623
>all prokaryotic viruses have dsDNA genomes
They don't.

[Anonymous No.11184821]

>>11184714
Not exactly true.

[Anonymous No.11184841]

>>11184444
> What i wanted to highlight is that we have zero proof that computer can survive for a long time.

We know computers can survive indefinitely, because they’re computers. Just hunks of matter. As long as it’s protected from harm, they’ll be fine indefinitely.

> And if your old computer, if it is still working, is probably already completely obsolete.

Computers are constantly getting better than prior computers.
This means computers are better than living organisms, I hope you realize that.

> DNA is extremely efficient to store and transfer the information.

Transmit DNA from Earth to Mars in 3 minutes.

> A primordial parameter for a stable "life" form.

I don’t care about arbitrary words like “life”. Computers are able to survive in space with vastly less logistical support than living organisms, so they are better than living organisms.

[Anonymous No.11184844]

>>11184841
>We know computers can survive indefinitely, because they’re computers. Just hunks of matter. As long as it’s protected from harm, they’ll be fine indefinitely.
Wrong and incredibly poor reasoning. I mean, we're just hunks of matter anon.

>This means computers are better than living organisms, I hope you realize that.
Is this a troll?

[Anonymous No.11184893]

>>11184844
>Wrong and incredibly poor reasoning. I mean, we're just hunks of matter anon.

Composed of molecules that can and will decay in a system that requires constant input of additional nutrients, water, and air.

> Is this a troll?

Is this a troll?
Humans have lengthy generations, and the effect of selection pressures between those generations is very small, so any “improvements” they make, assuming we even find these “improvements” desirable since only reproductive success matters for natural selection, will be VERY incremental and take a long time.
In comparison, computers have shrank from several-ton machines performing simplistic cogitation to palm-sized devices that possess tremendously more power than their “ancestors” in the space of fifty years.
That computers can improve this much when humans don’t change at all
Means they are
Better

[Anonymous No.11184906]

>>11184893
>In comparison, computers have shrank from several-ton machines performing simplistic cogitation to palm-sized devices that possess tremendously more power than their “ancestors” in the space of fifty years.
>That computers can improve this much when humans don’t change at all
Dude, I went from a couple of cells that couldn't do anything to graduating university in less than half that time.

[Anonymous No.11184909]

>>11182349
>How will humans cope when they discover living gas clouds without a shred of DNA in alien galaxies?
all they're gonna do is ask 'whatchyou been smokin'?

[Anonymous No.11184922]

>>11183611
>U must be a biologist lol
He's right. Viruses are not 'alive', by definition, because they can't reproduce independently. Two virii can't meet and 'get it on' to produce baby virii, nor can one multiply by asexually splitting into two whole but separate individuals...

[Anonymous No.11184930]

>>11184922
>Viruses are not 'alive', by definition, because they can't reproduce independently.

Humans are not “alive”, by definition, because they can’t reproduce independently.

[Anonymous No.11184935]

>>11184906
>Dude, I went from a couple of cells that couldn't do anything to graduating university in less than half that time.

This iteration of human has no significant improvements over prior iterations.

[Anonymous No.11184937]

>>11184599
>Government lab.
Yeah. They engineered them, then time-travelled back into the past and infected now-extinct creatures with them.

[Anonymous No.11184953]

>>11184930
>Humans are not “alive”, by definition, because they can’t reproduce independently.

They're not designed to (New to this planet, are you? Welcome! What universe are you from?)

[Anonymous No.11184958]

>>11184953
>They're not designed to

Living things are not designed, and no living thing “reproduces independently” except for a handful of autotrophs. We’d die if not for the microcosm of organisms that live on and within us.

[Anonymous No.11184963]

>>11184930
>independently
Better description is "in and of themselves" Viruses need a host cell to infect or they will just sit on a door handle somewhere for all eternity, and never multiply on their own...

[Anonymous No.11184975]

>>11184963
>Better description is "in and of themselves" Viruses need a host cell to infect or they will just sit on a door handle somewhere for all eternity, and never multiply on their own

This definition is arbitrary, and I reject it because it would classify an active, intelligent entity like the Xenomorph from alien as “not alive” even though it is intuitively apparent it is alive, and even things like pollinating flowers or impregnating wasps would fall outside the definition of “living”. Semantic pedantry does not improve humanity’s knowledge in any way, so why attempt it?

[Anonymous No.11184981]

>>11184958
>Living things are not designed
This will blow your mind:

Amazing Flagellum : Michael Behe and the Revolution of Intelligent Design
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNR48hUd-Hw

[Anonymous No.11184987]

>>11184975
>This definition is arbitrary, and I reject it because it would classify an active, intelligent entity like the Xenomorph from alien as “not alive [...]”
May I ask what level of education you've achieved, and what, if any, Bio courses you've taken?

[Anonymous No.11184989]

>>11184981
>>>/pol/
Fuck off with creationism

[Anonymous No.11184994]

>>11184981
>Lies disproven over fifteen years ago

Yikes
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

[Anonymous No.11184997]

>>11184987
>Would you like to eat a red herring?

No, and you can hold the ad hominem sauce too.
Why ought I accept your position that parasitic wasps are not alive?

[Anonymous No.11185018]

>>11184989
>Fuck off with creationism
Agreed. "Bio-engineering" is a more appropriate term. "Creationism" unfortunately has that religious connotation that is understandably shunned by the scientific community.

[Anonymous No.11185027]

>>11185018
Just stop
Stop pretending intelligent design is not creationism 2.0
Everyone knows, you know, we know..
There is no need for this

[Anonymous No.11185045]

>>11185018
>Agreed. "Bio-engineering" is a more appropriate term.

There is zero evidence of “bio-engineering” aside from that performed by humans.

[Anonymous No.11185050]

Kek. We already have relatively sophisticated nanotech. Who's to say much more advanced civilizations elsewhere haven't ''engineered" similar structures?

But, you still haven't answered my question...

[Anonymous No.11185207]

>>11184841
>We know computers can survive indefinitely, because they’re computers. Just hunks of matter. As long as it’s protected from harm, they’ll be fine indefinitely.
And how to you protect if from harm? You can't if you want to use it.
And "hunks of matter" tends to decompose over time.
Let me guess.you never studied chemistry?

>I don’t care about arbitrary words like “life”.
Then it is probably why you fail to understand the problems associated with a computer-based type of life.

[Anonymous No.11185212]

viruses originated from transposable elements

[Anonymous No.11185251]

biologists are full of shit

if we discovered a virus on mars, everyone would call it life and sperg out about LE NOT ALONE

[Anonymous No.11185319]

>>11185207
>And how to you protect if from harm?

A casing.

> You can't if you want to use it.

Wrong.

> And "hunks of matter" tends to decompose over time

Hunks of matter can be repaired and rebuilt. The ability of a space probe or rover to survive the hazards of Mars or the interstellar void is orders of magnitude superior to that of a human, even in an environmental suit, so you are wrong. It’s that simple.

> Then it is probably why you fail to understand the problems associated with a computer-based type of life.

I never proposed “computer-based life” so what are you rambling incoherently about?

[Anonymous No.11185428]

>>11183600
God I hate STEMtards. Take a philosophy course for fuck's sake.

[Anonymous No.11185739]

>>11184935
We are significantly better educated than our forebears. Even by your own metric of wanting to fuck silicon chips we're better because we make better more fuckable chips.

[Anonymous No.11185759]

>>11185319
>Hunks of matter can be repaired and rebuilt
You need to store and access information for that.
Organisms store this information into DNA or RNA. For the moment, computer store it only into silicon, which is pretty inefficient on the long term.

>The ability of a space probe or rover to survive the hazards of Mars or the interstellar void is orders of magnitude superior to that of a human
Yes, space probe can be engineered to survive in the interstellar void. But, still, they are not suited to colonize space, neither to replace human.

>what are you rambling incoherently about?
This:
>It’s physically impossible for living organisms to surpass machines in their viability as space colonizers.

[Anonymous No.11185936]

theyre as alive as a many endosymbiotic organelles

[Anonymous No.11185962]

>>11182332
It's like you apply your brainwashing to other things than what you're told to apply it to.

Amazin'

[Anonymous No.11186453]

>>11185936
Are you even alive?

[Anonymous No.11186476]

>>11182299
But virus is a life. Modern biology is wrong, and I am right.

[Anonymous No.11186482]

>>11185936
No, they lack the systematic complexity of most eukaryotic organelles and have far less genetic information. Those organelles probably descend from species of primitive microbial life, also more advanced than viruses.

[Anonymous No.11186555]

>>11182555
>Where do viruses come from?
When a daddy virus and a mummy cell love each other very much a stork-like transporter protein brings a baby virus to the cabbage patch organelle.

[Anonymous No.11186562]

>>11185962
Oh sorry, I forgot "life" is a natural definition that we discovwred in the wild. Living things emit life particles that we can detect and everything in science fits into comfortable little disjoint boxes. The world is simple and understandable.

[Anonymous No.11186598]

>>11185050
Saying something nobody can prove wrong because it's nonsense isn't the same as saying something true.

[Anonymous No.11186761]

>>11186476
You're the virus and I'm the cure

[Anonymous No.11186791]

>>11185759
> You need to store and access information for that.

Okay?

> Organisms store this information into DNA or RNA. For the moment, computer store it only into silicon, which is pretty inefficient on the long term.

More than sufficient for the purpose of schematics.

> Yes, space probe can be engineered to survive in the interstellar void. But, still, they are not suited to colonize space

Modern ones aren’t, but they could.

> neither to replace human.

See above.

> this:

I’m sorry if this factual statement makes you upset.

[Anonymous No.11186795]

>>11185739
> We are significantly better educated than our forebears

That difference is environmental and not due to any genuine change in your genetic makeup that would allow faster learning with a greater capacity or any improvement to other physical characteristics. We have plateaued.

[Anonymous No.11186927]

>>11182349
*hits bong*

[Anonymous No.11187053]

>>11184743
>Gas clouds are too entropic to store information
On a small scale

[Anonymous No.11187143]

>>11182299
Last I'd heard they're more alive than not.

[Anonymous No.11187842]

>>11186795
The golden age of silicon fabrication ended 20 years ago dude. That's why they're doing more cores and threads and trying to stick chips in everything.

[Anonymous No.11187855]

>>11185050
>We already have relatively sophisticated nanotech.
We really don't

[Anonymous No.11187871]

Everything is alive and conscious

[Anonymous No.11188740]

>>11182299
It's analogous to a computer and a computer virus.
The computer has all the functioning bits and can actually do stuff. It has code (DNA) inside of it that controls all the components (organelles) inside.
You wouldn't call a USB stick with some shit inside it a computer, nor would you call just the code a computer.
People who say viruses are alive also therefore must admit code in and of itself is a computer.

[Anonymous No.11188748]

>>11185428
lol this

[Anonymous No.11189399]

>>11182555
space, indeed asteroids are full of AIDS

[Anonymous No.11189665]

>>11188740
Viruses carry around their own machinery, it's really only viroids that don't. The viruses most similar to viroids have less machinery, like hep d, and often need another virus to infect the cell first (for hep d it's hep b). So it's not just code.