[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 252 KB, 500x500, datcellsfuckedyo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6424137 No.6424137 [Reply] [Original]

Why aren't viruses considered organisms? Sure they're not cellular, but they've got genomes and a means of passing them on. Why doesn't that qualify them?

>> No.6424139

>>6424137

Because a virus kills its host and reproduces inside of it. A virus is a parasite. Its only purpose is to evolve into a virus that can infect more complex organisms.

>> No.6424141

Well, correct me if I'm wrong but they made international rules as to what makes an organism an organism, and since they're not cellular (one of the criteria) they aren't considered organisms.

>> No.6424142

>>6424139
>reproduces
>parasite
>evolve
>infect

These are all qualities of life.

>> No.6424144

>>6424137
You could just do a search instead of spamming /sci/. Its great to get peoples options on many subjects, although this is one you could learn in less than 1 minute with a search engine.

>> No.6424147

Flame isn't that far off either, is it?

Where did I see that point made, anyone know? I can't remember.

>> No.6424158

>>6424137
No metabolism separate from the host's. If there's no infection going on then they're just static capsules of nucleic acid.

>> No.6424167

>>6424137

They're technically not alive. They have no metabolism and no means of reproduction besides invading a host organism and using the host's own cellular machinery to produce more virii

>> No.6424193
File: 51 KB, 317x265, 1360016586855.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6424193

>>6424158
this


>mfw /sci/ is full of biology today

>> No.6424217

>>6424158
Basically this.

An organism proper will be able to sustain itself with its own metabolism. Viruses do not have their own metabolism. You could think of them more like infectious packets of nucleic acid, that doesn't mean they're actually living. Truth is viruses occupy that special fuzzy boundary between living and nonliving things. Nobody can really say for certain. They're a testament to the limitations of our power of categorization.

>> No.6424231

>>6424167
so they are like extreme parasites

>> No.6424250

metabolic parasites

>> No.6424283

>>6424193
We probably have the recent Cosmos episode in part to thank for it.

>> No.6424284

>>6424139
how does this disqualify it as an organism?

>> No.6424289

>>6424284

It doesn't. This does: >>6424158

>> No.6424288

>>6424284
It doesn't.

>> No.6424294

>>6424158
But there IS infection going on. So don't they have a metabolism? Even if it is a kind of proxy metabolism?

>> No.6424292

Viruses are organic robots, basically.

They only have metabolism when inside another creature. Otherwise, they're just a husk with internal workings.

>> No.6424296

>>6424292
>They only have metabolism when inside another creature.
They don't have a metabolism at all.

>internal workings.
Define.

>> No.6424301

>>6424296
Well, not so much workings I guess. Just DNA/RNA packets to inject.

>> No.6424302

>>6424294
>But there IS infection going on.
Anon said if there isn't. As in, there's nothing around to infect. Meaning it will remain in a sort of inert stasis doing nothing till something comes along for it to actually infect.

>> No.6424307
File: 6 KB, 228x186, 1395209647605.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6424307

>>6424302
OK i'm confused now (physicist). So if there is nothing for it to infect, does it die? or how does it sustain itself?

>> No.6424310

>>6424307
>So if there is nothing for it to infect, does it die? or how does it sustain itself?

It doesn't have to sustain itself, that's the point. It's basically just one giant molecule, doing nothing.

>> No.6424311

>>6424307
It doesn't have to sustain itself, it just protects the genetic material inside till it is picked up and an infection begins.

>> No.6424315

>>6424307
>So if there is nothing for it to infect, does it die? or how does it sustain itself?
It has no metabolism of its own. It has no organelles or molecular machinery it needs to upkeep. It's not even technically "alive" in the first place so you couldn't really say it "dies". It just hangs out in stasis doing absolutely nothing unless it's completely destroyed by some sort of environmental force.

>> No.6424317

>>6424311
>>6424310
ohh ok...
Of course, that makes sense. They are one of the most ancient molcules in existence, pretty much evidence for life like behaviour in pre life molecules.

>> No.6424327

>>6424315
And to add, you could maybe think of a viral infection as a cell uptaking a virion and basically infecting itself. The nucleic acid in the virus infects the host cell in the sense that the nucleic acid encapsulated in the virus incorporates itself into the host's genome via the host's own metabolism and molecular machinery.

Also, to sort of argue against what another anon said, not all viruses kill the host cells via lysis; these are called retroviruses. In fact most viruses are probably completely harmless and some rare ones may in fact be beneficial. You can think of viruses as a sort of mechanism for lateral gene transfer, although not necessarily from one cell to another.

>> No.6424332

>>6424137

>>ORGANISM = ORGANISED CELLS
>>VIRUS = NO ORGANIZED CELLS = NOT ORGANISM

>> No.6424337

>>6424310
>it's just one giant molecule, doing nothing
Organic time bomb sounds cooler

>> No.6424339

>>6424317
r... right?

>> No.6424342

>>6424339
Yeah sort of.
It's not a single molecule though. It's a protein coat encasing some nucleic acid.

>> No.6424345

>>6424327
i like. These boi talks are pretty interesting given i dont know much of the inferior science.

>> No.6424346

>>6424327
what does the virus do once part of that cell's genome?

>> No.6424350

>>6424317
>They are one of the most ancient molcules in existence, pretty much evidence for life like behaviour in pre life molecules.

They might have evolved from more complex organisms.

>> No.6424352

>>6424346
The virus's nucleic acid segment is translated by the cells own DNA reading machinery and the cell produces more copies of the virus and the protein capsid that encloses the virus ad nauseum till the cell ruptures and dies, releasing many more copies of the virus.

At least for the classic phage type viruses.

>> No.6424356

>>6424332
By that definition, unicellular organisms are also not organisms.

>> No.6424359

>>6424137
Viruses are little more than complex organic crystals
Sure they have structure and "reproduce"
But that is it

>> No.6424363

>>6424350
So they evolved from life to lifelessness?

h.. how do you mean?

>> No.6424368

>>6424352
isn't there any security in the genome room?

Can the reading machinery reject viruses phony baloney DNA?

>> No.6424378

>>6424139
>virus kills its host

Well that's a shitty way to continue surviving for the virus isn't it?

>> No.6424384

Cells have organelles. That's why they are organisms.

>> No.6424385

>>6424368
I'm not certain how it works for unicellular organisms, but for multicellular organisms... I'm a bit fuzzy on some of my immunology but when cells die there are special proteins on the inside of the lipid cell membrane that, when exposed to the extracellular space and are recognized by immune response molecules in circulation and/or white blood cells, whatever (there might be other pathways in which dying cells alert immunological agents of an infection but I don't remember). Those immunological agents trigger a larger immune response that ramps up selection of specific antibodies that recognize and target the specific pathogen and neutralize it while it's still in the extracellular matrix. The antibodies latch onto the pathogen and tag them for phagocytosis by white blood cells which envelope the pathogens into vacuoles which eat away/degrade/destroy the pathogen via a variety of chemical agents (I don't remember what those particular chemical agents are either but you can look them up).

As far as defenses within the "genome room" (the nucleus), I'm a little fuzzy on this as well but there are genomic proof reading molecules, as well as other specialized molecules that recognize specific types of infectious nucleic acids and destroy them immediately. These mechanisms don't always work however.

>>6424378
Killing the host usually entails bursting forth from the host cells' guts alien style, only with many thousands of copies of itself. It's how the virus reproduces.

>> No.6424386

>>6424384
OOO, someone knows!

The rest of you don't.

>> No.6424388

>>6424385
Most viruses don't kill their hosts was the point I was trying to make, and if they do it's as a side effect.

>> No.6424393

>>6424388
I wasn't really trying to argue that most do, I was just trying to elucidate on what we consider the classical mode of viral infection/reproduction.

>> No.6424395

>>6424359
>complex organic crystals
And cells are just complex organic lipids

What kind of idiot define life ot be that?!?

>> No.6424405

>>6424384
So from what I understand our current scientific definition of life is vague as fuck and completely determined by subjective reasoning.

Let me ask you this when we go to another planet and see some intelligent creature made of something other than cells will you classify as inanimate?

>> No.6424410

>>6424158
So they are dormant programs waiting to run?

>> No.6424411

>>6424137
They don't have a metabolism.

>> No.6424412

>>6424405
>completely determined by subjective reasoning.
No.
There is a set of criteria that we use to classify whether something is "living" or "nonliving", but that doesn't stop nature from making things that fit some but not all of those criteria we have made. Viruses happen to be some of those things, and they pretty much most of our criteria.

>some intelligent creature made of something other than cells will you classify as inanimate?
Who fucking knows? Will they be made of super hot plasma or something?

>> No.6424416

>>6424412
*they pretty much fit most of our criteria.

>> No.6424419

RIIIIIIGHT. YOU'RE NOT LISTENING.

I WILL SAY IT AGAIN.

repetetion 1: CELLS HAVE ORGANELLES. VIRUSES DO NOT. EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS CONFUSING YOU IS BECAUSE YOU FAILED SCIENCE.

repetetion 2: CELLS HAVE ORGANELLES. VIRUSES DO NOT. EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS CONFUSING YOU IS BECAUSE YOU FAILED SCIENCE.

repetetion 3: CELLS HAVE ORGANELLES. VIRUSES DO NOT. EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS CONFUSING YOU IS BECAUSE YOU FAILED SCIENCE.

repetetion 4: CELLS HAVE ORGANELLES. VIRUSES DO NOT. EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS CONFUSING YOU IS BECAUSE YOU FAILED SCIENCE.

repetetion 5: CELLS HAVE ORGANELLES. VIRUSES DO NOT. EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS CONFUSING YOU IS BECAUSE YOU FAILED SCIENCE.

repetetion 6: CELLS HAVE ORGANELLES. VIRUSES DO NOT. EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS CONFUSING YOU IS BECAUSE YOU FAILED SCIENCE.

repetetion7: CELLS HAVE ORGANELLES. VIRUSES DO NOT. EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS CONFUSING YOU IS BECAUSE YOU FAILED SCIENCE.

>> No.6424427

>>6424405
We have names for shit because assholes like you misconstrue things like you just did, asshole.

>> No.6424433

>>6424385
great explanations this has been bugging me for a while.

As far as those molecules that recognize specific types of viruses is that what is changed when you develop an immunity to a virus?

>What does a Flu shot do?

>> No.6424440

>>6424410
You could look at it that way. From the time a virus is assembled up until the moment it bumps into a compatible host cell, there's no "upkeep", no life processes happening. All it can do is gradually break down.

>> No.6424441

>>6424433
Developing an immunity to a virus involves production of antibodies. During the first infection from a new pathogen your white blood cells have to go through a meticulous selection process of testing out various types of antibodies by mutating specific genes of antibody producing white blood cells until it a specific antibody for the specific pathogen is found. Then those antibodies are ramped up and produced like mad in order to tag as many pathogens as possible in order for phagocytic white blood cells to recognize them and eat them. After the initial infection has been cleared those antibodies are kept around as a form of memory, so in the case of reinfection by the same pathogen it will take your cells only a fraction of the time it took during the initial infection to select the appropriate antibody again and fight off the infection. The length of the antibody selection process during the initial infection is why the first infection is the most dangerous for the organism and why you experience symptoms of illness. And since your white blood cells remember the previous pathogens they fought off via antibodies, it's why you don't experience sickness from reinfection of the same pathogen.

However, if the pathogen mutates enough (in the case of seasonal flu) then the previous antibodies produced will no longer match the pathogen and the antibody selection process must occur again.

>> No.6424444

>>6424405
Then why would anyone choose that criteria to define. Cleary you must underdstand the only reasons we chose organelles as a characteristic of life is because cells have organelles and cells are the only know things alive. But that doesn't necesarily mean if an organism doesn't have organelles it's non-living.

>> No.6424446

>>6424419
Highschool dropout detected. Have fun doing porn for a living.

>> No.6424454

>>6424440
SO. even this DOESN'T proove they aren't alive.
There are cells that can reach a stage of dormancy where the don't metabolize or do anything until the conditions are right (Enough nutrients,temp,ph, etc). In essence they are just a floating blob of random chemicals and proteins until they get a chance to function.How is that any different from viruses?

>> No.6424458

>>6424441
cont.
Forgot to answer last part.

A flu shot is basically inactivated ("killed") virus that they inject into you so your body can recognize antibody recognition sites (antigen) on the flu virus protein coat without risk of it actually infecting you since its nucleic acid has been destoyed or rendered inert. It's a way of tricking your immune system into thinking it's been infected without actually infecting you.

>> No.6424475

>>6424455
>Can't even spell "organelle" right
And calls me the retard

>Can't even properly spell the word "nigger" or scared to.
Most likely an internalized racist. Or a 14 year old trying to fit in on 4chan

>"I HOPE YOU GET RAPED"
Either projecting a past experience or Butthurt after realizing he didn't learn much in school.

>> No.6424483

>>6424475
>14 year old trying to fit in on 4chan
The most likely conclusion.

>> No.6424498

>>6424454
Because viruses have no organelles and thus, no metabolism they need to maintain.

>> No.6424556

The bacteriophage looks too much like a spider, and that is why I don't trust it.

>> No.6424567

>>6424458
thank you very much, I see viruses, immune response, cells and dna in a different light.

>> No.6424571

>>6424562
What is the purpose of this blatant shitposting?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Now get the fuck out.

>> No.6424580

>>6424571
Wikipedia is shitposting. Everything gets rewritten, and no-one is accountable.

If you hate shitposting, don't depend on it.

I hate to use the word "ironic" here, but you are being very ironic.

>> No.6424582

>>6424567
No problem. My explanations are a bit basic and crude, applying mostly to the classic lytic phage mode of viral infection but I don't think I left out anything too major. These pathways and processes are generally a lot more involved in terms of complexity, as there are numerous other molecules that play a part in any of these instances.

>> No.6424585

>>6424580
>Wikipedia is shitposting.
You what?
Check the fucking citations if you're going to be such a fucking retard about it.

Now fuck off.

>> No.6424588

>>6424363
Vestigiality

>> No.6424595
File: 49 KB, 600x600, 1395267100158.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6424595

>>6424141
Well these rules could change, same reason pluto isn't a planet anymore.

>> No.6424600

>>6424599
You're the only one crying and bitching here.

>> No.6424605

>>6424446
But that does sound like fun....

>> No.6424607

>>6424601
Sorry, but typing out intentionally stupid shit in all caps is clearly shitposting.

>>6424606
Why are you still here?

>> No.6424611

>>6424599
what's your problem with wikipedia.
I think it's a great source for quick hard facts in a sensible format that I'm much used to reading.

>> No.6424613

>>6424610
Enjoy your ban.

>>6424611
He's looking for a reason to bitch and save face.

>> No.6424614

>Why aren't viruses considered organisms?
Because the semantics and definition of an organism excludes them. They aren't even considered alive because they don't fit some dumb rules.

>> No.6424617

>>6424610
Greentext - check
All caps - check
Exclamation marks - check
Now that's what I call shitposting.

>> No.6424618

>>6424454
They aren't living things.

They have no functions, besides infecting and encoding thier malicious DNA into the hosts

>> No.6424624

>>6424611
Wikipedia gets abused way too often by way too many political interests. It is like using "TIME" for a source.

"Life" is NOT a subject, along with many other types of politically motivated erroneous information sources like wikipedia, that we can depend on anything or anyone to define without their personal opinions being submitted as facts.

>> No.6424627

Do viruses contain enzymes?

I sweat I've seen gifs of them running from white blood cells

>> No.6424630

>>6424624
>It is like using "TIME" for a source.
Okay, now you're just being ludicrous.

Go check the citations if you must. You can even check the basic information and reference it back to a textbook if you want to.

>> No.6424636

>>6424628
I'm sure.

>> No.6424638

>>6424137
Basically, no metabolism.

>But they still reproduce and can infect cells and have complex structure!

That doesn't make something alive. For example, there are a class of proteins called prions. Without going into the fun details, a prion is basically a misfolded protein that can induce other proteins of the same chemical structure to adopt its misfolded shape. When this happens the properties of the protein change, and the result is a whole range of diseases (ex: mad cow). But what's really interesting is that prions are transmissible, so what started out as a single misfolded protein in one animal can turn into trillions of misfolded proteins in a population of animals.

However, you'd be hard pressed to classify a protein as alive. Just like viruses, it can infect a host and reproduce inside the host, but only inside the host. When outside of a body, the protein is just a lump of organic matter.

Another example: You're probably aware that RNA/DNA require proteins to read, copy, and create a new strand. What you may not be aware of is that there are some strands of RNA that can replicate themselves as long as there are nucleic acids floating around. But you wouldn't call a strand of RNA alive. And yet it can reproduce without the help of a host, unlike viruses. Add a lipid membrane bubble to it (something that's within the realm of possibility in nature) and you've got a self-replicating pseudo-cell. But is this life?

A virus can be thought of as one of these accidents of biochemistry. A (relatively) short strand of DNA or RNA encoding a small number of proteins (often less than 10) finds itself enclosed in a lipid membrane. Just by luck the strand happens to encode for an enzyme that can splice the strand into other strands and another protein that can activate a surface receptor on a cell that will induce the cell to absorb the lipid capsule, at which point the enzyme can go to work. A virus is born. But is this thing really alive?

>> No.6424639

>>6424624
I only read the lower wiki articles on pop culture of controversial stuff.

The better half of /sci/ can smell political agenda.

>> No.6424640

>>6424630
For the arguing the definition of "life" when so many people have so many opinions?

I haven't been banned yet. You know why?

I'm not lying to you, I'm legitimately offended for good reasons.

>> No.6424646

>>6424640
>so many people have so many opinions?
A lot of people have opinions on a lot of things. That doesn't mean we should take every uneducated fuck out there seriously.

>> No.6424648

>>6424405
Maybe if you ask random people on /sci/ it sounds "vague as fuck". If you ask random people on the street to list all of the countries in the European Union you will also get wildly variable answers depending on where you ask, but that does not mean that these countries are poorly defined.

That's why you open a goddamn textbook and look it up at a reliable source.

>> No.6424651

>>6424646
Life is a rock. You now need to include my opinion.

>> No.6424656

>>6424651
Nope. Have fun being offended.

>> No.6424661

>>6424627
Many do contain enzymes or other molecules to facilitate infection. Also, for many viruses the outer shell is largely composed of proteins.

You haven't. You've seen gifs of bacteria.

>> No.6424667

>>6424661
no metabolism, so the enzymes just chill out until they're triggered by infection?

>> No.6424668

>>6424667
Enzymes are just proteins that catalyze reactions anon.

>> No.6424672

>>6424627

I imagine the gifs you saw were bacteria, not WBCs. Viruses generally too small to really be seen in the same view as a whole eukaryotic cell.

Also, viruses generally don't contain enzymes. They contain nucleic acid that codes for some viral proteins, sure, but the proteins themselves (other than those that make up the viral coat) aren't actually present inside the virus particle.

I can think of one exception to that, which is dsRNA viruses, which usually contain an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase enyzme.

>> No.6424675

>>6424137
Why do these things look like those human harvesters from the Matrix?

>> No.6424678

>>6424667
Pretty much. Some don't need energy and can just work (like some proteases that facilitate infection), others rely on host machinery to be activated (such as HIV's reverse transcriptase).

>>6424668
But they often do need energy to work. Viruses do not produce their own energy.

>> No.6424682

>>6424667
A basic enzyme has two binding sites for the two reactants in the reaction it catalyzes. In the case of a viral enzyme, this might be a site for the viral DNA and a site for the host DNA. It would then catalyze the reaction that binds the two together. Without that strand of host DNA the enzyme is functionless.

Think of a virus like a vacuum in a box with a red hot piece of metal (enzyme) inside. That red hot metal isn't going to do anything in the box. But if that box (virus) were to connect with a room full of pure oxygen (a cell), well...

>> No.6424735

>>6424682
brilliant explanation, thank you. I will the hot metal example with me.

>> No.6424883

Perhaps thou shall find this video intradasting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dySwrhMQdX4

>> No.6426077

So many deleted shitposts.
It's a beautiful thing seeing janitors hard at work here on /sci/.

>> No.6427551
File: 18 KB, 196x382, bacteriophage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6427551

I used to wonder the same thing until I took molecular biology. Viruses are little more than specialized DNA molecules that are coated in a envelope of proteins for protection and mobility. Most of the time, a virus spends its time as a DNA strand incorporated in the genome of another organism in an attempt to replicate itself along with the rest of the organism's genome.

>> No.6427559

A virus is more like a mine. It has rna but it does not do anything unless it gets stuck to a compatible host, I'm which case it becomes "triggered" and checks your privilege.

>> No.6427582

i love how this devolved from a serious discussion to a flame war in break-neck speed

>> No.6428048

>>6424167
This. No metabolism=No life is current definition.

>> No.6428101

It's just a definition, there isn't any sort of depth to it. I think we should have a hierarchical definition of life. Rather than just being "alive" or "dead" viruses are less alive than bacteria but somehow more alive than a mineral. At the weakest classification we'd have any autonomous subsystem, physical or non-physical, like a glider in the game of life. And at the strongest classification we would have biological organisms capable of thought.

>> No.6428116

Can viruses move by themselves?

>> No.6428132

>>6424137

Life is a human definition. There may not be a clean cut line between life and non life. The stuff around today is a very small sample of everything that has existed on Earth. There may be a smooth gradient between molecules, molecular machines and what we call life. Viruses are somewhere along that gradient.

>> No.6428147

>>6428101
I like this idea.

>> No.6429051

>>6424142
qualities not qualifiers

>> No.6429075

>>6424638

What about these bacteria?

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickettsia
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlamydia_%28bacterium%29

Also there are theories that viruses can arise from a "devolving" bacteria, like the ones I posted above.

>> No.6429082

>>6424139
>Its only purpose is to evolve into a virus that can infect more complex organisms.

Haha, absolutely not.

Life has a specific definition. A virus does not fit that definition, particularly a virus does not have its own source of energy. There are other multicellular parasitic organisms that cannot survive outside of their host, but have a metabolism that produces energy which allows them to make proteins without expending the host's energy. Viruses must use host machinery, and therefore the host's source of energy.

Whether you believe in-house energy production is a good qualifier of life, is up for debate. In virology this is a bit of a nonsense way of looking at things, anyway. There is material that replicates, mutates, and responds to selection pressure. It could be a simple strand of RNA like the famous Qbeta, which was a synthetic strand of RNA that was found to evolve in vitro.

In my opinion, viruses are something like pure life. There is no nonsense about them, they are replicating machines, that mutate more rapidly than anything else on this planet, and they can evolve work around to selection pressure within HOURS. Amazing, terrifying.

>> No.6429091

>2014 + 150
>humanity becomes spacefaring
>find new type of object that acts in non-inanimate ways
>not made of cells

heh, must not be life guys

>> No.6429097

>>6429091
pretty much this

it's pretty close-minded to think life can ONLY be cell-based and that no other fundamentally different life can exist

>> No.6429106

>>6424137
Their RNA is nothing but a troll and it has no function.Essentially their goal is to hijack the cell. In a non-traditional view, all they are doing is grabbing the cell and overwhelming it by forcing it to produce tons of proteins and other viruses. Viruses are nothing more than the percentage error of protein synthesis over time, meaning that they were created as cell performed protein synthesis and the success rate is of course not 100%, and this is the remnant of that failure rate.

>> No.6429535

>be virus
>lack ability to procreate on your own
>must use cellular structures to reproduce (e.g. ribosomes)
>therefore only have 6 of the 7 functions of life
>proceed to rage

>> No.6429546

>>6424144
/thread/

>> No.6429551

>>6429535
despite all my rage
I am still just a bacteriophage

>> No.6429887

>>6428147
>>6429097
>>6429091
It's a problem... What is the difference between a rock and a virus? a virus and bacteria? bacteria and a fungi? fungi and a plant? a plant and animals? animals and humans? It seems if we were to devise a scale it would be as arbitrary as our current definition, with life being defined as "closer to humans". It would solve a lot of moral issues about killing "lesser" animals that are not close to us, but there won't actually be a deeper basis.

>> No.6429894

>>6429535
>>6429097
I really don't see what's living about viruses,

Respiration - Nope

Regulation - Variable (depending on the virus)

Reproduction - Nope (only by having a different creature multiply it, it's like a fork in a way - they can't multiply, but human mechanisms can create more)

Growth - Nope for most virsuses

Excrete - Nope

Nutrition - Nope

Transport - Nope

Synthesis - Nope


Depending on your exact definition they have 1-3 of the 8 functions of life, how can we consider them alive?

>> No.6429906

>>6424137
The better question is why anyone would care. (Other than "I'll get to prove my teacher wrong without actually doing any real thinking or learning!")

>> No.6429916

Life is basically defined if the organism is able to metabolize acetyl-CoA or not

>> No.6429920

>>6429916
What? So bacteria aren't alive by your definition?

>> No.6429923

>>6429920
acetyl-CoA has been found in archae bacteria

>> No.6429953

A virus is simply matter that happens to be constructed in such a way as to confuse organisms into creating more of it when put in contact with it.

Suppose I picked up a rock and smashed it in two, forming two identical halves. Would you then say the rock "self-replicated with the help of a host" and thus must be life? No, of course not, that'd be silly.

"oh but a rock, that's completely different from a virus! Viruses can infect entire populations! Your analogy doesn't work!"

Okay, what if there were a special type of naturally forming rocks that caused 99% of people who saw them to smash them in half. Say the rock looked like hitler's face or something. I can keep going with this, but you get the point. Stop thinking of viruses as "living things that happen to use other organisms to reproduce but are dormant without a host" and more as "clumps of matter that happen to exploit a weakness in our genetic programming causing us to replicate them"

>> No.6429962

Is OP's pic accurate?

Because those things look like fucking life to me.

>> No.6429968

>>6429962
yup, though not all viruses look like that

there's some that are just spherical or icosahedral

OP's picis a bacteria phage

>> No.6429979

So many people need to look shit up before posting. There are 7 rules which you can use to tell if something is alive or not. Being cellular isn't one of them.

>> No.6429981

>>6429953

Nice explanation man.

>> No.6430009

>>6429923
archaea are distinct from bacteria

>> No.6430017

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine

Viruses are kind of like this.

>> No.6430029

I like this thread. People are asking questions and people are answering positively. Thanks, /sci/.

>> No.6430208
File: 58 KB, 254x354, macrovirus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6430208

Could this ever happen?

>> No.6430212

>>6430208
You are getting annoying.

>> No.6430275

>>6430212
Still human.

>> No.6431924

Should /sci/ducks be reclassified as viruses as they cannot reproduce without the help of a host(a woman)?

>> No.6431934

>>6430208
with really advanced genetic engineering yes, though I'd recommend going with parasites instead.

>> No.6431967

>>6431934
> genetically engineered spontaneous levitation

No.

>> No.6431973

>>6431967
What if they evolve hydrogen sacks.

>> No.6432034
File: 89 KB, 330x328, 1392579963866.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6432034

>>6431973
>mfw it might work

>> No.6432068

>>6431973
>>6432034
Then they're zeppelin-fragile and highly combustible.

Suppose we have one of the endgame ones: 1 cubic meter of levitating protein trying to stab Janeway in the face. It displaces about 1kg of air, so it should weigh in at around the same mass. Disregarding tentacles and going for a smooth sphere, and assuming a low density of 1 kg/L for the solid parts, the average thickness is 0.2 mm. You'd punch through them like tissue paper.

Better to say they somehow evolved to put their proteins in anti-phase resonance with the ship's gravitational emitters.