Viruses: Living or Non-Living?

[Chain3r-]

Question to debate:"Are viruses living or Non-Living?"

This has been a major topic of debates for scientists in the past years. The majority of scientists consider them Non-Living, but what do you think?

[Induhvidual_1]

non living according to scientists because they lack the ability to replicate by themselves and rely on bacteria to do it.

[c9h13no3]

Non-Living. They're a big bag of DNA/RNA that floats around, hoping to bump into a bacteria. They don't actually DO anything. So yeah, not alive.

[senureMiget]

a virus is not a living orginism because in needs a host cells machenery to reproduce

hey i did learn something in biology

[Induhvidual_1]

heh, looks like everyone agrees.

Chain3r, I've reconsidered the question.

If virus try to replicate... then doesn't that show self-preservation in the sense that it's species wants to move on. That seems like an aspect of sentience.

[dP]

non living. theyre just computer things that go through your system. oh- real viruses. no they arent living either.

[Hot Action Akule]

Originally posted by DEAD_PeASENT2
non living. theyre just computer things that go through your system. oh- real viruses. no they arent living either.

lol is all i can say. And yeah they arent living.

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

Criteria that one may think of that define life include:

1. Movement
2. Sensitivity
3. Death
4. Complexity

Scientists have further refined the criteria to include:

1. Cellular organization
2. Growth and metabolism
3. Reproduction
4. Heredity

As long as they meet the requirements they're living.

non living according to scientists because they lack the ability to replicate by themselves and rely on bacteria to do it.

But they do replicate. Think of batieria as like a man is to a woman. Neither can reproduce without the other. I'm not saying they are living though = /.

[mistro5000]

they replicate, which means they are living

[Snagg]

They need bacteria to reproduce.. that's not man to woman, since we are same species. It's like man and monkey reproducin'.

[Magikarp]

Living is just a definition, and Im sure everyone here has a different concept of the term (Prior to ORCS post).

They move.

They sense (All 5 senses? Emphasize)

Death? Only living things can die, so this sort of contradicts itself.

Complexity? Depends on what you mean by "complexity." Certain things are complex compared to some things, but simple compared to others.

They do reproduce, though somewhat indirectly.

They have DNA (Or RNA). Therefore, they do have heredity.

Cellular Organization. Well, they don't have their own cells.. but they use cells. o.o''.

I suppose, by the scientific definition of living, that they are not alive.

Good topic, I might add.

[Plumpamania]

Yea, my science teacher back in HS, had an arguement with this kid who was a total Darwinist who tried to argue with no premis that virus' are alive.

Virus' aren't technically alive b/c they cannot support themselves. Even parasites can for short periods of time. A virus cannot live w/o a host, therefor not technically alive.

[~Canuck~]

I would say that they are living, but are a symbiotic species, hence the reliance on others for things like reproduction.

[cxoli]

Scientifically, they're not living. Like Rygon said, it's mainly based on your own personal definition of "living." As for me, I'd say they're not living because I agree with science :P

[CelestialBadger]

Originally posted by Rygon
Living is just a definition, and Im sure everyone here has a different concept of the term (Prior to ORCS post).

They move.

They sense (All 5 senses? Emphasize)

Death? Only living things can die, so this sort of contradicts itself.

Complexity? Depends on what you mean by "complexity." Certain things are complex compared to some things, but simple compared to others.

They do reproduce, though somewhat indirectly.

They have DNA (Or RNA). Therefore, they do have heredity.

Cellular Organization. Well, they don't have their own cells.. but they use cells. o.o''.

I suppose, by the scientific definition of living, that they are not alive.

Good topic, I might add.

You are not a human being based on my personal definition of the term.

Pffft...what a shitty argument.

[senureMiget]

when viruses are on their own, they are inert or non-living, but once inside a cell, the virus shares one component with all living things - reproduction.

http://www.kvhigh.com/documents/notes/reid/viruses.html

[Magikarp]

Originally posted by CelestialBadger
You are not a human being based on my personal definition of the term.

Pffft...what a shitty argument.

1) I wasn't arguing, I was questioning, in essence.

2) Because of the existence of viruses, the term "living" has undergone some adjusting, which is why this topic was brought up in the first place.

3) The word "human being" has not been brought into question, but the term 'living' has, which makes your critique a unsupported argument.

4) You can easily assess if a virus is living or not; scientifically, viruses are not living. If you disagree with some of the rules that construct the term "living" then it's really just an opinion.

[Galatia]

*...I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image...*

Stephen Hawkin

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

I think classifying computer virus's as life is streching the definition a bit too far, don't you think?

[CelestialBadger]

Originally posted by Rygon
1) I wasn't arguing, I was questioning, in essence.

2) Because of the existence of viruses, the term "living" has undergone some adjusting, which is why this topic was brought up in the first place.

3) The word "human being" has not been brought into question, but the term 'living' has, which makes your critique a unsupported argument.

4) You can easily assess if a virus is living or not; scientifically, viruses are not living. If you disagree with some of the rules that construct the term "living" then it's really just an opinion.

The point is that all argumentation needs to be based off of an agreed upon set of definitions. You can't argue a point based on the fact that your personal definition a word. That being said...

1) Whether you were arguing or not is a moot issue.

2) I disagree. You cannot change the definition of a word based on the fact that viruses exist. If viruses do not meet the current definition of living it doesn't mean that the definition is outdated, it simply means that viruses are not living.

3) It doesn't make my argument unsupported at all. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of your argument.

4) My point exactly. However it isn't within a person's right in a debate to arbitrarily form an opinion on the definition of a word.