Are viruses life?

Guest   Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:29 pm GMT
Are viruses life?
Intel Fanboy   Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:44 pm GMT
I suspect there's no sharp distinction between life and non-life. There's a continuous spectrum:

- non-concrete concepts
- inorganic combounds
- organic compounds
- prions, etc.
- viruses, etc.
- bacteria, cyanobacteria, etc.
- complex 1-celled organisms
- multi-cell organisms
- supernatural beings, God, etc.

All this could give the basis for a modern class system for languages, replacing the old Masculine, Femenine, and Neutral.
Guest   Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:49 pm GMT
Well, what about fire? Is fire life? It needs oxygen, it consumes, it gives off waste (smoke and ash), it grows and it can be "killed".
Another Guest   Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:50 pm GMT
Viruses are not usually thought to be living organisms. They lack organs and they cannot reproduce themselves.

Nor is fire life, since there is no evolution of fire.
Caspian   Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:56 pm GMT
Skywise   Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:08 pm GMT
<<... and they cannot reproduce themselves.>>

Sure, they can, that's why you get ill if you are infected. They use the host organism to reproduce.
Another guest   Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:00 pm GMT
<<Sure, they can, that's why you get ill if you are infected. They use the host organism to reproduce. >>

Viruses do not actually reproduce. The host organism produce more copies of a virus, but viruses, lacking own metabolism, cannot reproduce alone.

By organs I ment organelles.
virus lover   Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:13 pm GMT
virus is a life because
'Tis have organs
'Tis have a head
'Tis move
AMD Fanboy   Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:44 pm GMT
It's 'virii', not viruses.
Wang   Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:08 pm GMT
Anyone who says "virii" is an idiot.
7th Guest   Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:30 pm GMT
Ah yes, very clever.
Skywise   Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:15 pm GMT
Another guest Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:00 pm GMT:

>><<Sure, they can, that's why you get ill if you are infected. They use the host organism to reproduce. >>

Viruses do not actually reproduce. The host organism produce more copies of a virus, but viruses, lacking own metabolism, cannot reproduce alone.

By organs I ment organelles. <<


Another guest, you should read more thoroughly. Of course they can reproduce, but they cannot reproduce alone, hence I mentioned the host organism. As far as I can remember, ''organelles'' is a term refering to several functional bodies within a single cell, but a virus isn't a cell, and so lacking organelles. It's only an envelope and the viral RNA.
Jasper   Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:42 pm GMT
"It's 'virii', not viruses."

The use of "virii" as a plural of virus has been exposed as a piece of etymological folklore. To wit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus
Jasper   Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:44 pm GMT
"The use of "virii" as a plural of virus has been exposed as a piece of etymological folklore."

I need to rephrase that sentence.

"The belief that "virii" is an acceptable plural for "virus" has been exposed as a piece of etymological folklore."

I really need to be more diligent about proofreading my posts....
another guest   Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:25 pm GMT
Skywise,
Now I can see where your misunderstanding stems from. I said "they cannot reproduce themselves" instead of "they cannot reproduce by themselves".

In the second post I said that viruses don't actually reproduce, since viruses don't produce anything, but have their DNA/RNA replicated and their proteins produced by the host organism.

But what did I say about organelles (organs due to my mistyping)?