Quantcast

Is Virus alive?

bob 2012/08/06 16:56:57
Viruses challenge our concept of what "living" means
Virus is alive
Virus is not alive
Virus is nothing more then a genetic poison
The huge population of viruses, combined with their rapid rates of replication and mutation, makes them the world’s leading source of genetic innovation: they constantly “invent” new genes. And unique genes of viral origin may travel, finding their way in
Viruses have their own, ancient evolutionary history, dating to the very origin of cellular life.
Viruses are satin’s messenger
Viruses directly exchange genetic information with living organisms—that is, within the web of life itself.
Viruses are thought to be the simplest of all living, gene-bearing life-forms
Viruses are simply nonliving parasites of living metabolic systems.
Viruses, though not fully alive, may be thought of as being more than inert matter: they verge on life
Viruses are fundamental players in the Evolution
Viruses today are thought of as being in a gray area between living and nonliving
Undecided
All of the above
None of the above
You!
Add Photos & Videos
+1
Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • caius madison 2012/08/08 04:39:27
    Virus is nothing more then a genetic poison
    caius madison
    +1
    They are more like a nanomed that hurts not heals. They seem to exist simply to replicate, and conquer all before them.
    reply
  • Matt M 2012/08/07 05:14:49
    Viruses challenge our concept of what "living" means
    Matt M
    +1
    Somewhere there is a boundary between chemical and biological. That's somewhere around prions or viruses. Conventions say prion are not alive. And people argue about viruses.

    Who cares. It's like is Pluto a planet. It's just a thing sitting at a boundary of a definition.
    reply
  • buneter 2012/08/07 01:01:24
    Viruses challenge our concept of what "living" means
    buneter
    +1
    its smart enough to know what it has to do to breed so its alive but it doesnt have a brai it's goal in life and the only thing it knows hwo to do is latch on and reproduce
    reply
  • manendu 2012/08/06 23:10:49
    Viruses are simply nonliving parasites of living metabolic systems.
    manendu
    +1
    ys, that's it.......
    reply
  • Doc. J 2012/08/06 23:00:35
    Viruses today are thought of as being in a gray area between living and nonli...
    Doc. J
    +1
    The best answer I could give is:

    "Yes and No".

    Here's a scary little one for you, meet Ebola:
    Ebola
    reply
  • Merry☆ 2012/08/06 22:54:08
    Virus is not alive
    Merry☆
    +1
    Simply put, no. It doesn't have the qualifications to be considered "alive." (They are not made up of cells, they do not reproduce on their own...) They're just freaky little robot... things. Just a code that found a way to be copied.
    reply
  • chuck 2012/08/06 20:33:00
    Virus is not alive
    chuck
    +2
    He was my dog
    reply
  • Crypt_H... chuck 2012/08/06 21:50:01
    Crypt_Heart
    Poor Virus T_T
    reply
  • yogamartial 2012/08/06 20:26:11
    None of the above
    yogamartial
    +1
    It has legs
    reply
  • frank 2012/08/06 19:16:52
    None of the above
    frank
    +1
    The way the question is worded I need to answer Yes
    reply
  • Soot The Fallen 2012/08/06 19:15:39
    Virus is not alive
    Soot The Fallen
    +2
    Its only purpose is to insert its dna into that of a "living" cell its not an complete cell therfore i dont belive it can be considered life.
    reply
  • Radical Ed 2012/08/06 19:07:20
    Virus is alive
    Radical Ed
    +1
    i actually don't know. you'd have to define the idea of life before we can get truly into such a topic.
    reply
  • bob Radical Ed 2012/08/06 21:24:00
    bob
    true
    reply
  • Kozmo 2012/08/06 18:06:07 (edited)
    Viruses, though not fully alive, may be thought of as being more than inert m...
    Kozmo
    +1
    Would've liked to add the "Viruses today are thought of as being in a gray area between living and nonliving" option as a 2nd or co-choice.

    Prions (malignant mutated proteins), which cause Mad Cow/Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, (possibly Scrapie in sheep too) & Kuru can also grow & spread from creature to creature are even simpler than Viri.

    This debate has gone to an even smaller scale now.
    reply
  • Soot Th... Kozmo 2012/08/06 19:12:39
    Soot The Fallen
    +1
    Thank god thiers some one with knowledge so that i dont have to explain much. Not that i was going to any way , but thats not the point.
    reply
  • Horace 2012/08/06 18:04:58
    Viruses today are thought of as being in a gray area between living and nonli...
    Horace
    +2
    A fascinating discussion I was under the impression that it was not technically alive because they require other lifeforms in order to reproduce, but on the other hand in one way or another we all need other organisms to do so, so I'm not sure, I would love to hear other opinions on this.
    reply
  • Icarus 2012/08/06 16:59:23
    Virus is alive
    Icarus
    +2
    Viruses are alive, because they evolve.
    reply
  • Kozmo Icarus 2012/08/06 18:09:41 (edited)
    Kozmo
    +1
    By mutation only, not by meiosis as other (higher) creatures do. Different strategies.
    reply
  • Icarus Kozmo 2012/08/06 21:01:38
    Icarus
    Right, but they replicate, they have genetic code, they have populations which evolve... that seems more like life than non-life to me.
    reply
  • Kozmo Icarus 2012/08/07 08:22:59 (edited)
    Kozmo
    Like asexual creatures they simply clone themselves most of time, their prodigious mutations give them (fairly frequent) quantum leaps to evolve by whereas sexual creatures do so gradually & spontaneous (& successful) mutations are magnitudes rarer. With my initial comment to this question I've mentioned that prions (Mad Cow) which are distorted protein molecules can self-replicate (by what mechanism? no R/DNA) & spread to other creatures by ingestion, so in this case, the bar's been lowered.

    This appears to shift viri more into the Life category but they still need to hijack them which looks like (to me) they've retreated a step or so before resuming their progress &, therefore, appeared AFTER the development of cellular creatures.
    reply
  • Icarus Kozmo 2012/08/07 12:02:15
    Icarus
    I suppose the world doesn't always readily confirm to our wish to catalogue and compartmentalise it. I think the definition of life based on evolution is probably better than the old '7 characteristics of life' thing I learned in school, but it's not perfect.
    reply
  • Kozmo Icarus 2012/08/09 10:12:38 (edited)
    Kozmo
    Don't recall hearing about the '7'. Just conjecturing off the top of my head without looking online for info. Relativity is another Theory but almost taken for granted despite 80 years of trying to detect gravity waves (they distort space-time itself, speculate you need a reference OUTSIDE of this to actually observe).
    reply
  • Icarus Kozmo 2012/08/09 10:28:52
    Icarus
    +1
    Fair enough.
    reply
  • Merry☆ Icarus 2012/08/06 22:55:54
    Merry☆
    But they only evolve through mistakes in copying. And besides, I don't think that's the only qualification for "life."
    reply
  • Icarus Merry☆ 2012/08/06 22:58:09
    Icarus
    "But they only evolve through mistakes in copying."

    So do we.
    reply
  • Merry☆ Icarus 2012/08/06 23:05:37
    Merry☆
    +1
    I suppose that's right.
    reply

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2013/06/20 08:59:09

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals