| Scientists classify something as biotic using several factors. Viruses lack one of these - independent reproduction. They require a host cell but in that same sense, so do parasites such as the H. pylori bacteria that require the host of a human's stomach to reproduce. So far, they are classified as biotic and viruses, not. Any thoughts? |
 |
| arent viruses not alive because they don't have a nucleas? |
 |
| wouldn't that make them symbiotic? |
 |
| Yes and no. Iirc viruses also lack the ability to maintain homeostasis or something along those lines. And viruses are composed solely of DNA and a protein shell, not cells. I remember reading an article that compared viruses to a seed: they both have the potential for life, but are not living yet. So it's more on the border between life and death Do you have a bio paper or something? Nanet said: Prokaryotes don't have nuclei either, and they are very much alive. arent viruses not alive because they don't have a nucleas? |
MushmallowDec 26, 2014 9:41 PM
 |
| Even though they require a host by doing so they are able to sustain themselves and thus stay "alive". So I would consider a virus to be a living organism especially with their ability to mutate and adapt to their environment. |
pseudoenigma said: wouldn't that make them symbiotic? Yes, parasitism is a form of symbiosis that I'm quite sure all viruses fall under. Cupquake said: Yes and no. Iirc viruses also lack the ability to maintain homeostasis or something along those lines Do you have a bio paper or something? I don't have a paper or anything. The thought literally popped up into my head and I wondered if MAL could help me out. Also, if the "Iirc virus" lacks the ability to maintain homeostasis, then it should be classified as abiotic. |
|
| i got no idea but my definition of life is anything that evolves and replicate itself and viruses also replicate themselves somewhat? |
| Also, some parasites are also unable to reproduce without a host. j0x said: Yes, the AIDS virus and influenza evolve like crazy. That's why you need a new flu shot every year.i got no idea but my definition of life is anything that evolves and replicate itself and viruses also replicate themselves somewhat? |
|
placid said: is there a reason something symbiotic isn't biotic? I mean it's part of the word, it's part of the action, I don't know anything else about it.pseudoenigma said: wouldn't that make them symbiotic? Yes, parasitism is a form of symbiosis that I'm quite sure all viruses fall under. |
|
Cupquake said: Also, some parasites are also unable to reproduce without a host. Exactly the point. Yet they are classified as biotic. Which would technically make a virus biotic. |
|
worldeditor11 said: Only until they are killed.Are humans alive? |
pseudoenigma said: placid said: is there a reason something symbiotic isn't biotic? I mean it's part of the word, it's part of the action, I don't know anything else about it.Yes, parasitism is a form of symbiosis that I'm quite sure all viruses fall under. Well as it stands under the noses of contemporary biological nomenclature, viruses are not biotic but are stated to be parasites which falls under symbiosis. |
|
placid said: ah, is that why people tend to look at NEETs badlypseudoenigma said: is there a reason something symbiotic isn't biotic? I mean it's part of the word, it's part of the action, I don't know anything else about it. Well as it stands under the noses of contemporary biological nomenclature, viruses are not biotic but are stated to be parasites which falls under symbiosis. |
|
| Viruses not only lack the capability to independently reproduce, they do not perform metabolism and therefore do not excrete waste nor do they respond to stimuli. However, scientists classify any biological species lacking any of the biotic factors to be considered abiotic and some parasitic organisms lack independent reproduction such as viruses but are considered biotic. That is the central question here. |
|
| This post is dangerously close to those wonderful things Jaden Smith posts. |
 |
Harrymanhunter said: no its not. This question is discussed in every legitimate biology class.This post is dangerously close to those wonderful things Jaden Smith posts. |
|
| I fully thought this was going to be about computer viruses. I should probably drink some bleach. |
| To my knowledge Cause is very much alive. |
placid said: The main reason is because they lack cell structure. They can be classified as living because they fit under some characteristics of life but they don't fit all of them. Can you give me some parasitic examples that you think don't deserve the characteristic of being living?Viruses not only lack the capability to independently reproduce, they do not perform metabolism and therefore do not excrete waste nor do they respond to stimuli. However, scientists classify any biological species lacking any of the biotic factors to be considered abiotic and some parasitic organisms lack independent reproduction such as viruses but are considered biotic. That is the central question here. Also LOL at the shitposts |
 |
NTAD said: worldeditor11 said: Only until they are killed.Are humans alive? Or die a natural death. Geez, don't be so cynical. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
| I think viruses challenge our understanding of the concepts of 'life' and 'death' because those classification were (though granted, still developing) established before we had a detailed understanding of viruses. maybe if virology had started and progressed at the same rate as studies of other (micro and macro) organisms, our definition of 'life' may be broader, allowing them to fit it. (or maybe the opposite!) 'Alive' and 'dead' are just classifications we have made up. IMO, viruses, like bacteria and higher organisms are just a bunch of molecules that have the ability to reproduce. They have just evolved in a much different way. A seemingly far more basic way, but still effective! That said, i'm open for discussion on what i've stated! i haven't done much study on viruses, so the above is really just my opinion with only basic understanding behind it! |
 |
| Virus are the gene manipulator tool of our creator. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-01/8-percent-human-dna-comes-virus-causes-schizophrenia |
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
azzuRe said: Virus are the gene manipulator tool of our creator. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-01/8-percent-human-dna-comes-virus-causes-schizophrenia fucking virus is the cause of my suffering |
| They'd be once they get a living body.. they're more like undead parasites. They'd steal nuclei and end up being living beings themselves.. until you're dead. |
  . |
j0x said: azzuRe said: Virus are the gene manipulator tool of our creator. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-01/8-percent-human-dna-comes-virus-causes-schizophrenia fucking virus is the cause of my suffering Or, that could also means that we all equally suffer from it. |
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
| Scientists are retarded when they define life with a universal definition. Life is different for each organism so its a very abstract concept. Viruses are alive but not the same way bacteria is. |
traedDec 27, 2014 7:14 AM
| Are you alive? Directed by M Night.Shyamalan. |
| I've been here way too long... |
| Yes. Justin Bieber and Miley Virus are alive. |
 |
| they are alive to a degree i would say that they can communicate or have will they only do what they are designed to do |
| They're not really alive, but at the same time they kinda are. I think I once read someone say that they're "organisms on the edge of life," and that sounds about right to me. |
Moog- said: They're not really alive, but at the same time they kinda are. I think I once read someone say that they're "organisms on the edge of life," and that sounds about right to me. Now they sound like Mushi... |
| I've been here way too long... |
TheConquerer said: Insects?Moog- said: They're not really alive, but at the same time they kinda are. I think I once read someone say that they're "organisms on the edge of life," and that sounds about right to me. Now they sound like Mushi... |
|
MechaKiryu said: TheConquerer said: Insects?Now they sound like Mushi... But Mushi is the basis of life, they are life itself in some sort of tangible form. In our society, we don't exactly use "viruses" to represent life itself, nor biologically do we define viruses as the most simple form of life. Though one could argue they are small than cells thus more simple than cells thus more "basic'. |
|
MechaKiryu said: No, the Mushi from Mushishi; not mushi as in insects.TheConquerer said: Insects?Now they sound like Mushi... |
| Viruses are non-living they just seem like they are living because they act alive and cause disease but they can't reproduce (they make copies of themselves to multiply). |
 |
j0x said: Move to Madagascar. You'll be able to avoid any virus ever.azzuRe said: Virus are the gene manipulator tool of our creator. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-01/8-percent-human-dna-comes-virus-causes-schizophrenia fucking virus is the cause of my suffering |
| "Dakimakura aren't meant for fucking." -Moog, January 2015 When a site's moderators warn you for condemning a troll, you know their moderators need to be changed out. |
VitaminCaim said: placid said: The main reason is because they lack cell structure. They can be classified as living because they fit under some characteristics of life but they don't fit all of them. Can you give me some parasitic examples that you think don't deserve the characteristic of being living?Viruses not only lack the capability to independently reproduce, they do not perform metabolism and therefore do not excrete waste nor do they respond to stimuli. However, scientists classify any biological species lacking any of the biotic factors to be considered abiotic and some parasitic organisms lack independent reproduction such as viruses but are considered biotic. That is the central question here. Also LOL at the shitposts Cell structure is not necessary to be considered as living. All prokaryotes lack membrane-bound organelles and are very much considered alive. Also, the seven functions of life - nutrition, growth, waste, metabolism, homeostasis, response, and reproduction - must all be present for something to be considered living. Viruses lack at the very least, reproduction [or at least independent reproduction (and according to scientists, that does not count as reproduction at all)] and can immediately be classified as entirely abiotic just because of that. I can't think of a parasitic organism that fits the criteria of abiotic but is classified as the contrary off the top of my head right now but I am sure that there are those that lack any of the seven functions of life and should therefore be classified as abiotic. RedRoseFring said: NTAD said: Only until they are killed. Or die a natural death. Geez, don't be so cynical. Humans should theoretically be immortal if cellular structure functions had no flaws - which they do obviously - but are not natural. So death is actually not natural. I can expand on this more if you'd like; I assure you I am not pulling this from nowhere. PLP said: I think viruses challenge our understanding of the concepts of 'life' and 'death' because those classification were (though granted, still developing) established before we had a detailed understanding of viruses. maybe if virology had started and progressed at the same rate as studies of other (micro and macro) organisms, our definition of 'life' may be broader, allowing them to fit it. (or maybe the opposite!) 'Alive' and 'dead' are just classifications we have made up. IMO, viruses, like bacteria and higher organisms are just a bunch of molecules that have the ability to reproduce. They have just evolved in a much different way. A seemingly far more basic way, but still effective! That said, i'm open for discussion on what i've stated! i haven't done much study on viruses, so the above is really just my opinion with only basic understanding behind it! I very much agree. However, following the nomenclature of biotic and abiotic classification that states that something must fulfill all 7 functions of life to be biotic - which is a laid out template for classification - we can determine on a biased manner what is living and what is not. It's all just a matter of perspective, really. We just listen to what scientists currently say because the majority trusts them. Hoppy said: Viruses are non-living they just seem like they are living because they act alive and cause disease but they can't reproduce (they make copies of themselves to multiply). Reproduction is one of the 7 functions of life that viruses cannot perform independently but many other parasites possess identical limitations and are classified as living. |
|
traed said: MechaKiryu said: No, the Mushi from Mushishi; not mushi as in insects.Insects? I really gotta stop mixing Japanese and English up. :/ I think anyone would've done this mistake though. |
|
More topics from this board
» What's the point of life?purple_rayn - 23 minutes ago |
2 |
by Zarutaku
»»
27 seconds ago |
|
» Do you ever miss old/former online friends?pludel2 - Apr 10 |
41 |
by Starchaser
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » representation or relatability ?ame - Apr 14 |
39 |
by PeripheralVision
»»
7 minutes ago |
|
» What age range do you find the most physically attractive?Ejrodiew - Apr 11 |
29 |
by LoveYourEyes
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» What does your username mean?DesuMaiden - 3 hours ago |
14 |
by AllGudNamesRGon
»»
14 minutes ago |