of course I am entitled to say it. Isn't a bit ridiculous to actually state that a virus isn't alive? It is definately a product of evolution. A scaled down organism. It doesn't do any metabolizing? So what? It certainly replicates in a biological sound manner. Is it being punished for being a parasite? "No, you evil virus, you can't be alive. You make me sick..." Do all cells metabolize? Who is metabolizing in our own cells? We certainly are dependent on mitochondria. They are technically not really our cell. Our cells would die without them. Mitochondria would die without the cell. A virus cannot live without a cell. A cell can live without a virus. The distinctions are all very superficial once you start thinking about them. Of course someone might have read a definition somewhere. So what. Science is what goes on in your own head coupled with how it correlates to common opinion. Clearly metabolism as a characteristic sucks. Let's start by defining life as everything evolution has produced and is still replicating at some point in time or functions to support this function.
So then a computer virus is alive as well? Many can be made to evolve and modify there programs on a Darwinian concept, thus any computer simulation using Darwinian evolution is alive.
evolve and 'evolution' are 2 different things. I could of course have spilled it out for you by saying Let's start by defining life as everything biological evolution as described by the theory of evolution by means of natural selection and possibly auxillary mechanisms has produced and is still replicating at some point in time or functions to support this function. although if we really define 'life' and not just what is still alive we should have said: Everything biological evolution has ever produced.
Well sorry, I just thought you needed a little more complex definition of life then the one you presented.
I think you were thinking that apparent complexity is equal to apparent intelligence (of the poster).
No I never said such a thing! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think you get offended easily. I was saying that your definition had exception that needed to be accounted for, the text book definition of life is long, boring but through and has 6 criteria for all life to fit to be defined as such, the criteria though proclaim virii not the be alive, some of us can live with that others try to define life in a new ways that do not have the problems the standard definition has. I respect your definition but I believe it needs to be polished and enhance before it can be consider a serious threat to the standard definition.
uh...i want to threaten the standard definition? I'm merely pointing out that it is a stupid to even consider virri not part of life. And didn't I tell you before not to read textbooks. They are stupid.
Then your threatening the standard definition, you believe virii should consider alive you will need to make a new definition of life. Also text-books are filled with very confirmed theories, methods and ideologies, though this may make them conservative and prone to constant revisions it does not make them stupid. I don't think there is any peer-review article that directly defines life, I think this is more of a issue of philosophy rather then science.
I think I gave you a definition...you referred to the textbook. I referred to the fact that it is a stupid one...you ask me to give a new definition....i refer you back to my definition.
You pointed out the error in why DNA in a jar is not alive by your definition? All I see is an Ad hom. Fallacy: me being anal does change how well DNA in a jar fits your definition of life. If you said well if that DNA is reproducing then its alive then I would have said ok, and look for another exception, if I could not find one then I would proclaim your definition a competitor to the standard.
