Virus's: Life or non life?

Write4U said:
Those who consider the virus to be the infected cell also believe that viruses are alive.
Yep, waxing poetic.
Click to expand...

In my opinion viruses (spores) are the first system the first primitiv cells used "to" replicate and spread their genome.
 
Dicart said:
In my opinion viruses (spores) are the first system the first primitiv cells used "to" replicate and spread their genome.
Click to expand...
Can you please provide a (your) definition of LIFE

Readers Digest version ie very brief

Like - LIFE is - dar de dar de dar ......

:)
 
Last edited:
If viruses need living cells to replicate, does this mean they're alive? Is something only ''living'' if it doesn't require a host to keep it alive, and can't live independently? It seems like viruses fit into a grey area.
 
wegs said:
If viruses need living cells to replicate, does this mean they're alive? Is something only ''living'' if it doesn't require a host to keep it alive, and can't live independently? It seems like viruses fit into a grey area.
Click to expand...
LIFE is a PROCESS

Add to that LIFE is a bunch of chemicals able to SELF REPLICATE

Add to that LIFE does not come from dead material

So what if a virus hijacks a cell, able to reproduce itself, and changes the cells ability to make itself into a cell which produces hijackers cells

Since the virus is able to accomplish said hijacking and changing only if alive, not so if dead

Conclusion - viruses are alive

:)
 
Dicart said:
In my opinion viruses (spores) are the first system the first primitiv cells used "to" replicate and spread their genome.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if they do not meet all the standards of a "living organism", I would place them at the level of an intermediate stage, part biochemical, part alive.

It may even be used as one proof of "abiogenesis".
 
Michael 345 said:
LIFE is a PROCESS

Add to that LIFE is a bunch of chemicals able to SELF REPLICATE
Click to expand...

The replcation is not necessary to say something is alife
Steril beings are alive.

Conclusion - viruses are alive
Click to expand...

Conclusion, as no biochemical process occur in virus, virus is not alive.
There is not even water in virus, how could they do any biochemestry ?
Therefore VIRUS act like a SPORE, waiting to land on some substrat that will permit the STARTING of LIFE.
 
Write4U said:
Yes, but if they do not meet all the standards of a "living organism", I would place them at the level of an intermediate stage, part biochemical, part alive.

It may even be used as one proof of "abiogenesis".
Click to expand...

At some point.
A spore can lead to life, but it is not alife.
 
Dicart said:
The replcation is not necessary to say something is alife
Steril beings are alive.
Click to expand...
Are you serious?

Sure someone born with a DEFECT of sterility is alive

But we are talking about FUNDIMENTIAL LIFE not a individual life

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
But we are talking about FUNDIMENTIAL LIFE not a individual life
Click to expand...

What a joke is that ?
You are not alive because you do not fit the "fundamental" life concept ???!!!

No.
You can be alive for some short period of time.
It is not necessary to have a lineage to be considered alife !

Or what ?
There a dead and alive crows ? Nobody knows it before they have some descendants.
The one who will not have a lineage is a dead crow and the other is alife ?
What a joke !
 
Dicart said:
What a joke is that ?
You are not alive because you do not fit the "fundamental" life concept ???!!!
Click to expand...
This is a category error.
The definition of "life" applies at the species or phylogeny level. It is not applied to individuals.

Humans - the species - reproduce; therefore humans are living creatures.
It does not say anything about an individual person.

Dicart said:
What a joke !
Click to expand...
You are making a fool of yourself.
 
Very amusing.
You are now "studying the concept" and dont care about the individuals (the real facts)
Are you sure you are not a philosopher instead of a scientist ???
 
More amusing.
If you stay at the conceptual level of life, you can choose freely (per example you could say it is because it is blue) what ever property you want to fit to your believe (sounds like some religious tought).
If something/someone that is indeed part of the group the life concept apply, do not fit your freely choosen property, no problem for you : You can say that you are dealing at a more conceptual level of thinking (looks smart for some but not sufficient for me, sorry).

Could you please explain us how you do the measurement of your "conceptual value" using experimentation, please ?
 
Dicart said:
More amusing.
If you stay at the conceptual level of life, you can choose freely (per example you could say it is because it is blue) what ever property you want to fit to your believe (sounds like some religious tought).
If something/someone that is indeed part of the group the life concept apply, do not fit your freely choosen property, no problem for you : You can say that you are dealing at a more conceptual level of thinking (looks smart for some but not sufficient for me, sorry).

Could you please explain us how you do the measurement of your "conceptual value" using experimentation, please ?
Click to expand...

This is the only explanation you will receive to the posted twaddle above

Your post above is twaddle

,:)
 
Michael 345 said:
This is the only explanation you will receive to the posted twaddle above

Your post above is twaddle

,:)
Click to expand...

Ok then.
You dont understand that "life" is a concept used in philosphy and "life" is also an "operational concept" used in science.
So you are neither a philosoph or a scientist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top