Jump to content

Are viruses alive? What are the connections they have with life?


1veedo

Recommended Posts

There's a lot of debate about whether or not viruses are alive, I know, which is why I chose it for my research paper. There still isn't a lot of good information out there, most is just personal opinion. I spent all evening in different libraries doing research but it seems most scientists havn't published much about it. There are good articles about the connections viruses have with living things (the development of the nucleus, etc), the history of viruses, and how they operate, but not much about whether they're alive.

 

I guess my conclusion will be that even if viruses are not alive, they still share a vital connection with other living creatures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read recently that the origins of viruses are theorised to lie in the basis of operons and "jumping genes". Apparently, some lengths of genetic code can spontaneously duplicate, jump to other places on the chromosome and do all sorts of wacky things. There are these bookend type things on the ends of these short strips of genetic code that allow this sort of "jumping". The theory is that after a gene was translated and made into a protein, a jumping gene jumped out of the genome and got tangled in it and then was shipped by the ER and Golgi Bodies outward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot of debate about whether or not viruses are alive' date=' I know, which is why I chose it for my research paper. There still isn't a lot of good information out there, most is just personal opinion. I spent all evening in different libraries doing research but it seems most scientists havn't published much about it. There are good articles about the connections viruses have with living things (the development of the nucleus, etc), the history of viruses, and how they operate, but not much about whether they're alive.

 

I guess my conclusion will be that even if viruses are not alive, they still share a vital connection with other living creatures.[/quote']

 

there's also been 60931802681 threads in the past about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to say no personally because they can't reproduce themselves - they need something else to do it for them, they can't move on their own (they reply on a carrier).

 

The experts however have come to no definite conclusion - the above is just my opinion :)

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to say no personally because they can't reproduce themselves - they need something else to do it for them, they can't move on their own (they reply on a carrier).

 

A number of organisms never move, and all heterotrophs to some extent can't reproduce on their own.

 

If you want a simple, Earth-centric definition, then say that life requires nucleic acids. I consider viruses clearly alive, but prions are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether viruses are alive or not is purely a matter of semantics - the meaning of words. In other words, decide on your definition of 'life', and then see if viruses measure up. It is not a purely scientific question.

 

My definition of life is something that includes the following three attributes.

 

1. It is based on organic chemistry.

2. It reproduces.

3. It evolves.

 

This is not too dissimilar to the nucleic acid definition postulated in a previous post. Just, perhaps, a little more precise.

 

Attribute 1 above is included purely to exclude some computer programs that reproduce and evolve. Some people would debate that the programs might be alive, but I suspect most biologists would dispute that point.

 

Attribute 3 is essential, since fire reproduces, and may be based on organic chemistry as fuel, but does not evolve.

 

Thus, these 3 attributes are the minimum required for a realistic definition of life.

 

My own view is that, based on this definition, viruses are alive.

They are only just alive, but still living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to say no personally because they can't reproduce themselves - they need something else to do it for them, they can't move on their own (they reply on a carrier).

I read an article in Discover that suggested that Viruses once had the means to multiply on their own and over time their evolution favored simplification, eventually leading to a parasitic form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's more wise to see viruses as something between life and nonlife. They share very important characteristics with living organisms, like the ability to reproduce, some form of genetic code, the ability to evolve. But they also lack characteristics; the ability to use energy to perform a task without help from the molecular machinery of a cell and autonomous self-reproduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Whether viruses are alive or not is purely a matter of semantics - the meaning of words. In other words' date=' decide on your definition of 'life', and then see if viruses measure up. It is not a purely scientific question.

 

My definition of life is something that includes the following three attributes.

 

1. It is based on organic chemistry.

2. It reproduces.

3. It evolves.

 

This is not too dissimilar to the nucleic acid definition postulated in a previous post. Just, perhaps, a little more precise.

 

Attribute 1 above is included purely to exclude some computer programs that reproduce and evolve. Some people would debate that the programs might be alive, but I suspect most biologists would dispute that point.

 

Attribute 3 is essential, since fire reproduces, and may be based on organic chemistry as fuel, but does not evolve.

 

Thus, these 3 attributes are the minimum required for a realistic definition of life.

 

My own view is that, based on this definition, viruses are alive.

They are only just alive, but still living.[/quote']

 

Would you consider a single molecule of DNA, e.g. a plasmid, alive?

The only difference between a plasmid and a virus is the presence of a protein coat.

The line between living and non-living isn't clear cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you consider a single molecule of DNA' date=' e.g. a plasmid, alive?

The only difference between a plasmid and a virus is the presence of a protein coat.

The line between living and non-living isn't clear cut.[/quote']

 

True, some scientists have pointed out that it is extremely difficult to even define what life is. Even the best definitions are just lists of traits from life as we know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

This has been a topic of debate for ages. Until now, it hasn't been resolved. Clearly, scientists should have a side on this matter but should remain skeptical. If someone would establish the requirements to categorize something as living or nonliving, there would still be questions such as this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.