× Didn't find what you were looking for? Ask a question
Top Posters
Since Sunday
t
7
m
6
k
6
F
5
j
5
t
5
j
5
G
5
f
5
a
5
d
5
c
5
New Topic  
robinson12 robinson12
wrote...
Posts: 13
Rep: 0 0
11 years ago
why or why not?
Read 864 times
4 Replies

Related Topics

Replies
wrote...
11 years ago
Yes, i'd think so!
wrote...
11 years ago
In my multiple biology courses I have taken, this is a common topic of discussion.  The general consensus seems to be that they are not alive, because even though they have genetic material, they cannot multiply by themselves.  They have to use a host's body in order to do so.  And this is different from parasites because parasites only have to rely on a host in order to survive.  They can multiply all by themselves (by multiplying, I mean copying their genetic material using their own mechanisms, rather than relying on the host's mechanisms).

One quick interesting thought just for fun (since it comes up in discussions about life too).  Think about fire.  By many definitions of 'alive', it qualifies!  Needs energy to thrive (both fuel and oxygen), can multiply by itself, etc.  I know it is not alive.  It's just a fun thought!
wrote...
11 years ago
Most scientist will say no. But, I agrue this point. Most viruses have a protective protein around there genetic material. When they come in contact with our cells they shed that protein and infuse our cells with there DNA. To me this is a clear reaction to their immediate environment. Any response to outside change proves that it is life to me.
wrote...
11 years ago
I'm only a dog, so you may want to discount my view, which seems different than most.  I'm still kicking, so I think I should at least be heard.

My view is that the question, if it asks weather viruses are alive or not, is a bad question.  Here is why:  the classification of all things into two categories, living or non-living, is too coarse.  Darwin classified all things into 3 classes:  plants, animals, or minerals.  That was too coarse too.  Now there are, in one system, 5 kingdoms for "living things".  My view is that viruses are neither living nor dead, in the usual sense of those words.  They ride the fence.  They need a third category, call it what you want (how does 'the living dead' sound? Just kidding).  Maybe there should even be some kind of life-continuum-scale from the stone to the dog.  On that scale viruses might even be placed at different places, during different periods (quiescent or active) of their 'existence'.  Just my thoughts to consider.
New Topic      
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  1049 People Browsing
Related Images
  
 67
  
 4220
  
 234
Your Opinion
What's your favorite coffee beverage?
Votes: 299

Previous poll results: Do you believe in global warming?