Jump to content

Thought To Ponder


ERDoc

Recommended Posts

So the barely noninsultive discussion on abortion got me thinking and I was curious to see what others thought. Are viruses "alive"? If so, are they more highly evolved or less highly evolved that other living organisms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the barely noninsultive discussion on abortion got me thinking and I was curious to see what others thought. Are viruses "alive"? If so, are they more highly evolved or less highly evolved that other living organisms?

Yes, they are alive. I'd go with less evolved just on the idea that they change so frequently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They might be alive, but I wouldn't call them sentient. If they're alive, they're alive in the same sense as moss, say.

I don't know if you can use the moss comparison. Moss is able to live on its own. Viruses require a host in order to survive. I think you could look at in two ways. They are either less evolved and require the assistance of another living organism to survive or they are more evolved. They have evolved to the point that they have minimized the necessary amount of organic matter necessary to survive and have put the burden on the host organism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will take it a step deeper: Just like in the cellular level in the body, every body cell has a purpose or "job", what if we (humans) are just cells in a much larger creature. Maybe we EMTs are the red blood cells of this being, charged with transporting oxygen to an fro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will take it a step deeper: Just like in the cellular level in the body, every body cell has a purpose or "job", what if we (humans) are just cells in a much larger creature. Maybe we EMTs are the red blood cells of this being, charged with transporting oxygen to an fro.

"Pass the Dutchie on the leaft heand seide..." :P

As the Doc has already mentioned, viruses need a foreign host in order to reproduce, so they don't fit the typical criteria of a living organism.

Calling viruses "less evolved" than ourselves could also be argued, seeing they are responsible for wiping millions of us out, throughout the dawn of man, and will continue to do so as long as we walk the Earth. What viruses lack in not having opposable thumbs, they make up for with the ability to survive higher altitudes, lower depths, as well as being able to withstand a greater variation in temperature and pH. They are everywhere we have ever been, and everywhere we will ever go.

Viruses are here to stay, and yes, I would call them living organisms - atypical living organisms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will take it a step deeper: Just like in the cellular level in the body, every body cell has a purpose or "job", what if we (humans) are just cells in a much larger creature. Maybe we EMTs are the red blood cells of this being, charged with transporting oxygen to an fro.

Well crotch, that blows most theological theories out the door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue that viruses are not alive because they lack the ability to independently reproduce as well as grow. They inject their own genetic material (and possibly a few proteins depending on the type of DNA or RNA transmitted) and and another organism for all of the normal functions of life. This is different than, say, a parasite which needs another organism to provide a source of nutrition or a proper environment, but still carry out all of their own cellular functions.

If a virus is alive, then it could very well be argued that a prion is alive. If prions are considered alive, then there really isn't much distinction between alive and not alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ye olde freshman bio debate. Is a virus alive? What constitutes "alive" by scientific definitions?

One could argue that humans cannot reproduce alone- they require 2 conjugal parties to create another living organism.

Viruses cannot reproduce alone- they require a host to hijack machinery from in order to reproduce.

Do we make the claim on the basis of RNA vs DNA? How about the presence of an actual cell? Cell machinery? Ability to reproduce independently? Lots of good places to argue from here (as intellectual exercise..)

Wendy

CO EMT-B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn it, JP. You're always beating me to it and posting my same replies before I can.

The definition of of life arbitrary. It was first created when we knew much less about science. We still need a term to define what most of us mean by life and most terms I've read require independent reproduction and response to environment/change. I see the latter as almost more "life like" than other factors. So, as a 'scientist', I would say no.

If one modified the definition to allow reproduction by any means, then we could in fact include viruses and prions...as well as computer viruses and even social memes (ideas..fads...even the "25 Things" surveys on Facebook). They are just molecules (or electrons on your screen) arranged just right so that other "alive" or" non-alive" factors cause them to replicate (RNA, etc). Some could see us as very lucky random pieces of matter that happened to be arranged just right a very long time ago so that we interacted with environment just right to carry on reproduction.

Independent of religion (I grew up Catholic), even as a kid learning biology, this seemed the most logical explanation/view of the world to me.

Also, as far as fetuses being parasites, they remain so even after birth. They feed off the resources of the mother (food, shelter, money), albeit voluntarily. Though, for most in this country, the early fetus stage of the parasite is voluntary as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...