Are Viruses Considered Living Organisms?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FZ+
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the debate on whether viruses are considered "alive." Participants argue that the definition of "alive" is crucial to this question, with some asserting that viruses lack key characteristics of life, such as metabolism and independent reproduction. Viruses can reproduce only within a host cell, relying on the host's machinery, which leads to the conclusion that they do not meet the criteria for being alive. Others suggest that viruses may represent a form of life that has evolved from more complex organisms, but this is contested. The conversation highlights the complexity of defining life, with references to various biological concepts and philosophical perspectives. Ultimately, there is no consensus, as the definition of life itself remains ambiguous, leading to differing opinions on the status of viruses.

Are viruses alive?


  • Total voters
    16
  • #31
Rader
Everthing exchanges information and energy and under casually efficacious circumstances, complexity increases. Changes in the physical state of viruses and there higher hierarchy, meet these conditions.
Don't also chemical (chaotic) clocks a la Prigogine's nonequilibrium thermodynamics?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
"From the eye of the I"

Loren Booda said:
Rader Don't also chemical (chaotic) clocks a la Prigogine's nonequilibrium thermodynamics?

You know Loren, you have a keen eye, or you are a chat bot library. Although his work lead here, I think we know that the reason lies deeper.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1978/JASA9-78Albert.html
 
Last edited:
  • #33
LW Sleeth said:
You caught me being lazy there :rolleyes:. Okay, what if my bicycle wheels were connected to a belt that ran an assembly line which robotically produced other bicycles.

Interesting. But the robots had to 'construct' not 'produce' another of its counter-part, which doesn't even include one of its own kind. A bicycle would have to reproduce its self, not a robot doing it for another mechanical object. That bicycle which was constructed doesn't even embody the same features as its creator, most likely. Even so, the robot that manufactures the bicycles needs an operator, and that operator [if isn't human] has another robot to control "order" in manufacturing. So by default a human had to create the robot that constructs the bicycles from assembly lines. :biggrin:

Life in this process hasn't been produced, only constructed from still inanimate objects, constructing a more mechanical-moving machine.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Jeebus:
What is the difference between "to produce" and "to construct"?
 
  • #35
Imparcticle said:
Jeebus:
What is the difference between "to produce" and "to construct"?

Heh, I knew I was going to have this question. I shouldn't have used 'construct', but it by no means effects the analogy.

This is how I see it. Production of living organisms mentioned above reproduces other organisms to produce a new organism. (Virus) --> To construct, in my term above is already made up of mechanical mechanisms of inanimate objects to begin with, including scrap metal, nuts, bolts, gears, etc, that is what I was referring to as constructing a larger, more intelligent robot constructing a lesser robot of less intelligence, ergo the bicycle is formed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
28K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K