Defining Life: The Debate Over Whether Viruses Qualify

  • Thread starter Thread starter SpaceGuy50
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Life
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
99 replies · 16K views
SpaceGuy50
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Are viruses life?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
What are your thoughts on the matter?
 
symbolipoint said:
Are virii irritable?
As a discrete unit, no.

scymbolipoint said:
Can they reproduce?
As a discrete unit, no.

Virii corrupt living cells. Arguably, it is the living cells that is doing the irritation and reproduction.
 
Last edited:
One of the main issues with discussions whether viruses are living or not, is that we are trying to establish a discontinuous, essentialist barrier on what is most probably a continuous transition. None of the proteins, carbohydrates or lipids in your body are alive, however, in certain configurations together with other building blocks, something we call life emerge on a higher level of analysis (but of course completely explicable from these basic building blocks; no particular elan vital or life force).
 
DaveC426913 said:
As a discrete unit, no.
Virii corrupt living cells. Arguably, it is the living cells that is doing the irritation and reproduction.
Virii have inheritable traits that they pass on to their offspring so they are alive.
They can't reproduce without a host cell but lots of species can't reproduce without a host body, from tape worms to cuckoos.
 
mgb_phys said:
Virii have inheritable traits that they pass on to their offspring so they are alive.
Logical phallacy: hasty conclusion. That is not the only criteria for life.
[/QUOTE]
 
all living systems depend on some external factors beyond their control for survival. we depend on the sun for energy. are we therefore not really alive?

reproduction and the ability to evolve are the 2 most basic necessities for life. but like all categories, inclusion within the category 'living' is not all or nothing. see the wikipedia article on 'fuzzy logic' for more on that idea.
 
I'd like to see some examples of creatures that can't reproduce on their own -- I'm sure there are some corner cases. That might be an illuminating comparison.

Grammar nazi alert:
1 virus, 2 viruses; 1 criterion, 2 criteria.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Logical phallacy
Whatever you say, Freud.
 
granpa said:
all living systems depend on some external factors beyond their control for survival. we depend on the sun for energy. are we therefore not really alive?

reproduction and the ability to evolve are the 2 most basic necessities for life. but like all categories, inclusion within the category 'living' is not all or nothing. see the wikipedia article on 'fuzzy logic' for more on that idea.

Hard to evolve if you cannot reproduce.
 
cesiumfrog said:
Whatever you say, Freud.
:bugeye::-p
 
CRGreathouse said:
I'd like to see some examples of creatures that can't reproduce on their own -- I'm sure there are some corner cases. That might be an illuminating comparison.

Grammar nazi alert:
1 virus, 2 viruses; 1 criterion, 2 criteria.
Then you don't believe in:
1 forum, 2 fora
1 vox, 2 voxen
 
Every living this is dependent on something, as has been said. I don't think that virii require host cellular machinery is sufficient to rule out virii are "alive".

Really, this could all be straightened out if we had a better definition of life.
 
philnow said:
Every living this is dependent on something, as has been said. I don't think that virii require host cellular machinery is sufficient to rule out virii are "alive".
But it's more than merely a dependency. Sorry, I can't back that up with facts...

philnow said:
Really, this could all be straightened out if we had a better definition of life.
(Sorry phil, but I gotta: :-p) This is kind of stating the exceedingly obvious. No discussion of "is a virus alive" in the history of the universe has gone more than 3 nanoseconds before resulting in the question "what is the definition of life"? And it's never been satisafactorily answered.
 
Moridin said:
Hard to evolve if you cannot reproduce.
what is your point exactly?
 
SpaceGuy50 said:
Are viruses life?

Good question. Thank you. (A nice break from what I had planned to do.:cool:) What came to my mind is a quote, "Viruses today spread genes among bacteria and humans and other cells, as they always have... We are our viruses " by Lynn Margulis, 1998, Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution, Basic Books, 1998. p 64. This link tells you about Lynn Margulis. If you would like more information about her I can provide it.:smile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis

And what a fasinating and awe inspiring world it tiss even when one is flat out tired from a four day wedding event of a good friend.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Logical phallacy: hasty conclusion. That is not the only criteria for life.
No - but it's a good one :biggrin:

The question is of course - what is life? I was just putting forward one definition.
 
That's more of a definition of one of the factors in a list of criteria for life. That sole statement has never been a definition of life in itself.
 
granpa said:
what is your point exactly?

Reproduction is already included in the criteria for evolution, so it is uncalled for to state it a second time.
 
mgb_phys said:
The question is of course - what is life? I was just putting forward one definition.

Good answer. The question is too. :smile: What is life?

Here's an excerpt from NASA-Astrobiology Roadmap, Goal 3: Understand how life emerges from cosmic and planetary precursors, Perform observational, experimental and theoretical investigations to understand the general physical and chemical principles underlying the origins of life:

Origins and evolution of functional biomolecules. Life can be understood as a chemical system that links a common property of organic molecules—the ability to undergo spontaneous chemical transformation—with the uncommon property of synthesizing a copy of that system. This process, unique to life, allows changes in a living molecular system to be copied, thereby permitting Darwinian-like selection and evolution to occur. At the core of the life process are polymers composed of monomeric species such as amino acids, carbohydrates, and nucleotides. The pathways by which monomers were first incorporated into primitive polymers on the early Earth remain unknown, and physical properties of the products are largely unexplored. A primary goal of research on the origin of life must be to understand better the sources and properties of primitive polymers on the early Earth, and the evolutionary pathway by which polymerization reactions of peptides and oligonucleotides became genetically linked.
http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/roadmap/g3.html

Science is my baby! I just love it!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ViewsofMars said:
Life can be understood as a chemical system that links a common property of organic molecules—the ability to undergo spontaneous chemical transformation—with the uncommon property of synthesizing a copy of that system. This process, unique to life, allows changes in a living molecular system to be copied...
Except that it is a definition of organic life.
 
Origins and evolution of functional biomolecules. Life can be understood as a chemical system that links a common property of organic molecules—the ability to undergo spontaneous chemical transformation—with the uncommon property of synthesizing a copy of that system. This process, unique to life, allows changes in a living molecular system to be copied,
There are self-catalysing chemical reactions for which this is true.
there are even a couple of them that take different pathways depending on external conditions and so can be said to adapt. But they don't pass on the 'chosen' properties so don't have inheritance.
 
Ahhh, a meeting of the minds! Remember it wasn't me that brought up this sub-topic, What is Life?.:biggrin: I admit it is a worthy pursuit and am grateful for the input and our ability to learn by sharing.:smile: By far, that is highly important to me and other interested parties.:wink: I'm not in the mode to critique only examine pertinent material while enjoying what I love - Science.

Let’s continue onward and further explore by reading the Nobel Prize Organization’s 'perspectives' of What is Life? Erwin Schrödinger's idea that physics could help solve biological riddles was the spark that led many researchers to try to unlock the secrets behind our book of life, the structure of DNA.
http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/imaginglife/documents/article_med_1962.html

As well as WHAT IS LIFE? , ERWIN Schrödinger, published 1944. What is life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell. Based on lectures delivered under the auspices of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies at Trinity College, Dublin, in February 1943.
http://whatislife.stanford.edu/Homepage/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf

I discover something new each time I open a new door. I did wholeheartedly agree with what the Nobel Prize Organization noted "Looking at heredity from his perspective, Schrödinger argued that life could be thought of in terms of storing and passing on biological information. Understanding life, which would invariably involve discovering the gene, could possibly go beyond the laws of physics as was known at the time, he stated."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moridin said:
One of the main issues with discussions whether viruses are living or not, is that we are trying to establish a discontinuous, essentialist barrier on what is most probably a continuous transition. None of the proteins, carbohydrates or lipids in your body are alive, however, in certain configurations together with other building blocks, something we call life emerge on a higher level of analysis (but of course completely explicable from these basic building blocks; no particular elan vital or life force).

Wouldn't that mean they are just pseudo life, in that they cannot live on their own? I would say viruses weren't living things but rather a type of false life as they can't live without infecting a host organism.
 
Erm, so you're implying that they're "alive" when they infect a host but "false alive" when on their own?
 
philnow said:
Erm, so you're implying that they're "alive" when they infect a host but "false alive" when on their own?
Yes. Without a host, they do not metabolize at all; they are nothing more than fragments of DNA in a shell. (Caveat: My facts may be out-of-date and this may be oversimplifying.)
 
//:phoenix:\\ said:
Wouldn't that mean they are just pseudo life, in that they cannot live on their own? I would say viruses weren't living things but rather a type of false life as they can't live without infecting a host organism.

Wouldn't this mean that no parasites are living?
 

Similar threads

The debate over WHY sex evolved
  • pcvt
  • · Replies 5 ·
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
5
Medical Personal conflict over whether or not to start hormones
  • G037H3
  • · Replies 12 ·
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
12