CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
But DNA encapsulated into a protein capsule does not equate life.
Understand that DNA is only a molecule consisting of Deoxy-ribo-nucleic acid. It does not "have life" until it infests a truly living organic cell's mitochondria.
Also know that said DNA molecule is basically a switch. And not really a living one. It can be coded to be on or off. Much like a transistor in an electronic device.
Yeah, right. You were an embryo, but you were not alive when you were an embryo? At what point in time did you become alive, so that the embryo was not you but you became you at what point in time as the embryo grew?
Your assertion about viruses is philosophical. The question of whether they are alive or not is scientific here. You are going off, way off, into never-never land by your meaningless assertion that "they are alive, but they do not have lives". How can anything be alive without having a life? That's nonsense.
To me, it's not a question of being alive, its a question of HAVING a life. When you take your first "life giving breath" you begin to have relatives, friends, an education, a purpose, a future and a past. I feel one who has these things takes priority over a living cell or embryo. My wife, my family and THEIR "lives" take precedence over a living embryo. When YOU have the experience of having to choose between the "life" of your wife, or the "life" of your daughter over a "living embryo", as I did, I think you may feel differently and understand what I am saying. A good "life" is something worth saving. Many "living things" are NOT as valuable, like many viruses, germs and those people who are only alive because it's illegal to kill them. I'm sure you could think of a few.
I don't think of anybody as not having value. We are all made in God's image, and if the worst of humanity were the only people on the planet, Christ died for them the same as you or I, He would have died for them even if it as only for Hitler and Isis. Christ died for us all, we all deserve to die and burn in Hell.
You can't live a good life, all you have is dying which proves you are corrupt and not good. You're only trying to fool yourself saying you live a good life.
I don't know where you are going on this rambling rabbit trail, but you can be saved today and know you have eternal life. If all you want is the temporary struggles of your "goodness", all of your time in dying here is the best you will ever have.
Unless you are the re-incarnation of that 2-9-20-3-8! who shamed my great nation, NO! Viruses are not alive! They are not your friends and you CANNOT carry out biological experiments!
PS: I don't believe in re-incarnation. I simply said that to insult YOUR STUPID question! (No offense) Hmmm...well maybe that did sound offensive so I am adding another 1 "no offense" since I am simply stating the truth and in no way mean any offense to you. (No offense)
Viruses are inert and thus lifeless until they infiltrate a living cell and begin to "hijack" its mitochondrial DNA so as to replicate.
As far as viruses meeting the so-called Six Rules of Living Things, they iun fact DO once they infiltrate the aforementioned living organic cell.
Here are the Big 6........
Listed here are the six rules used by scientists:
Living things are made of cells.
Living things obtain and use energy.
Living things grow and develop.
Living things reproduce.
Living things respond to their environment.
Living things adapt to their environment.
The only caveat to this list for viruses is that although they are per se not MADE OF or comprised of cells, they do in fact ensconcse themselves into them. Thus attaining the equivalent characteristic.
I almost decided to take Virology as my field of emphasis in Biology, but instead chose Evolutionary Psychology/Biology. Thus I am pretty well familiar with all aspects of Virology.
Please let me know if you need any clarification on this post, or have any other questions or comments pertaining to the truly fascinating field of Virology. I have a couple of inter-active links I use to teach undergrads that I believe you will find fascinating.
Definition of cell: the smallest structural and functional unit of an organism, typically microscopic and consisting of cytoplasm and a nucleus enclosed in a membrane. Microscopic organisms typically consist of a single cell, which is either eukaryotic or prokaryotic
They do have a capsid made of proteins, and DNA. That is enough to be made of cells.
Living things obtain and use energy.
So do viruses. Want proof? Many viruses like ebola are dormant for years. Every few years they become active. They need energy to do this, don't they? And it is true. they don't get it themselves. They take it from host cells, but I believe this still counts.
Living things grow and develop.
Viruses develop. They undergo genetic mutations when exposed to extreme stimuli.
Living things reproduce. Viruses reproduce. It has to be in a cell, but they reproduce.
Living things respond to their environment. They definitely react to stimuli. Acidity and heat are major stimuli for them.
Living things adapt to their environment. So do viruses. You and I both know viruses evolve over time. Therefore, they adapt to their changing environment. This is scary because their may soon be a virus that is genetically indestructible.
Tbh, I could argue both sides but I chose this side so I can see how you respond.
You are definitely smarter than me in the field of Virology, so please explain how I am wrong.
I know this has been disputed by virologists for years, so I do not have a stance on it right now. Please convince me!
It sounds like they are indeed alive, though a very strange form of life. You did a pretty good job on this side of the argument, I'd like to see the other side.
Personally, I believe they are not alive but rather are rogue pieces of DNA which at some point in time were separated from living cells so they have a natural affinity for living cells...accidents of nature. I think they are nothing but fallout of the progression of systems breaking down. Eventually viruses would disappear when all living cells are broken down. There would be nothing but viruses left if all living cells died now, and they would be unable to survive because they do not have the capacity to reproduce themselves outside of living cells.
That's an interesting view! I never thought of it like that. I guess they are too dependent on other organisms in order to qualify as living. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, that makes sense!
Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. It's not like they are parasites which reproduce sexually or asexually...I think they are just rogue bits of DNA which broke off from living things at some point in time and because of where they came from, they have a natural affinity to return to their DNA origins...and when they do, they cause chaos as their DNA hijacks or takes hostage the DNA of living things....nothing more than chemical reactions.
Repeating myself.....but this is why scientists still remain divided on whether or not the viruses are living things. They really don't know where the viruses came from. All living things we can observe descended from other living things. Viruses could not have descended from viruses, they have to merge with living things, use the DNA of living things to replicate, and then break off from living things.
Of course these things become fuel for people who believe in evolution which cannot begin except by living things to emerge from non-living substances. Believers in "abiogenesis" and evolution will say things like viruses and Golgi bodies emerged from non-living chemical soups and eventually merged into living cells. I don't believe it. It is a lot simpler and more logical to think that viruses simply came from deteriorating DNA of living things.
I still think this guy is a fraud. Everything he says can be easily found on the internet and I have seen nothing from him above Bio101. Evolutionary Psychology? What in the world does that mean? We are not who we are because we were something different and are becoming something different, so we never really are what we really are now; we are always evolving and cannot be objectively defined at any singular moment (other than to be dead, of course)?
Most education today is fraudulent. Even if this guy is educated and in real life is the borderline explosive psychopath he claims to be, it's all based on self-flattering lies.
The fact that you don't even know what Evolutionary Psych is only furthers to bolster my idea that you understand very little of my posts, so you write them off as bogus. And me as a fraud. Which I am not.
I"m sorry for implying you were a fraud and for other implications against your character implied above. You have proved me wrong. I should have known I was wrong before I ran my mouth.
The site you used looked like a eight year old could of made it, and the site is more religious than scientific in my oppenion and not a ok souce of info do to its bad refences and not including every source of information used, due to one tiny detail that you may have overlooked is this quote
"Addendum: On October 22, 1996, Pope John Paul II, the spiritual leader of the planet's Roman Catholics, in addressing the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences meeting in Rome, basically stated that the Roman Catholic Church does not have any objection in the teaching of evolution to its children. He stated, that as long as the spiritual soul of man emerged from the living building blocks that God created, then the Church has no objection to the physical voyage that man has traveled."
this contradicts any thing that was said in the site and even talks about something else, evolution not phycology.
here are a few of my own sites that invalidate evolutionary psych as psudo science or partly psudo science
