Are viruses living things?
I am taking biology in one of my classes, and we are on the topic of what's living and what's non-living. Viruses came up, and I supposed scientists still can't agree on one or the other; not to mention my peers. Which leads me to ask: What do you think?
There are five points that depict whether something is living.
1. Self-Reproduction
2. Self-Organization (heart cells make heart cells, skin cells make skin cells, layers of the body, organs, organelles, ect.)
3. Self-Preservation
4. Self-Regulation
5. Self-Maturation (developing)
Viruses reproduce, but in a different way than multicellular organisms and cells. They need a host, and use the host's cells to infect that eventually turn into the virus. It's not cetain that viruses are organized. However, they do have a layer of protiens and a core (as I was told in school). That either I'm not sure is true because if you happen to search google, the Humman Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is clearly organized. Yet, I'm still not sure about that point, I'm not a scientist. Next point, self-preservation. Viruses do not need nutrition to survive. They're made out of nutrtion from the host cell. Technically making them a parasite, right? Parasitism, maybe? Maybe not. Self-Regulation! More thumbs down rather than up. Because viruses don't have organelles and obviously no hair to grow I'll just skip to reaction of the environment. Viruses don't move, in that way, they can't react to the environment. In spite of that, they react to the environment whenever they attach to a host cell and reproducecit into it's own. Fifth piont, also not the viruses strong suit. Viruses don't necessarily mature. They don't grow from egg to chick, chick to chicken. Rather, they form host cells into the virus, and this not immediatley. Perhaps this would be the "developing" of the virus. Any conclusions yet?
First, viruses are made up of amino acids, which are the building blocks of life. And if evolution is correct, that's what you and I are made of. Secondly, you can kill a virus. You can kill it with various cleaning products. You can't kill something if it isn't alive, right? Thirdly, we instinctively (maybe un-educatedly) assume that viruses are alive. Should we go on instinct?
I know somewhere it says that viruses technically aren't alive. I think that they should be in their own class. Not alive or non-living, but virus. Anyone oppose my idea?
Yes, viruses are living.
Side Score: 29
|
 |
No, viruses are non-living.
Side Score: 18
|
|
|
|
|
5
points
Viruses actually cannot be classified as either living or non living - Living points - i) they reproduce ii) they have genetic material iii) they can move on their own(very silly point but it must be taken into consideration) Non - living points - i) they are acellular (their body has no cellular substance and not even a nucleus but it does have a nuclear material coated with protein) ii) they don't respire iii) they don't need nutrition or moisture In most places viruses are considered an intermediate form between the living and the non-living.But people say they are living yo be on the positive side and also the living points are more speculative than the non-living points. Side: Yes, viruses are living.
1
point
1
point
You state clearly in your argument that they do not follow all six characteristics of life, and in order to be classified as living, they must have all of them. It is not possible for anything to not be either living or dead, and since viruses do not contain cells, they aren't alive. ALL living things MUST contain cells. Side: Yes, viruses are living.
Yeah.. they're alive. So is a plant. "Self-aware" is the landmark a living thing must meet. Humans and many animals = self aware. Plants, Viruses, Mold, Embryo = not self aware. Alive yes, but not aware of their state of being and incapable of knowing the difference. Side: Yes, viruses are living.
2
points
2
points
I see it like this: All living things require other things to live and to eventually reproduce and viruses are no different. We're all missing SOMETHING, They're just missing bits that are particularly strange to us. Take vitamin C. Most animals can synthesize it naturally, but humans consume it frequently enough that we've lost the ability to synthesize it. Without it, we would die and never reproduce. Viruses probably came about in a similar way. They started out having reproductive pieces, but they encountered the reproductive machinery in their environment enough that their own wasn't needed any more, so they lost it. Take this analogy: say humans create a machine that creates babies for people using their own DNA from a saliva sample. This machine becomes so popular that no one does it the traditional way any more. (bare with me, it's a thought experiment) Our sex organs would be redundant, so we would eventually lose them. Would humans still be alive if they outsourced reproduction to environmental machinery? I think so. I think the definition of "alive" needs to be simply "has self replicating molecules" without specifying that it must contain the machinery required for replication within itself. Side: Yes, viruses are living.
2
points
2
points
1
point
i think they are living because like it says that for something to be living it has to be able to reproduce and it also says that you can kill a virus and you can kill a human too. Viruses have cells with in them because that is how they transfer and us as humans have cells too. Side: Yes, viruses are living.
1
point
|
It is a tough call, for sure. I have taken a fair amount of biology courses by this point, and the curriculum has always erred on the side of no, but my last teacher said that he believes they are, at least in a way that is quite a bit different from the traditional definition thereof. A friend of mine who is a professional microbiologist says that the point is really moot, but because of their intrinsic interaction with life and the fact that they can be "killed", they should be dealt with as if they are alive, no matter the truth. As far as "killing" them, that is more or less a man-made concept. For instance, fire certainly is not alive, but it can be "killed" by exhausting the fuel source or depriving it of oxygen (both are good ways to kill many organisms). We don't consider it killing, just a cessation of activity. So, the failure of proper functioning of a virus could be termed likewise as cessation of activity, as opposed to death. Also, the current theories of abiogenesis propose the concept of protobionts, molecular entities that are subject to natural selection and composed of amino acids and basic RNA. These things are considered to be a sort of pre-life, the intermediate stage between inactive organic molecules and true life. Some scientists view viruses as being very similar to the concept of protobiont. Presumably it would be one that was instigated by pre-existing bacteria or emerged wholly independently, but either way developed into an entity that "survives" entirely on the genetic material of other organisms, and never needed to evolve into true life to propagate. I will tag this as "no", but I could see (and have seen) good arguments for either side. Side: No, viruses are non-living.
1
point
1
point
I can understand why many people believe that viruses are living; but in order to be classified as alive, it must have all six characteristics of life. Viruses can't reproduce with just the help of another virus. To reproduce, there must be host, not a mate. Viruses as well do not respond to stimuli, or in other words, metabolize. As for another example, they aren't made of cells. They are just DNA/RNA, and all living things must contain cells, viruses are not even unicellular. In conclusion, viruses do not follow all six characteristics of life, bringing me to the fact that no, viruses are not alive. Side: No, viruses are non-living.
1
point
1
point
@Sharkkiller has a valid point for the "yes" argument side, that they can't be either, but that is not possible. Something can't be half alive, half dead, it must be one or the other. And since they clearly state in their argument that viruses don't have all six characteristics of life, they are classified as nonliving. Side: No, viruses are non-living.
|
