Are viruses alive? What are the connections they have with life?

[1veedo]

There's a lot of debate about whether or not viruses are alive, I know, which is why I chose it for my research paper. There still isn't a lot of good information out there, most is just personal opinion. I spent all evening in different libraries doing research but it seems most scientists havn't published much about it. There are good articles about the connections viruses have with living things (the development of the nucleus, etc), the history of viruses, and how they operate, but not much about whether they're alive.

 

I guess my conclusion will be that even if viruses are not alive, they still share a vital connection with other living creatures.

[Kyrisch]

I read recently that the origins of viruses are theorised to lie in the basis of operons and "jumping genes". Apparently, some lengths of genetic code can spontaneously duplicate, jump to other places on the chromosome and do all sorts of wacky things. There are these bookend type things on the ends of these short strips of genetic code that allow this sort of "jumping". The theory is that after a gene was translated and made into a protein, a jumping gene jumped out of the genome and got tangled in it and then was shipped by the ER and Golgi Bodies outward.

[rakuenso]

There's a lot of debate about whether or not viruses are alive' date=' I know, which is why I chose it for my research paper. There still isn't a lot of good information out there, most is just personal opinion. I spent all evening in different libraries doing research but it seems most scientists havn't published much about it. There are good articles about the connections viruses have with living things (the development of the nucleus, etc), the history of viruses, and how they operate, but not much about whether they're alive.

 

I guess my conclusion will be that even if viruses are not alive, they still share a vital connection with other living creatures.[/quote']

 

there's also been 60931802681 threads in the past about this.

[DV8 2XL]

1veedo, present both sides of the case without coming to a conclusion.

[RyanJ]

I'd have to say no personally because they can't reproduce themselves - they need something else to do it for them, they can't move on their own (they reply on a carrier).

 

The experts however have come to no definite conclusion - the above is just my opinion

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[zyncod]

I'd have to say no personally because they can't reproduce themselves - they need something else to do it for them, they can't move on their own (they reply on a carrier).

 

A number of organisms never move, and all heterotrophs to some extent can't reproduce on their own.

 

If you want a simple, Earth-centric definition, then say that life requires nucleic acids. I consider viruses clearly alive, but prions are not.

[SkepticLance]

Whether viruses are alive or not is purely a matter of semantics - the meaning of words. In other words, decide on your definition of 'life', and then see if viruses measure up. It is not a purely scientific question.

 

My definition of life is something that includes the following three attributes.

 

1. It is based on organic chemistry.

2. It reproduces.

3. It evolves.

 

This is not too dissimilar to the nucleic acid definition postulated in a previous post. Just, perhaps, a little more precise.

 

Attribute 1 above is included purely to exclude some computer programs that reproduce and evolve. Some people would debate that the programs might be alive, but I suspect most biologists would dispute that point.

 

Attribute 3 is essential, since fire reproduces, and may be based on organic chemistry as fuel, but does not evolve.

 

Thus, these 3 attributes are the minimum required for a realistic definition of life.

 

My own view is that, based on this definition, viruses are alive.

They are only just alive, but still living.

[Dr. Dalek]

I'd have to say no personally because they can't reproduce themselves - they need something else to do it for them, they can't move on their own (they reply on a carrier).

I read an article in Discover that suggested that Viruses once had the means to multiply on their own and over time their evolution favored simplification, eventually leading to a parasitic form.

[PhDP]

I think it's more wise to see viruses as something between life and nonlife. They share very important characteristics with living organisms, like the ability to reproduce, some form of genetic code, the ability to evolve. But they also lack characteristics; the ability to use energy to perform a task without help from the molecular machinery of a cell and autonomous self-reproduction.

[lethalfang]

Whether viruses are alive or not is purely a matter of semantics - the meaning of words. In other words' date=' decide on your definition of 'life', and then see if viruses measure up. It is not a purely scientific question.

 

My definition of life is something that includes the following three attributes.

 

1. It is based on organic chemistry.

2. It reproduces.

3. It evolves.

 

This is not too dissimilar to the nucleic acid definition postulated in a previous post. Just, perhaps, a little more precise.

 

Attribute 1 above is included purely to exclude some computer programs that reproduce and evolve. Some people would debate that the programs might be alive, but I suspect most biologists would dispute that point.

 

Attribute 3 is essential, since fire reproduces, and may be based on organic chemistry as fuel, but does not evolve.

 

Thus, these 3 attributes are the minimum required for a realistic definition of life.

 

My own view is that, based on this definition, viruses are alive.

They are only just alive, but still living.[/quote']

 

Would you consider a single molecule of DNA, e.g. a plasmid, alive?

The only difference between a plasmid and a virus is the presence of a protein coat.

The line between living and non-living isn't clear cut.

[Dr. Dalek]

Would you consider a single molecule of DNA' date=' e.g. a plasmid, alive?

The only difference between a plasmid and a virus is the presence of a protein coat.

The line between living and non-living isn't clear cut.[/quote']

 

True, some scientists have pointed out that it is extremely difficult to even define what life is. Even the best definitions are just lists of traits from life as we know it.

[carol]

This has been a topic of debate for ages. Until now, it hasn't been resolved. Clearly, scientists should have a side on this matter but should remain skeptical. If someone would establish the requirements to categorize something as living or nonliving, there would still be questions such as this.