Challenge Question August 2004 (1 Viewer)

[babydoll_]

An interesting question posed to me yesterday by my genetics lecturer...

Is a virus a lifeform?

Discuss.

You should have enough info from "Search For Better Health" to form your argument.

 

[withoutaface]

No. Although the virus contains nucleic acids, it cannot survive or reproduce on its own without being attached to another cell. Also I believe that viruses do not respire or photosynthesise. They should be thought of more as wayward pieces of genetic code coated with protein than a lifeform.

That probably wasn't long enough for full marks, but I'll let someone else finish it off.

 

[babydoll_]

No. Although the virus contains nucleic acids, it cannot survive or reproduce on its own without being attached to another cell. Also I believe that viruses do not respire or photosynthesise.

BUT we can't survive on our own either, can we? We need FOOD and SHELTER to live!

Well, that's what the lecturer's friend (an astrophysicist) said to him

 

[withoutaface]

BUT we can't survive on our own either, can we? We need FOOD and SHELTER to live!

Well, that's what the lecturer's friend (an astrophysicist) said to him

I think that the respiration thing covered it though, don't all organisms respire? And I said attached to another cell, being in a house isn't really being attached to another cell is it?

 

[abdo]

I think that the respiration thing covered it though, don't all organisms respire?

that depends on your definition of organisms...

if one was to create a biological definition for this 'lifeform', one would be able to deduce whether infact this so called virus is actually a lifeform.

 

[babydoll_]

OK, so say we define a living being as one which purpose is to survive and reproduce... isn't this the essence of living?

Viruses do this! They survive and reproduce...

But the definition of a living being differs according to the individual I guess

 

[abdo]

OK, so say we define a living being as one which purpose is to survive and reproduce... isn't this the essence of living?

thats no fair!!! you cheated, you just define the term as whatever that wins you the argument, i hate you kind of people... you should be ashamed of yourself.

now since i've won this argument by the other side caught cheating, where is my prize?

 

[withoutaface]

OK, so say we define a living being as one which purpose is to survive and reproduce... isn't this the essence of living?

Viruses do this! They survive and reproduce...

But the definition of a living being differs according to the individual I guess

Does this mean that a chloroplast is an organism as well?

 

[abdo]

Does this mean that a chloroplast is an organism as well?

does that mean trojan horse is also an organism?

 

[xiao1985]

an organism should be able to respond to the change of environment... out side a host, virus do NOT respond to the environment hence they should not be considered living form...

@abdo: in case if you have not notice, science is all about speculations, assumptions and testing assumptions... if alot of practical data supports the assumption, then it is said to be a theory... a line of arguments do NOT have to be perfect, as there exist few if any perfect arguments in the real world... because the fundation which the arguments are built upon are mere assumptions, which are not found to be untrue, YET...

so there's nothing wrong with making assumptions... if u dunt feel happy about the assumptions some one made, then feel free to undermine it ... don't put forward claims poorly argued and supported...
and babydoll_ does make it clear that the definitely varies with people to people...

 

[xiao1985]

Does this mean that a chloroplast is an organism as well?

eukaryotic cells are evolved from one prokaryotic cells engulfing an other one... so essentially, chloroplast (as a matter of fact, all organelles) (at least had a history) of being a living form...

 

[TheKing]

we know that because mitochondria and chloroplast actually have DNA within the organelles, rather thats what we speculate.

 

[babydoll_]

Getting off track, it's believed that mitochondria once existed as prokaryotic organisms....

 

[neo o]

It's really hard to take a solid line on whether viruses are alive or not. Mostly they aren't considered to be alive though because they aren't capable of indepedant reproduction or metabolism.

The problem with that argument is that alot of parasites/endosymbiotes aren't capable of independant life as well

It's probably best to define viruses between living and unlife, because they show inheritance and can reproduce, yet have to rely on their hosts machinary. Also I read somewhere that they can be crystalised like molecules soo...

 

[xiao1985]

Getting off track, it's believed that mitochondria once existed as prokaryotic organisms....

aren't ALL organelles individual procaryotic cells???

 

[withoutaface]

All membrane bound ones yes.

 

[xiao1985]

All membrane bound ones yes.

what other organelles are there??? @@

btw, calculon, why did u change ur userid??? taht's bizzare...

 

[TheKing]

theres more evidence to suggest that mitochodria WERE more than the other organelles as they contain DNA whereas other organelles don't.

 

[mr EaZy]

an organism should be able to respond to the change of environment... out side a host, virus do NOT respond to the environment hence they should not be considered living form...

@abdo: in case if you have not notice, science is all about speculations, assumptions and testing assumptions... if alot of practical data supports the assumption, then it is said to be a theory... a line of arguments do NOT have to be perfect, as there exist few if any perfect arguments in the real world... because the fundation which the arguments are built upon are mere assumptions, which are not found to be untrue, YET...

so there's nothing wrong with making assumptions... if u dunt feel happy about the assumptions some one made, then feel free to undermine it ... don't put forward claims poorly argued and supported...
and babydoll_ does make it clear that the definitely varies with people to people...

Tru that. Make AALLLLL the assumptions u can excrete anywhere u are

Edit: yeah! im a member

 

[mr EaZy]

i remeber reading on howstuffworks (Lst year), the def of a living entity at a cellular level is thought to mean the ability to produce or use enzymes. other classifications include the stuff of replicating DNA and RNA.

Retro/viruses: if they have enzymes ( maybe to cut out DNA or as in retro viruses- convert RNA to DNA require enzymes) now enzymes are just simple proteins.

Im not going to give any answer here: but viruses can reproduce and produce enzymes BUT only in a functional cell. When outside of the cell, if it does have/ or produce / or use enzymes, then it is definitely a living THING?~!.

]bbbut i dont know if it does use enzymes outside of the body. Enzymes carry out the biological/metabolic reactions. All living thins should have one.