Sooo -- are viruses alive?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, I looked at the scientific little controversy. Problem is: do they stay in the form of a virus, or do they morph into something else? Yes, as evolution teaches. But then we can figure either they are alive, or they're not. Hmmm, what a dilemma. But not really. The more I look at it, the more I see the push against evolution, the theory of.

You should first learn what evolution theory really is about, before imagining silly things like thinking that the existence of virusses somehow poses a problem for the theory.

 

[Secret Chief]

The problem is that many people have a black and white concept about 'alive' and 'not alive'. The reality is much more subtle and doesn't have to conform to naive ideas.

Most scientists would put viruses in the 'not alive' category for the reasons I have given. But, they do have genetics and can be 'de-activated'. often that de-activation is called 'killing the virus'.

Personally I don't see it as naivety, it's an issue of linguistics coping (or not) with the concept.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, they do not become cows. We would not expect them to.

Ok why not? In the long run, of course. Different branch of Darwin's tree, perhaps? Or...do viruses simply change shape, tentacles or whatever they have to grab onto a host and still remain a virus?

 

[YoursTrue]

Personally I don't see it as naivety, it's an issue of linguistics coping (or not) with the concept.

thank you.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Wikipedia gives a definition of life:
Life - Wikipedia

There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. One popular definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve.

Please remember that science depends on clearly defined definitions; more so than general communication. Viruses are not considered alive by the scientific consensus (the majority of scientists agree on the point) because they lack many traits that are specified in the scientific definition of "life";

https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/cells/viruses/a/are-viruses-dead-or-alive

So were they ever alive? Most biologists say no. Viruses are not made out of cells, they can’t keep themselves in a stable state, they don’t grow, and they can’t make their own energy. Even though they definitely replicate and adapt to their environment, viruses are more like androids than real living organisms.

So to consider viruses "alive", we have the simple step of changing the definition of life.

 

[Polymath257]

Personally I don't see it as naivety, it's an issue of linguistics coping (or not) with the concept.

The problem is that the concept doesn't match reality very well in some cases.

 

[YoursTrue]

You’re asking if cows have consciousness at all, given that they have so little to think about, and no language with which to frame any thoughts they might have?

This raises several interesting questions about the nature of consciousness, thought, and language. Language, for humans, certainly frames and facilitates thought, but what does it do for consciousness? Most meditation practices involve the practitioner letting go of thought, in order to attain an elevated state of consciousness. Maybe then, cows have attained a higher form of consciousness than humans. If consciousness can be measured or defined in terms of “higher” or “lower”.

What I am saying by means of question and observation is that cows have, shall I call it, a rather different lifestyle than most normally functioning humans. When I pass by a farm, I see cows grazing all day long. Then of course, they have their bodily functions to take care of. But... that's about it. They don't plan trips, don't think of taking a vacation, starting a ballet company, etc. Their thinking, creativity and ingenuity, is a bit limited. So are, I daresay, ants and bonobos.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok why not? In the long run, of course. Different branch of Darwin's tree, perhaps? Or...do viruses simply change shape, tentacles or whatever they have to grab onto a host and still remain a virus?

Well, for one thing, they don't have a metabolism. And, from the initial state of being a virus, it would be very difficult to develop a metabolism.

Most viruses are little more than a small collection of proteins and some DNA or RNA to code for the proteins. They don't have tentacles. They have proteins that interact with cell walls allowing the genetic material to enter the cell and take over the system.

A possible route to larger change would involve first getting an encapsulation so that there is an internal versus an external environment. Then, perhaps, integrating part of the host genetics into the viral genetics to gain some basic energy usage--> a metabolism.

Much more likely is that some other type of cell would change because of a viral infection, potentially gaining some attribute allowing it to evolve into a new niche.

You see, for large scale evolutionary change to happen, you need variation in the population to produce new attributes that affect survival (or reproduction) in a changing environment, probably with competition to encourage increased complexity. Most of that is lacking for most viruses.

 

[YoursTrue]

The link I posted makes arguements for both.

Plus from the link I posted...
"It is estimated that there are 10^31 virus particles in the oceans – they vastly outnumber all other organisms on the planet. Alive or not, viruses are doing rather well!"

Causing great harm to their hosts. Now if I were to go back to school, I would be interested in pursuing a study about viruses. Fascinating.

 

[Polymath257]

What I am saying by means of question and observation is that cows have, shall I call it, a rather different lifestyle than most normally functioning humans. When I pass by a farm, I see cows grazing all day long. Then of course, they have their bodily functions to take care of. But... that's about it. They don't plan trips, don't think of taking a vacation, starting a ballet company, etc. Their thinking, creativity and ingenuity, is a bit limited. So are, I daresay, ants and bonos.

But on the cellular level, cows and humans are very similar. They have many of the same organ systems (not all). They have the characteristics of mammals, which means a LOT of the genetics will overlap. The relatively small biological changes that increased the size of human brains underlies most of what you are talking about: vacations, reading, poetry, etc.

You are making a big deal about our creative and abstract thinking. And it *is* a big deal. But it isn't that big of a change *biologically* or *genetically*.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, for one thing, they don't have a metabolism. And, from the initial state of being a virus, it would be very difficult to develop a metabolism.

Most viruses are little more than a small collection of proteins and some DNA or RNA to code for the proteins. They don't have tentacles. They have proteins that interact with cell walls allowing the genetic material to enter the cell and take over the system.

A possible route to larger change would involve first getting an encapsulation so that there is an internal versus an external environment. Then, perhaps, integrating part of the host genetics into the viral genetics to gain some basic energy usage--> a metabolism.

Much more likely is that some other type of cell would change because of a viral infection, potentially gaining some attribute allowing it to evolve into a new niche.

You see, for large scale evolutionary change to happen, you need variation in the population to produce new attributes that affect survival (or reproduction) in a changing environment, probably with competition to encourage increased complexity. Most of that is lacking for most viruses.

I daresay you're right. So viruses, dead or alive, do not evolve, either way. if they're not alive. So, since I am not exacting in these forms of scientific inquiry, again...do viruses always stay viruses?

 

[YoursTrue]

But on the cellular level, cows and humans are very similar. They have many of the same organ systems (not all). They have the characteristics of mammals, which means a LOT of the genetics will overlap. The relatively small biological changes that increased the size of human brains underlies most of what you are talking about: vacations, reading, poetry, etc.

You are making a big deal about our creative and abstract thinking. And it *is* a big deal. But it isn't that big of a change *biologically* or *genetically*.

I am not saying that cows and humans are not containing similar elements.

 

[Polymath257]

I daresay you're right. So viruses, dead or alive, do not evolve, either way. if they're not alive. So, since I am not exacting in these forms of scientific inquiry, again...do viruses always stay viruses?

Yes, they *do* evolve. Their genetics changes over time. And it changes in a way that makes the virus more able to spread. That *is* evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, for one thing, they don't have a metabolism. And, from the initial state of being a virus, it would be very difficult to develop a metabolism.

Most viruses are little more than a small collection of proteins and some DNA or RNA to code for the proteins. They don't have tentacles. They have proteins that interact with cell walls allowing the genetic material to enter the cell and take over the system.

A possible route to larger change would involve first getting an encapsulation so that there is an internal versus an external environment. Then, perhaps, integrating part of the host genetics into the viral genetics to gain some basic energy usage--> a metabolism.

Much more likely is that some other type of cell would change because of a viral infection, potentially gaining some attribute allowing it to evolve into a new niche.

You see, for large scale evolutionary change to happen, you need variation in the population to produce new attributes that affect survival (or reproduction) in a changing environment, probably with competition to encourage increased complexity. Most of that is lacking for most viruses.

okay...so now back to proteins. Proteins? Now I'm beginning to think proteins are kind of complicated, and how did they appear? And then DNA and RNA?? (wow...) okay -- thanks for the lesson, and I have dinner to make. Now I also wonder -- about Marie Curie and her husband. Also so many scientists who experimented. They were focused and often were considered extreme. Could be loners. (I have dinner to make. Plus not sure my nerves will take figuring out about proteins, DNA and RNA now. However -- sounds interesting. )

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, they *do* evolve. Their genetics changes over time. And it changes in a way that makes the virus more able to spread. That *is* evolution.

Um...no, not really. At least in my opinion. You might as well say that distinctive characteristics in the "HUMAN," (not cow) population, is a result of evolution. Such as those with dark or light skinned people coming from or living in particular areas. No, sorry, PM257. That is simply a matter of genetics within a particular form. Again -- viruses stay viruses, don't they? No matter how they morph. It is possible, from my reading, that different 'types' of cows can be genetically induced, but they -- still stay -- cows. Insofar as I know right now. They don't become lions or -- humanoids, do they?

 

[YoursTrue]

oh yes it is

I do not think my computer is ......ALIVE!!!!!!

Right.
I'd still like to know how a computer program can independently evolve -- ?? oh well. And by evolve, does it "BECOME" something other than a code? I mean, like some of us read 1984 or see ridiculous looking aliens from outer space on shows. But while having humanoid characteristics, can anyone say they evolved before or after humans? Are they humans? (OK, never mind...the human mind can play with many possibilities, not all true).

 

[YoursTrue]

You’re asking if cows have consciousness at all, given that they have so little to think about, and no language with which to frame any thoughts they might have?

This raises several interesting questions about the nature of consciousness, thought, and language. Language, for humans, certainly frames and facilitates thought, but what does it do for consciousness? Most meditation practices involve the practitioner letting go of thought, in order to attain an elevated state of consciousness. Maybe then, cows have attained a higher form of consciousness than humans. If consciousness can be measured or defined in terms of “higher” or “lower”.

Good point about consideration of higher or lower forms of consciousness. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve were created in God's image. They were still to be subject to His rulership.

 

[Polymath257]

Um...no, not really. At least in my opinion. You might as well say that distinctive characteristics in the "HUMAN," (not cow) population, is a result of evolution. Such as those with dark or light skinned people coming from or living in particular areas. No, sorry, PM257. That is simply a matter of genetics within a particular form. Again -- viruses stay viruses, don't they? No matter how they morph. It is possible, from my reading, that different 'types' of cows can be genetically induced, but they -- still stay -- cows. Insofar as I know right now. They don't become lions or -- humanoids, do they?

Yes, evolution *is* a change of genetic information.

Yes, viruses stay viruses. Vertebrates stay vertebrates. Mammals stay mammals. That is how evolution works. But, at the same time species change, sometimes quite a lot.

The ancestors of cows will still be some sort of hoofed mammal, likely with multiple stomachs. This will be true even if cows evolve into something that stands upright. They won't be lions. They won't be human. But they will also not be the same as the cows today. They may have very different characteristics. But they would still have a lot in common genetically with the cows of today.

The same happened, for example, in the evolution of cats and dogs. Their common ancestor was a carnivorous mammal. And guess what? They are still carnivorous mammals. That ancestral population of carnivorous mammals diversified, some of them becoming more like wolfs and others more like lions. They could do this, in part, because they had a lot of variation in their genetics and a population distributed across different environments and niches.

Viruses have a very limited collection of genes. Nothing even close to what even a bacterium has. So the range of variation is a LOT less. That means that viruses don't change drastically over generations. They have some tweaking, they may start to infect other species, they may have very different characteristics than their ancestors. But they will still be fairly small and rely on the genetic machinery of a host. So they will still be viruses.

 

[Polymath257]

Right.
I'd still like to know how a computer program can independently evolve -- ?? oh well. And by evolve, does it "BECOME" something other than a code? I mean, like some of us read 1984 or see ridiculous looking aliens from outer space on shows. But while having humanoid characteristics, can anyone say they evolved before or after humans? Are they humans? (OK, never mind...the human mind can play with many possibilities, not all true).

Look into genetic algorithms. They work by having the programs mutate and be selected to perform some task better. the end result is often much more complicated than a human programmer could write and will do the job better.

But a change in computer code will not change the hardware on which it runs. A change in the genetic code does. And that means there is an extra layer for natural selection to work on that a computer code typically does not have.

 

[YoursTrue]

But on the cellular level, cows and humans are very similar. They have many of the same organ systems (not all). They have the characteristics of mammals, which means a LOT of the genetics will overlap. The relatively small biological changes that increased the size of human brains underlies most of what you are talking about: vacations, reading, poetry, etc.

You are making a big deal about our creative and abstract thinking. And it *is* a big deal. But it isn't that big of a change *biologically* or *genetically*.

That cows and humans are genetically similar simply does not mean cows and humans are related by evolution. It means that they are genetically similar to an extent.

 

[YoursTrue]

Look into genetic algorithms. They work by having the programs mutate and be selected to perform some task better. the end result is often much more complicated than a human programmer could write and will do the job better.

But a change in computer code will not change the hardware on which it runs. A change in the genetic code does. And that means there is an extra layer for natural selection to work on that a computer code typically does not have.

Ok, is that because you believe organisms change because they develop something better to adapt with?