Sooo -- are viruses alive?

[YoursTrue]

Sooo -- are viruses alive?
Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by YoursTrue, Apr 4, 2021.

I was reading this before I started the thread. I wouldn't have wondered about it before I read that article in. Scientific American.
Are Viruses Alive?.

 

[Yazata]

Some say yes, some say no. This is a precursor to other questions. But what do you think, based on your "scientific" knowledge? Are viruses alive?

The word 'life' isn't precisely defined. It's more of a family resemblance concept. Life (as we know it, here on Earth... a sample size of one) has a variety of qualities (metabolism, reproduction, homeostasis, a particular sort of genetic code, evolves by natural selection etc.). If something shares enough of these qualities, we call it 'life'. So it's kind of a fuzzy boundary.

(These kind of philosophy of biology considerations will become very important if we ever encounter extraterrestrial "life". Just recognizing it as life in the first place is apt to be a challenge.)

Viruses lack metabolism. They lack the ability to reproduce on their own and require living cells to do that. But... they do possess a genetic code that's very similar to that of prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms. (They would have to, if they reproduce by hijacking those cells.)

I don't consider viruses alive and I think that most biologists agree. But that being said, they are very similar to life and may indeed have some kind of common origin. Something explains the genomic simularities.

 

[Valjean]

A thread: "Are viruses alive," has to begin with a proposed definition of "alive," otherwise the thread will gallop off in all directions with endless posts.
As Polymath pointed out, definition is everything.

 

[YoursTrue]

The word 'life' isn't precisely defined. It's more of a family resemblance concept. Life (as we know it, here on Earth... a sample size of one) has a variety of qualities (metabolism, reproduction, homeostasis, a particular sort of genetic code, evolves by natural selection etc.). If something shares enough of these qualities, we call it 'life'. So it's kind of a fuzzy boundary.

(These kind of philosophy of biology considerations will become very important if we ever encounter extraterrestrial "life". Just recognizing it as life in the first place is apt to be a challenge.)

Viruses lack metabolism. They lack the ability to reproduce on their own and require living cells to do that. But... they do possess a genetic code that's very similar to that of prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms. (They would have to, if they reproduce by hijacking those cells.)

I don't consider viruses alive and I think that most biologists agree. But that being said, they are very similar to life and may indeed have some kind of common origin. Something explains the genomic simularities.

There was no icon for interesting, so I'll just say your comment is interesting.

 

[YoursTrue]

A thread: "Are viruses alive," has to begin with a proposed definition of "alive," otherwise the thread will gallop off in all directions with endless posts.
As Polymath pointed out, definition is everything.

As I said, I read an article in Scientific American that proposed the question. So it begs another question, can something considered not alive produce something that is alive?

 

[Valjean]

As I said, I read an article in Scientific American that proposed the question. So it begs another question, can something considered not alive produce something that is alive?

Inasmuch as Earth was once sterile, and now it not, it would seem so.

 

[Thief]

I don't consider viruses alive and I think that most biologists agree.

but doctors kill the little buggers

and they know when it's dead

 

[YoursTrue]

Inasmuch as Earth was once sterile, and now it not, it would seem so.

Proof? Evidence of your viewpoint? Sterile? Like the moon is "sterile"? Ok, thanks for your viewpoint since you reason that life comes from nonlife, if I understand you correctly. Ok I'll leave it at that now.

 

[YoursTrue]

but doctors kill the little buggers

and they know when it's dead

Yup. They claim to kill viruses. But it may be simply a problem with words and descriptions. Funny with lack of accurate terms sometimes.

 

[Valjean]

Proof? Evidence of your viewpoint? Sterile? Like the moon is "sterile"? Ok, thanks for your viewpoint since you reason that life comes from nonlife, if I understand you correctly. Ok I'll leave it at that now.

I understand that if you believe the Earth was magically poofed into existence 6,000 years ago, the findings of physics, astronomy, biology, archæology will be meaningless to you.
But for those of us who don't believe in magic....

 

[YoursTrue]

I understand that if you believe the Earth was magically poofed into existence 6,000 years ago, the findings of physics, astronomy, biology, archæology will be meaningless to you.
But for those of us who don't believe in magic....

Is that what "young earthers" believe? (I don't believe the earth was poofed into existence 6,000 years ago, so don't put me in that category, please--that is just so we are on the same accurate realization of accusations. Thanks.

 

[Art1787]

Some say yes, some say no. This is a precursor to other questions. But what do you think, based on your "scientific" knowledge? Are viruses alive?

No, viruses are not alive. They fail to meet one of the fundamental criteria of life. They cannot reproduce on their own. I'm not sure they even use energy.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, viruses are not alive. They fail to meet one of the fundamental criteria of life. They cannot reproduce on their own. I'm not sure they even use energy.

Here's the problem -- some scientists say viruses ARE alive. Taking the thought from Scientific American: Are Viruses Alive? - Scientific American. The author winds up the article by stating, " Regardless of whether or not we consider viruses to be alive, it is time to acknowledge and study them in their natural context—within the web of life."
And yet another discussion - Study adds to evidence that viruses are alive (phys.org)

 

[YoursTrue]

No, viruses are not alive. They fail to meet one of the fundamental criteria of life. They cannot reproduce on their own. I'm not sure they even use energy.

Here's the problem -- some scientists say viruses ARE alive. Taking the variance of opinion from Scientific American. that I like someone's answer doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with it. But some people express themselves a little better than others.

 

[Valjean]

Here's the problem -- some scientists say viruses ARE alive. Taking the variance of opinion from Scientific American. that I like someone's answer doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with it. But some people express themselves a little better than others.

As the article points out, it's a matter of definition.

Is a computer virus alive? Outside of a computer it just sits there unchanging, doing nothing -- like a genetic virion.

 

[Thief]

Yup. They claim to kill viruses. But it may be simply a problem with words and descriptions. Funny with lack of accurate terms sometimes.

no one gets vaccinated with a live sample

so....someone knows the difference

 

[ecco]

No point argument over possibilities or -- impossibilities and the odds of possibilities. I just thought Penrose's statement intereresting as to "possibilities."

Yes. Interesting. Completely wrong, but interesting. But you really don't want to let it sink in that YOU cannot exist if we use your way of thinking about odds.

By the way, I realize that if I had one or two different parents, or different egg & sperm from that same couple, "I" would not be existing.

No. Not "IF". By your way of thinking long odds equal impossibility. With YOUR existence, it's not just the input from your parents, it's their parents and their parents and their parents. 1 in 500,000,000 for 200 generations back to Noah. Do the math (or ask polymath nicely, and maybe he'll do it for you.)

 

[ecco]

Nevertheless let's go back to the origins of life and possibilities. And yes, evolution as in the theory would very simply not be possible IF -- life did not start somehow. YET -- no one has seen evolution -- no one has seen 'life' starting and then "evolution" happening. (Sorry, very sorry - or sowwy, however ...)

What does "no one has seen" have to do with anything? No one in Noah's time had ever seen two hydrogen atoms attaching to one oxygen atom - yet, according to you, there was lots and lots of water.

Do you not understand how really weak an argument based on "no one has seen" is?

In any case, we already discussed the fact that there is no agreed-on definition of life. Therefore, there is no fine line between what is "living" and what is not.

I realize you cannot comprehend an ongoing transition from atoms to molecules to monomers to polymers to - eventually - you. That would require a bit of education in science.

 

[ecco]

Hey, I didn't bring it up about viruses being alive or not. Someone else did and I thought it was interesting.

You have certainly brought up the origin of life.

 

[Thief]

No one in Noah's time had ever seen two hydrogen atoms attaching to one oxygen atom - yet, according to you, there was lots and lots of water.

according to God

See Genesis