Are Viruses Living Things?

[Shadowstar1922]

I got into a huge debate with my biology teacher who claimed viruses are living things. Though, they cannot meet with even half the 6 characteristics of life.

I say no, since they don't meet the 6 characteristics of life and if you don't meet those, then well, you're not living. Viruses are just a collection of RNA and DNA stored in one molecule, waiting to bump into the host of the specific cell. It can't reproduce, it isn't made up of cells, it cannot respond to the environment that surrounds it, nor can it grow or consume energy. The only thing it really can do is adapt to it's environment, but that's only when it starts to manufacture more of itself in it's host's cells. You can debate about some of the no's, but not all of them.

In my opinion, if you miss one of the 6 characteristics of life, you're not living.

[Dr Frook]

they are dormant and become active when they combine with a host organism... so a bit like a zombie.

[Shadowstar1922]

they are dormant and become active when they combine with a host organism... so a bit like a zombie.

Zombies are in a state of living, theoretically, while viruses are neither living, nor non-living until they become active by entering a host's cell to manufacture.

[Lamb]

I got into a huge debate with my biology teacher who claimed viruses are living things. Though, they cannot meet with even half the 6 characteristics of life.

I say no, since they don't meet the 6 characteristics of life and if you don't meet those, then well, you're not living. Viruses are just a collection of RNA and DNA stored in one molecule, waiting to bump into the host of the specific cell. It can't reproduce, it isn't made up of cells, it cannot respond to the environment that surrounds it, nor can it grow or consume energy. The only thing it really can do is adapt to it's environment, but that's only when it starts to manufacture more of itself in it's host's cells. You can debate about some of the no's, but not all of them.

In my opinion, if you miss one of the 6 characteristics of life, you're not living.

You are correct... Your Biology teacher needs to get some help, they suck at that part of the job, I usually pull out a text book on the teacher to prove my point..

[Dr Frook]

*clears throat*

text books lie and are not necessarily correct. Especially at highscool level, as they are modified and simplified for the smaller brains.

[dEAR_cHILD]

Viruses are not living things, an infection that causes illness such as a cold or even things like pink eye are living, which is why we have antibiotics for them. basic science gives you the factors that denote whether it is living or not, and when a specimen cannot meet these standards it cannot be deemed living. The easiest way to explain this is to think antibiotics.

You take antibiotics to get better from an infection because antibiotics are exactly what their names claim, a chemical that will kill anything living/biotic. this is why you are recommended a good dose of yogurt when taking said medicine, because it kills both bad bacteria and good bacteria. Now viruses cannot be treated with antibiotics, simply because they will have no effect on the virus and really have a chance to make things worse.

P.S. Your teacher sounds like someone I wouldn't want to learn from.

[Dr Frook]

they are dormant and become active when they combine with a host organism... so a bit like a zombie.

Zombies are in a state of living, theoretically, while viruses are neither living, nor non-living until they become active by entering a host's cell to manufacture.

in my expert opinion, zombies r dead. It is the zombie virus that reanimates the cells and the body.

[mmm]

Sure it doesn't meet the categories, but maybe the categories need to be rewritten d:

It's sort of lame of science to say "While it does meet many of the categories and behave as if it was living, our categories are infallible so it's no different than a rock."

[Dr Frook]

Sure it doesn't meet the categories, but maybe the categories need to be rewritten d:

It's sort of lame of science to say "While it does meet many of the categories and behave as if it was living, our categories are infallible so it's no different than a rock."

exactly, plus humans are too primitive to truly understand what is alive or not. It all comes down to perspective... I think

the living vote is winning

[ghost 9]

Science tends to change consistently. Right now, we might technically not consider it a living organism, however, in the future, we may very well consider it due to some new-found knowledge.