Sooo -- are viruses alive?

[Clara Tea]

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?

DNA proves that the first multi-cell animal is a soap jellyfish.

Man-O-War jellyfish start life as single-cell animals that can merge (with others born by the same birth) to form a jellyfish, with the various single-cell organisms diversifying to form various organs (eyes, stingers, etc). The man-o-war can also split apart to form single-celled animals again.

Box jellyfish are genetically almost identical to man-o-wars, but they are born as jellyfish and stay jellyfish.

Corals, anemone, and jellyfish are all closely related animals.

Origin of Viruses | Learn Science at Scitable

Link says: "all living organisms exhibit several key properties: They can grow, reproduce, maintain an internal homeostasis (keep the processes the same), respond to stimuli, and carry out various metabolic processes. In addition, populations of living organisms evolve over time."

So, once an animal grows to adulthood, it is no longer alive? Is a castrated person no longer alive? Is a person in a coma (not responding to stimuli, temporarily) not alive? Are species that have remained the same (haven't evolved much) dead?

Frankly, I think that our definitions have to be broadened to accommodate unusual life forms.

It is clear that viruses adapt (and perhaps adaptation is the same as evolution). Flu viruses usually start in birds in China, which have a pond near a pig sty, then the pig gets the flu, then the pig gives the flu to a human (a human can't get bird flu from birds very easily). When the virus moves from bird to pig, it has a rapid period of adaptation, then it moves from pig to man, and again, it has a rapid period of adaptation.

Some viruses can pick up genetic material (bits and pieces of DNA or RNA), and add it to their own.

If viruses are merely chemicals, they certainly are complicated. It seems that they must have been from some organism that adapted to take over the cells of another organism.

Link says: "viruses differ from living organisms in that they cannot generate ATP. Viruses also do not possess the necessary machinery for translation, as mentioned above. They do not possess ribosomes and cannot independently form proteins from molecules of messenger RNA. Because of these limitations, viruses can replicate only within a living host cell."

The link discusses three theories of the creation of viruses: 1. Regression, 2. Virus First, and 3. Progressive.

Viral evolution - Wikipedia

The link above (Wikipedia) is also good.

It still begs the question, at what point did viruses attack living creatures? It seems that they wouldn't exist if they didn't have something to infest. So, I reject the notion that the virus was here before its victim was here.

How Viruses Attack Plants

Link above says that viruses can attack plants. In order to do this, they must have been evolved to attack plants, and likely did long before animals evolved.

Can Plant Virus Infect Human Being?

Link above says: Some plant viruses can attack humans (jumping the species barrier).

One thing is very clear....our understanding of bacteria, protozoa, and viruses is severely limited. Much study must be done.

 

[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!"

I read the pro and con opinions already. Thank you. When they morph, change, or mutate, are they still viruses? Of course, you probably know the answer to that.

 

[YoursTrue]

DNA proves that the first multi-cell animal is a soap jellyfish.

Man-O-War jellyfish start life as single-cell animals that can merge (with others born by the same birth) to form a jellyfish, with the various single-cell organisms diversifying to form various organs (eyes, stingers, etc). The man-o-war can also split apart to form single-celled animals again.

Box jellyfish are genetically almost identical to man-o-wars, but they are born as jellyfish and stay jellyfish.

Corals, anemone, and jellyfish are all closely related animals.

Origin of Viruses | Learn Science at Scitable

Link says: "all living organisms exhibit several key properties: They can grow, reproduce, maintain an internal homeostasis (keep the processes the same), respond to stimuli, and carry out various metabolic processes. In addition, populations of living organisms evolve over time."

So, once an animal grows to adulthood, it is no longer alive? Is a castrated person no longer alive? Is a person in a coma (not responding to stimuli, temporarily) not alive? Are species that have remained the same (haven't evolved much) dead?

Frankly, I think that our definitions have to be broadened to accommodate unusual life forms.

It is clear that viruses adapt (and perhaps adaptation is the same as evolution). Flu viruses usually start in birds in China, which have a pond near a pig sty, then the pig gets the flu, then the pig gives the flu to a human (a human can't get bird flu from birds very easily). When the virus moves from bird to pig, it has a rapid period of adaptation, then it moves from pig to man, and again, it has a rapid period of adaptation.

Some viruses can pick up genetic material (bits and pieces of DNA or RNA), and add it to their own.

If viruses are merely chemicals, they certainly are complicated. It seems that they must have been from some organism that adapted to take over the cells of another organism.

Link says: "viruses differ from living organisms in that they cannot generate ATP. Viruses also do not possess the necessary machinery for translation, as mentioned above. They do not possess ribosomes and cannot independently form proteins from molecules of messenger RNA. Because of these limitations, viruses can replicate only within a living host cell."

The link discusses three theories of the creation of viruses: 1. Regression, 2. Virus First, and 3. Progressive.

Viral evolution - Wikipedia

The link above (Wikipedia) is also good.

It still begs the question, at what point did viruses attack living creatures? It seems that they wouldn't exist if they didn't have something to infest. So, I reject the notion that the virus was here before its victim was here.

How Viruses Attack Plants

Link above says that viruses can attack plants. In order to do this, they must have been evolved to attack plants, and likely did long before animals evolved.

Can Plant Virus Infect Human Being?

Link above says: Some plant viruses can attack humans (jumping the species barrier).

One thing is very clear....our understanding of bacteria, protozoa, and viruses is severely limited. Much study must be done.

So far, unless I missed something, viruses remain viruses, even when they mutate. They don't become something else. You made some interesting points.

 

[YoursTrue]

DNA proves that the first multi-cell animal is a soap jellyfish.

Man-O-War jellyfish start life as single-cell animals that can merge (with others born by the same birth) to form a jellyfish, with the various single-cell organisms diversifying to form various organs (eyes, stingers, etc). The man-o-war can also split apart to form single-celled animals again.

Box jellyfish are genetically almost identical to man-o-wars, but they are born as jellyfish and stay jellyfish.

Corals, anemone, and jellyfish are all closely related animals.

Origin of Viruses | Learn Science at Scitable

Link says: "all living organisms exhibit several key properties: They can grow, reproduce, maintain an internal homeostasis (keep the processes the same), respond to stimuli, and carry out various metabolic processes. In addition, populations of living organisms evolve over time."

So, once an animal grows to adulthood, it is no longer alive? Is a castrated person no longer alive? Is a person in a coma (not responding to stimuli, temporarily) not alive? Are species that have remained the same (haven't evolved much) dead?

Frankly, I think that our definitions have to be broadened to accommodate unusual life forms.

It is clear that viruses adapt (and perhaps adaptation is the same as evolution). Flu viruses usually start in birds in China, which have a pond near a pig sty, then the pig gets the flu, then the pig gives the flu to a human (a human can't get bird flu from birds very easily). When the virus moves from bird to pig, it has a rapid period of adaptation, then it moves from pig to man, and again, it has a rapid period of adaptation.

Some viruses can pick up genetic material (bits and pieces of DNA or RNA), and add it to their own.

If viruses are merely chemicals, they certainly are complicated. It seems that they must have been from some organism that adapted to take over the cells of another organism.

Link says: "viruses differ from living organisms in that they cannot generate ATP. Viruses also do not possess the necessary machinery for translation, as mentioned above. They do not possess ribosomes and cannot independently form proteins from molecules of messenger RNA. Because of these limitations, viruses can replicate only within a living host cell."

The link discusses three theories of the creation of viruses: 1. Regression, 2. Virus First, and 3. Progressive.

Viral evolution - Wikipedia

The link above (Wikipedia) is also good.

It still begs the question, at what point did viruses attack living creatures? It seems that they wouldn't exist if they didn't have something to infest. So, I reject the notion that the virus was here before its victim was here.

How Viruses Attack Plants

Link above says that viruses can attack plants. In order to do this, they must have been evolved to attack plants, and likely did long before animals evolved.

Can Plant Virus Infect Human Being?

Link above says: Some plant viruses can attack humans (jumping the species barrier).

One thing is very clear....our understanding of bacteria, protozoa, and viruses is severely limited. Much study must be done.

When I have more time, I'd like to look into how scientists conclude that the first multicellular animal is a soap jellyfish by the DNA.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Some people would argue a tree has consciousness. I don't. But I do think trees react to -- the rain -- the soil -- a dry spell -- and possibly, even birds singing. (I haven't asked a tree lately, or ever. And I have no intention of doing so.) So now we get into another philosophical question. OK, here I go off into the deep-er end. Cows. What do cows do mostly all day? They spend much of their time grazing. They look up sometimes when someone comes by. They go to the barn. They make milk. Calves. And other things. But they don't write poems. Or anything. They virtually eat grass most of the day. While it may be cute when they look up as a person draws near, that's what they do all day.

I would suggest you have a look at animal behaviour - a good look not just cursory - and decide for yourself if any consciousness (or thought) is necessary to explain why they appear to have so many similarities with humans.

As to the topic, is there so much difference from something that requires food to survive and something that requires a host to survive?

 

[Brian2]

Clearly there is a consciousness. Within that consciousness, there is that which calls itself I. This may be where the confusion begins; in the division between “I” and that which is, or is perceived to be, other.

And if it’s all a dream, there has to be a dreamer, no?

Yes I guess there would have to be a dreamer.
However some philosophers it seems do argue that we aren't really conscious.
I just argue that this life we have is different in nature to the chemistry and physics around us, which seems unconscious to me.

 

[Secret Chief]

not alive but can be killed

Sounds like a failed cop-out! Self-contradictory I would say. You cannot kill something which is not alive.

 

[Secret Chief]

Some people would argue a tree has consciousness. I don't. But I do think trees react to -- the rain -- the soil -- a dry spell -- and possibly, even birds singing. (I haven't asked a tree lately, or ever. And I have no intention of doing so.) So now we get into another philosophical question. OK, here I go off into the deep-er end. Cows. What do cows do mostly all day? They spend much of their time grazing. They look up sometimes when someone comes by. They go to the barn. They make milk. Calves. And other things. But they don't write poems. Or anything. They virtually eat grass most of the day. While it may be cute when they look up as a person draws near, that's what they do all day.

Your point being?

 

[Polymath257]

Sounds like a failed cop-out! Self-contradictory I would say. You cannot kill something which is not alive.

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'.

 

[Polymath257]

I read the pro and con opinions already. Thank you. When they morph, change, or mutate, are they still viruses? Of course, you probably know the answer to that.

But are they *different* viruses? yes.

To say they are viruses is like saying both sharks and cats are animals. And yes, vertebrates will evolve into new vertebrates.

 

[Polymath257]

There we go again, Polymath257. Are viruses alive? What do scientists say? Do viruses evolve into something else? I can only imagine some might say yes, if they think they're alive. But then the question comes in, what if they're not alive? Do they evolve, live or not alive? What do you think?

When you ask whether they are alive or not, you are asking how *we* classify them.

They have some aspects that we attribute to life and lack others that we attribute to life. That is how things work when we try to classify things. Nature doesn't have to fit neatly into our ways of organizing our thoughts.

I land on the 'not alive' side because viruses do not have a metabolism and can only reproduce using a host system.

But yes, viruses evolve. They change into other viruses, exactly as would be expected for evolution.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Why in the world do you see what happens to viruses as being contrary to the theory of evolution??

Yes, viruses evolve. They do that whether or not we classify them as 'alive'.

Furthermore, they evolve in a way that is consistent with the theory of evolution. The same basic principles of evolution apply to viruses as apply to animals and plants.

 

[Polymath257]

That is what I am learning. Viruses need a host to replicate. The entire question is both philosophical (as to what is alive), and kind of interesting. But -- here's the extension I think about -- do viruses remain viruses when they morph (change form), or can it be said they move into another form of -- what? life? non-life?
Alright -- or do they become eventually a cow?

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

 

[sayak83]

That is what I am learning. Viruses need a host to replicate. The entire question is both philosophical (as to what is alive), and kind of interesting. But -- here's the extension I think about -- do viruses remain viruses when they morph (change form), or can it be said they move into another form of -- what? life? non-life?
Alright -- or do they become eventually a cow?

8-10% of human dna is from virus RNA/DNA strands. Some of it is even useful in making proteins etc. So humans (and all living things in general) are part virus. So yes...virus have become cow and cow is part virus.
Ancient Viruses Are Buried in Your DNA (Published 2017)

Hemo is not the only protein with such an alien origin: Our DNA contains roughly 100,000 pieces of viral DNA. Altogether, they make up about 8 percent of the human genome. And scientists are only starting to figure out what this viral DNA is doing to us.
Most of our viral DNA comes from one group in particular: retroviruses, a group that includes HIV.

A retrovirus invades a host cell and inserts its genes into that cell’s DNA. These viral genes co-opt the cell’s machinery, using it to make new viruses that escape to infect more cells.

If a retrovirus happens to infect an egg or sperm, its DNA can potentially be passed to the next generation and the generation after that. Once retroviruses become inherited stowaways, scientists refer to them as endogenous retroviruses.

At first, endogenous retroviruses coax cells to make more retroviruses that can infect other cells. But over the generations, the viral DNA mutates, and endogenous retroviruses eventually lose the ability to infect new cells.
....
And some viral proteins are important for reproduction. Placentas make viral proteins, and scientists have found that some types, known as syncytins, fuse together placental cells, a crucial step in fetal development.

“My speculation is that without syncytins, mammal evolution would have looked very different,” Dr. Coffin said.

 

[Marcion]

According to the microvita theory of P.R. Sarkar viruses are the crudest form of microvita, which form the link or bridge between Consciousness and matter.
In this theory even the smallest particles are composed of billions of microvita.

In the process of evolution species have certain needs or "wishes" to change their characteristics which are fulfilled by the Cosmic Consciousness through attracting certain viruses which infect the cell and cause the needed genetic change.

 

[Thief]

how come the jury of scientists does not agree?

they dropped their consensus on lines drawn

like science....I really do

but now and then someone will rattle on at length
having offered a blunt line drawn
and waste an hour of my time....only to say.....
we don't really know

as for me.....I am sure of it

if a virus was some random chemistry that destroys......it might be dead
just a reaction.....like fire

but viruses have a plan
they interact in a particular manner with other living things

 

[Thief]

what if they're not alive?

I think we know........when they are dead

why then are we unsure?......to say

IT'S ALIVE!!!!!
IT'S ALIVE!!!!

 

[sayak83]

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.

Evolution need not happen only in living organisms. Computer codes can and do undergo evolution as well. Evolving computer codes using Darwinian mutation-selection process is a well known method of developing efficient optimized codes and is the key to many design and solution search algorithms. Any entity whatsoever which can produce mutated copies of itself and are such that the mutations have an impact in those copies' ability in making further copies can undergo evolution of the Darwinian form. Life or non-life is not an issue here.

 

[Thief]

Life or non-life is not an issue here.

oh yes it is

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

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Alright -- or do they become eventually a cow?

If that were to happen, evolution theory would be falsified.

Do you understand why?