It's not that just a matter of time in the box analogy. The point of the analogy is that the virus doesn't really die, because it doesn't really live. It doesn't require anything of its environment. It just slowly disintegrates because the universe is infinitely expanding or some other astro-magic.
You can have a human body, or a single cell that still perfectly holds together and looks exactly like a live body, because it is in a perfect vacuum or whatever. Yet there is a meaningful distinction between the two states - life and death. There is no more metabolism, no more division and reproduction. With viruses you cannot make that distinction between a live virus and a dead virus because it doesn't do any of that in the first place.
"Life is a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that have biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (they have died), or because they never had such functions and are classified as inanimate. Various forms of life exist, such as plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria. Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.
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. Other definitions sometimes include non-cellular life forms such as viruses and viroids."
A virus certainly requires something of its environment. It requires the right conditions to reproduce, just like all other life forms.
If you take unorganic matter - say a rock - and place it anywhere in the universe, it will not turn into more rocks.
A cell requires nutrients - minerals, vitamins, carbohydrates, O2... - to live. A virus requires a host cell that has DNA.
A cell disintegrates - dies - if not in the proper environment. So does a virus. A rock does not. If you place a rock on Mars, it's still a rock.
If I were a Greek philosopher, I would say a virus has life as immanent quality. ?
A virus certainly requires something of its environment. It requires the right conditions to reproduce, just like all other life forms.
If you take unorganic matter - say a rock - and place it anywhere in the universe, it will not turn into more rocks.
A cell requires nutrients - minerals, vitamins, carbohydrates, O2... - to live. A virus requires a host cell that has DNA.
A cell disintegrates - dies - if not in the proper environment. So does a virus. A rock does not. If you place a rock on Mars, it's still a rock.
You're chemically comparing something as strong as metal to something as fragile as egg-shell. A virus might dissolve on mars because of the radiation levels, not because it is a life form. The desolving of molecules has everything to do with the strength of atomic and molecular bonds. Let me put it this way: do you believe your hair to be alive?
These are the fundamental characteristics of all living beings: Growth, respiration, excretion, nutrition, reproduction, sensitivity and movement.
Now let's debunk every component then, shall we?
Growth (mitosis, asexual reproduction)
A virus does not multiply, it needs the capacities of other living organisms such as a prokaryotic or eukaryotic cell. So it cannot not meet this requirement.
Respiration, excretion, nutrition.
As shown the box paradox, a virus does not interact with it's environment. Therefore doesn't extract energy from nutrients in the environment thus not excreting anything. In order for it to live it will need to create and excrete molecules, which can be as complex as proteins to downright as simple as carbondioxide. A virus in a vacuum (where about 0 molecules are present) would be equally active as a virus in the most molecule-richest of places.
Reproduction (meiosis, sexual reproduction)
Like a virus doesn't grow it also doesn't reproduce, it makes more of itself using again using a living eukaryotic or prokaryotic cell (Look at my HIV lifespan explanation). Sexual reproduction would mean you'd need two viruses who mix up their genomes to create a new virus. It doesn't do this. Most bacteria don't do this either (they can share their genomes with neighbor cells if they for example have made themselves resistant to antibiotics, which is another topic but also interesting stuff! ) , they use growth, which I already debunked.
Sensitivity
Sensitivity would mean react and adapt to it's environment, Let's take a simple example, if it's cold you'd dress warmer to keep yourself warm. This also happens in the fantastic world of micro-biology on a vast scale to a lot of factors (I can't stress enough how complex genomics is). A bacteria my switch to fructose instead of glucose when glucose is absent in the environment, or activate certain genes when the temperature rises. Like I debunked in respiration, excretion and nutrition; a virus does not directly adapt or respond to it's environment it just happens to bump into a suitable host cell.
Movement
As for movement, it can't move on it's own, like a human walks or a bacteria might use it's flagellum. A virus goes with the flow (Wind, water current, sticks to skin, sticks to food etc.). As I stated above, a virus just happend to bump into a suitable host cell.
Please correct my english as it's not perfect, and if I'm not perfectly clear point that out as well! I'd love to explain it more for you guys.
By that definition a virus is not 'alive'.
But notice that most neurons are created during embryonic development. After that they don't multiply/grow/mitosis.
You would not say a neuron is dead simply because it doesn't multiply. It also dosn't move. But it does fulfil the other criteria.
In fact, movement seems like a weak criteria. Plant seeds don't move (do they?), but they must be alive.
A seed that falls in the wrong environment will die out once it has used up its nutrients.
The same way a virus will die once the droplet it inhabitet dries out.
I also doubt many cells have the capacity to move if not attached to a greater organism.
Is "making more of itself" not reproduction? You argue it requires a living eukaryot.
But a cell also can't reproduce on its own either. It requires vitamins, minerals, O2 (if it's not anaerobic) carbohydrates etc.
In a large organism these things are brought to the cell (via blood e.g.). The cell itself can't move.
Many cells are passive. Existing in one place being fed nutrients from other cells, and in the case on neurons don't even reproduce.
They create a lot of other stuff though - which viruses also do through the help of cells - by inhabiting them
About sensitivity: A virus can mutate and increase its chances of survival. That's adaptation, I would say.
About a virus on Mars: Bad example. Instead: tear down a rock into its smallest parts - atoms. Nothing changes. You just have smaller components.
But if you take apart a virus it will at some point no longer function as a virus. it dies. It needs a very specific structure (RNA/DNA).
That only proves a virus is organic, of course. But I'd argue it's more than that: it's living because it interacts with its environment, reproduces itself and can even create proteins. Not on its own, but many things can't make something on its own.
A virus does not multiply, it needs the capacities of other living organisms such as a prokaryotic or eukaryotic cell. So it cannot not meet this requirement.
Man, it's like you didn't even read Adorno's posts. He pretty much destroyed that argument.
As shown the box paradox, a virus does not interact with it's environment. Therefore doesn't extract energy from nutrients in the environment thus not excreting anything. In order for it to live it will need to create and excrete molecules, which can be as complex as proteins to downright as simple as carbondioxide. A virus in a vacuum (where about 0 molecules are present) would be equally active as a virus in the most molecule-richest of places.
It doesn't interact if it doesn't land on a cell. Also, the reason cells need a system always working to produce energy is because of their nature. A virus doesn't need energy. Other forms of life do. The penguin, the ostrich and the emu don't fly, yet they're still birds.
Like a virus doesn't grow it also doesn't reproduce, it makes more of itself using again using a living eukaryotic or prokaryotic cell (Look at my HIV lifespan explanation). Sexual reproduction would mean you'd need two viruses who mix up their genomes to create a new virus. It doesn't do this. Most bacteria don't do this either (they can share their genomes with neighbor cells if they for example have made themselves resistant to antibiotics, which is another topic but also interesting stuff! ) , they use growth, which I already debunked.
This has been addressed by Adorno several times already. Also you do contradict yourself by saying most bacteria, like viruses, don't reproduce sexually. Not that it matters since it is very well established that asexual reproduction exist.
Sensitivity would mean react and adapt to it's environment, Let's take a simple example, if it's cold you'd dress warmer to keep yourself warm. This also happens in the fantastic world of micro-biology on a vast scale to a lot of factors (I can't stress enough how complex genomics is). A bacteria my switch to fructose instead of glucose when glucose is absent in the environment, or activate certain genes when the temperature rises. Like I debunked in respiration, excretion and nutrition; a virus does not directly adapt or respond to it's environment it just happens to bump into a suitable host cell.
A virus does respond to the pressures of natural selection and it will evolve over time though. So it at least does have a minimum of adaptation. Perhaps not as much as you'd like, but it's there.
As for movement, it can't move on it's own, like a human walks or a bacteria might use it's flagellum. A virus goes with the flow (Wind, water current, sticks to skin, sticks to food etc.). As I stated above, a virus just happend to bump into a suitable host cell.
But notice that most neurons are created during embryonic development. After that they don't multiply/grow/mitosis.
You would not say a neuron is dead simply because it doesn't multiply. It also dosn't move. But it does fulfil the other criteria.
You kind of played yourself there as you say it in fact can multiply, but stops at a certain point in development. Even so just for the record neurons never completely stop multiplying, that would implicate that if you were to have a concussion you'd forever be brain damaged. As for movement: you need to see the difference between singlecellular organisms and multi-cellular organisms.
Singlecellular organisms:
Are organisms belonging to the bacteria and Archaea kingdoms. Most of them can move using flagella for example, but there's plenty of other tricks to move around to a more nutrient-rich area.
Multi-cellular organisms:
As for multi-cellular organisms. We humans are a multi-cellular organism the whole point of being a multi-cellular organism is cooperation between cells. So you're right that neurons don't necasserily move own their own per se, we can move with our legs, making the neurons move with us. Do you get my point? Because a neuron doesn't have to move on it's own to get nutriënts, we as a whole body move to the food and get it in our system eventually reaching our little neuron-friend.
In fact, movement seems like a weak criteria. Plant seeds don't move (do they?), but they must be alive.
A seed that falls in the wrong environment will die out once it has used up its nutrients.
The same way a virus will die once the droplet it inhabitet dries out.
I also doubt many cells have the capacity to move if not attached to a greater organism.
Plant seeds are indeed unable to move and if it falls in the wrong environment will die out. But this not a matter of "when is something alive" but it's a matter of "survival of the fittest" which is evolution. You cannot force evolution, meaning if I want to have wings I can't just grow them because I want them to. No those thing happen by pure chance, and if having wings is more benificial (for example I can reach nutrients other humans cannot) then I might get more off-spring which will have wings as well, slowly eliminating the non-winged genes.
As for the doubt about cells being able to move around here's some media showing you that it in fact can move around.
You're right it is more of itself, sorry I flawed there but that doesn't mean a virus reproduces, or makes more of itself on it's own. Sexual reproduction is mixing one organisms genes with anothers to speed up the process of evolution (I believe we're all familiar with that concept ) . Asexual reproduction is what bacteria do for example just cloning yourself essentially. A virus on it's own does neither it does not lookup another female virus to create new virus'. Nor does it just clone itself on it's own. I hope you can follow me.
You argue it requires a living eukaryot.
But a cell also can't reproduce on its own either. It requires vitamins, minerals, O2 (if it's not anaerobic) carbohydrates etc.
In a large organism these things are brought to the cell (via blood e.g.). T:
he cell itself can't move.
Many cells are passive. Existing in one place being fed nutrients from other cells, and in the case on neurons don't even reproduce.
They create a lot of other stuff though - which viruses also do through the help of cells - by inhabiting them f-tongue
I debunked movement in this post, what's essential here is the difference between multi- and single-cellular organisms, they all move.
The virus does not create anything then does it? I virus forces a cell to make more virusses trough genetic code, but does absolutely nothing on it's own. No catabolism no anabolism nothing.
Sensitivity has nothing to do with evolving. Sensitivity is short-term adapting to your environment. For example your screen brightness is too high so you squint your eyes. Or a bit more complex (on micro-biology level) a bacteria starts creating heat resistant proteins as it's surrounding temperature rises so it can resist sometimes even extreme temperatures as 373 Kelvin. (That's why surgeon equipment get's cleaned more than 1 time at 373 Kelvin). What you're suggesting is that any organism can actively change it's DNA to their benefit at anytime. No living thing can do this, it's like I said in this post evolution which can't be forced. Of course there's human manipulation, but we're far from mastering the technology.
Ok that was (maybe) alot of information. but to sum it up, any living organism can't just actively mutate it's DNA to increase it's survival chance. As well as a virus doesn't do this. I could explain you how natural selection does work for a virus, but you'd have to ask for it, because it can get complex real quick.
About a virus on Mars: Bad example. Instead: tear down a rock into its smallest parts - atoms. Nothing changes. You just have smaller components.
But if you take apart a virus it will at some point no longer function as a virus. it dies. It needs a very specific structure (RNA/DNA).
That only proves a virus is organic, of course.
I didn't bring up mars in the first place
But you're right tho, it only proves a virus is composed of organic material which it of course is. Mainly consisting of aminoacids, nucleotides, glycoproteins, proteins, and for animal virusses a membrane.
But I'd argue it's more than that: it's living because it interacts with its environment, reproduces itself and can even create proteins. Not on its own, but many things can't make something on its own.
Can you give me some examples? Because the main point is that a virus does not reproduce or create proteins of it's own, because it quite physically cannot do this. It lacks energy as well as components to do so.
It doesn't interact if it doesn't land on a cell. Also, the reason cells need a system always working to produce energy is because of their nature. A virus doesn't need energy. Other forms of life do. The penguin, the ostrich and the emu don't fly, yet they're still birds.
And because the virus doesn't need or produce energy it's not alive. The fact that a penguin is still a bird has everything to do with speciation which is a huge part of evolution. It doens't have much to do with why they're considered alive.
This has been addressed by Adorno several times already. Also you do contradict yourself by saying most bacteria, like viruses, don't reproduce sexually. Not that it matters since it is very well established that asexual reproduction exist.
A virus does respond to the pressures of natural selection and it will evolve over time though. So it at least does have a minimum of adaptation. Perhaps not as much as you'd like, but it's there.
As I'd like? I don't really care wether it evolves for not. A virus does not directly respond to natural selection that part is true, but if it weren't to respond to it at all it wouldn't evolve and even more so could go extinct. I offer you the same as @Adorno if you want explanation on virusses natural selection please ask, I'd love to explain it to you guys.
A seed can't move that's true, and yes it just happens to "bump" into a suitable soil. Everything regarding natural selection, is sheer dumb luck. Plants and trees (which is a plant) are very much moving. Maybe not in the same obvious way as we're doing. But just watch these videos:
So guys, in all honesty I think I'm going to leave it at that, if you want further explanation regarding the natural selection in virusses I'd love to explain but that'd be the last. After going into this I did some more research and well they're as of now in between the definition of life. I'd argue they're not alive but a definitely a part of life. But this is an ongoing discussion between PhD doctors, and I don't think we're going to come with an answer. Afterall I'm just a BsC student.
This all does really point out that even the most simplest of "beings" (virusses) are incredibly complex.
A virus certainly requires something of its environment. It requires the right conditions to reproduce, just like all other life forms.
If you take unorganic matter - say a rock - and place it anywhere in the universe, it will not turn into more rocks.
A cell requires nutrients - minerals, vitamins, carbohydrates, O2... - to live. A virus requires a host cell that has DNA.
A cell disintegrates - dies - if not in the proper environment. So does a virus. A rock does not. If you place a rock on Mars, it's still a rock.
If I were a Greek philosopher, I would say a virus has life as immanent quality. ?
Is "making more of itself" not reproduction? You argue it requires a living eukaryot.
But a cell also can't reproduce on its own either. It requires vitamins, minerals, O2 (if it's not anaerobic) carbohydrates etc.
In a large organism these things are brought to the cell (via blood e.g.).
I meant that the a virus doesn't need anything to retain its status as a virus.
Is the helium in stars alive because there is ever more of it as atoms of hydrogen gets smashed together by gravity? No, the helium doesn't reproduce, the virus doesn't reproduce either. More of helium is produced by external forces and the same goes for the virus. A cell on the other hand does create a copy of itself. Sure, it requires external resources and energy to do so, because it is not a perpetuum mobile, but it does the work. A virus doesn't do the work. It doesn't reproduce, more of it is produced by someone else.
An argument that comes up a lot is "on its own": a virus does nothing on its own.
A cell can reproduce and make proteins and break down material and so on, on its own.
But no. A cell can't do anything on its own, if it's not in the right environment. A skin cell requires other cells to transport nutrients and O2, otherwise it dies. It can't move someplace else and get the energy it needs to sustain life and multiply.
A skin cell fulfils all the criteria for being 'alive', yet can't do anything if it's not in the right environment, and will die if it leaves the 'host body'.
A virus also needs the right environment, which is the interior of a cell. it can also reproduce, create proteins (pretty large molecules) and move about as the cell moves about. It relies on a host cell to 'live', just like the cells of a complex organism relies on all the other cells.
Sensitivity is short-term adapting to your environment. For example your screen brightness is too high so you squint your eyes. Or a bit more complex (on micro-biology level) a bacteria starts creating heat resistant proteins as its surrounding temperature rises so it can resist sometimes even extreme temperatures as 373 Kelvin. (That's why surgeon equipment get's cleaned more than 1 time at 373 Kelvin). What you're suggesting is that any organism can actively change it's DNA to their benefit at anytime
Heat resistant proteins might be short term, but it's also evolution and adaptation.
A virus that mutates and happen to increase its survival, is a sort of adaptation, just long term. Heat resistant proteins were also random changes that proved beneficial so it became a trait in the bacterium. Viruses also have traits that increase their survival. Some can live a few hours, others several weeks, outside a host.
But you're right, that's not sensitivity. I just don't see a reason to distinguish between short and long term adaptation/mutation as criterium for life.
Viruses are on a very borderline of alive and not alive, I believe that it is, to this day, still discussed even among the scientists who specialize in life forms and/or viruses. Definitely very hard to tell but the box analogy is clever and brings a point - viruses do nothing, they slowly degrade because of the atomic bonds decaying, they DO NOT need the energy to exist, they passively steal the energy when they insert their genes into the host and let the host reproduce the virus in the organism. It has no self-preservation, no self-generation of resources, hell it doesn't really do anything outside of the host and even then, it lets the host do the job.
We're not getting through to you, Adorno There's no conversion of matter to energy and vice versa (=metabolism) in what viruses do. A virus just falls into a place in the environment, while a cell actively transforms it. It's like calling a caveman who hides in a cave from rain or snow a mason or or even an architect.
We're not getting through to you, Adorno There's no conversion of matter to energy and vice versa (=metabolism) in what viruses do. A virus just falls into a place in the environment, while a cell actively transforms it. It's like calling a caveman who hides in a cave from rain or snow a mason or or even an architect.
[...]
Heat resistant proteins might be short term, but it's also evolution and adaptation.
A virus that mutates and happen to increase its survival, is a sort of adaptation, just long term. Heat resistant proteins were also random changes that proved beneficial so it became a trait in the bacterium. Viruses also have traits that increase their survival. Some can live a few hours, others several weeks, outside a host.
But you're right, that's not sensitivity. I just don't see a reason to distinguish between short and long term adaptation/mutation as criterium for life.
Sensitivity and evolution have little to do with eachother. Sensitivity is the bacteria using his heat resistent protein genes, evolution is that the bacteria has such a gene. By sheer dumb luck.
What can I say, I'm thick headed. I see your points
But you have to apologise to my virus friends for saying they're dead, don't work, and have no sensitivity. That's just rude.
A virus is not alive, depending on what sort (bacteriophage or animal virus etc.) you have it's just a capsid, within the capsid, (again depending on what sort virus you have) double/single strand DNA/RNA and some relevant proteins. Without a host cell they're as alive as a brick wall. Take for example the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. It's a single strand RNA retrovirus, with glycoproteins, a membrane. Without a host cell (A Human cell) it's nothing. Once the HIV CD4 glycoproteins meet the human receptors it merges with the cell releasing it's content. A few steps follow but to summarize it, the single strand RNA is turned in the double strand DNA trough the protein reverse transcriptase (HIV is the only virus to do this). It then continues to integrate this Double strand into the host cell's DNA, turning the cell into a virus producing factory until it dies off. The virus has done nothing but coincidentally bump into a suitable host cell.
So to summarize: A virus is nothing more than a infectious particle containing some proteins, nucleotides, a relatively small genome (either DNA or RNA) that does not create or consume anything. Just like @kurczak stated. The biological definition of life is that an organism is able to reproduce, build and tear down substances of any sort. A virus can't do any of these on it's own.
A virus is not self-replicating, and it's nowhere close to plants of fungi which have eukaryotic cells and are incredibly complex.
A virus certainly requires something of its environment. It requires the right conditions to reproduce, just like all other life forms.
If you take unorganic matter - say a rock - and place it anywhere in the universe, it will not turn into more rocks.
A cell requires nutrients - minerals, vitamins, carbohydrates, O2... - to live. A virus requires a host cell that has DNA.
A cell disintegrates - dies - if not in the proper environment. So does a virus. A rock does not. If you place a rock on Mars, it's still a rock.
If I were a Greek philosopher, I would say a virus has life as immanent quality. ?
In the right situation, a rock can make more rocks. Think of crystallization.
I agree that viruses have souls and are alive, but rocks too.
Otherwise why did the Lawd make rocks in the image of the presidents who the same Lawd made in the image of a many times re-copied cassette version of Itself (as an alive deity/critter)? Why did the Lawd further go on to make viruses, also in the image of politicians?
Once we started sometimes being nice to other humans within our immediate family, it was a slippery slope to broadening our understanding of which things we should be nice to. Today, non-human animals are steadily moving into that sphere. Fungi will follow and then people will have to include plants because it's too hard to tell them apart. Viruses and rocks may be a long way from recognition of their rights, but the day will come. Upon running out of more compelling candidates, humanity will gradually get around to it.
How long it takes human civilisation to see it doesn't change what they are though. Already, they are parts of the spectrum of life and they should be referred to by nomenclature of their own choosing or lack thereof.
I think "Coronavirus" is a prettier name than "covid 19" but I don't want to influence its decision or lack thereof.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
) , they use growth, which I already debunked.
) . Asexual reproduction is what bacteria do for example just cloning yourself essentially. A virus on it's own does neither it does not lookup another female virus to create new virus'. Nor does it just clone itself on it's own. I hope you can follow me. 
