Something that has always bothered me. Viruses are considered

>>7801160

Viruses are not alive because, quite simply, they do not have any metabolism. They are just DNA wrapped up in protein coating. They're closer to machines than living things.

>>7801160
Labels like living and nonliving only exist for humans to easily classify information. Most things when scrutinized have gray areas in their definition or classification. When people describe viruses as nonliving, they are saying that viruses do not have all of the typical requirements of a living creature, not that viruses aren't actually alive. Obviously a virus is not nonliving the same way a rock is nonliving.

>>7801160
>They don't use it on their own, but the host cell needs energy for the virus replication to complete

That's because the virus isn't reproducing. The cell produces the virus. To be classified as 'living', it must be able to reproduce itself, not to simply be produced by external factors.

>They don't use it on their own, but the host cell needs energy for the virus replication to complete

Aside from the last point, that's like saying pennies are alive because it takes energy for people to make them.

>well they don't go shooting their genetic material anywhere they only do so into a healthy host cell.

This isn't a response to environment, though. And the only reason why they don't shoot their genetic material anywhere isn't because they don't want to — it's because they can't.

>>7801180
>This isn't a response to environment, though. And the only reason why they don't shoot their genetic material anywhere isn't because they don't want to — it's because they can't

Study has shown that HIV latency is possibly an evolutionary design for survival and it controlled by the virus and not the host cell
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286741500183X#

>pic

When did this idea of a virus looking like a spider with a diamond on top come about? Like there's a shitton of them, are there actually viruses that look like that? And do they really move about like that?

>>7801180
Ease up on the anthropomorphic rhetoric. Characterizing viral evolution and behavior as a "want" is inaccurate.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life's_working_definition.html

>>7801240
T4 phage

File: phagestructure.jpg (227KB, 855x563px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 855x563px

>>7801240
Some do look like that yes.
the legs aren't actually legs though, they don't "walk", they just float around until the "feet" randomly touches certain receptors on the cell. When they "find" those receptors they attach to them and flex their base downwards to the cell and inject their genome from the "diamond" and into the cell like a syringe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage

>>7801207
This is an evolutionary response to environment, yes, but not a response to stimuli.
That said, once the viral DNA has integrated into the host genome, it isn't actually a virus anymore.

>>7801252
>Ease up on the anthropomorphic rhetoric. Characterizing viral evolution and behavior as a "want" is inaccurate.

I'm just speaking in OP's language. Don't get so autistic about it.

>>7801286
Don't bring yourself down to the level of the proles

>>7801160
Viruses are nucleic acids surrounded by proteins and in some cases a lipid membrane of cellular origin.
They don't have metabolism.
They depend entirely on the host cell in order to replicate themselves.
So, to put it simply, they are just aggregates of molecules that happen to act as intracellular parasites.

>>7801276
Nature is scary mang

>>7801160
See, in my opinion, the definition of "living" is too narrow, and excludes things, like viruses, which exist in a grey area.

I ask myself, what is it that all living things have in common that is exclusive to them, and not non-living things.

The question is what is the difference between a person and a bag of unorganized atoms of the same mass (same percentage of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen etc)

The answer is information. Living things contain information which determines their organization.

Non-living things can reproduce. A large rock can create two smaller rocks, Stars explode, and eventually the remnants of those stars may come together to form new stars and planets.

Non-living things (can) metabolize, use energy to do work which comes from an external source. Put gas in a car and it can drive.

But, as far as a star is concerned, every atom inside it is the same. There is no information to be gained by labeling them. However, in a living organism, DNA, an organized structure which is a part of the organism, is an information storage system which contains all the information necessary to reproduce the system. This is different from self-replication. As above, a rock can replicate into more rocks, but a rock contains no information.

Now, is this definition too broad? By this definition, a computer program can be alive. Because a computer program can contain all the information necessary to recreate itself. Well, if I made a computer program, that simulated a cell, and used my own DNA chain as an input, and let that program run, I would eventually produce a copy of my physical body in a digital space. Can that copy be said to be alive? Given the right simulation, the copy would say so.

>>7801160
So by your logic, is fire alive?

>>7802396
I disagree with you. I believe rocks contain some information, such as the minerals that compose the rock. External factors such as the rock's location in the Earth affect how the information is modified over a very long time. Certain conditions will allow crystals to form, others will bend the rock or make it brittle. Like viruses, rocks are alive.

>>7802396
But viruses DO contain information that determines their configuration. For example, the proteins that form the viral capside (and the membrane proteins in enveloped viruses) are encoded by the viral DNA/RNA, in the same way that the proteins in our cells are encoded by our DNA. This, however, doesn't mean viruses are living entities.

>>7802429
I hope you're joking.

"life" is a category which breaks down when you get to the scale of viruses. nothing at that scale could ever recreate the full range of biological activities necessary for the conventional understanding of "life"

however, imo it's "like-like" enough that i'd consider it somewhere between, clsoer to alive than not

>>7802453
>>7802450
>>7802449
>>7802429
>>7802401
>>7802396
>>7802367
>>7802324
>>7801289
>>7801286
>>7801285
>>7801276
>>7801268
>>7801255
>>7801240

does it contain DNA/RNA?

>yes
its living.

/thread

>>7801167
>Viruses are not alive because, quite simply, they do not have any metabolism

Can't mitochondria be considered a life form living inside our cells? From that perspective it could be said that we're a virus living off the mitochondria.

File: WhyDoesGod.jpg (107KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 450x338px

>>7802493
Your food contains DNA and RNA.
Is a steak alive?

>>7801169
/thread

>>7802504
only if it's organic

>>7802504
was it once alive?

>>7801167
Why isn't fire alive? It can duplicate, and it has a metabolism.

Life must not only have a metabolism, but also actively sustain a lower entropy than its environment.

>>7802429
All particles contain enough information to form a full set of coordinates. In classical mechanics that consists of x,y,z, t coordinates, as well as x, y, z derivatives. In Quantum mechanics, it means either 3 of the 6 numbers above, or say for example L^2 and Li where i x,y, or z.

The point is, living things contain MORE than just that information.

>>7802493
Wow, such a powerful argument.

>>7802544

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

Serious question here.
If viruses have no metabolism, how do they "inject" their genetic material into the cell? Is it just "pulled in" by the difference in electric load // a specific channel?

>>7801167

That's a good way to define things. Prions aren't alive either, even though they're infectious agents.

There don't seem to be an structures that fill the void between the level of viruses (infectious software) and prions (infectious hardware), and bacteria. If there were, they've probably long been consumed from above and below.

>>7802603
They attach to a receptor on the cell membrane that tricks that cell into absorbing it.

question op: is a 3d printer that can print another 3d printer alive?

>>7802603

I didn't know the answer to this until 5 minutes ago, but I know how to use Wikipedia. There are a few different methods:

1) The virus envelope becomes part of the cell membrane, leaving the virus on the inside of the cell.
2) The virus tricks the cell into thinking it is food.
3) The virus is literally sharp and just pierces right through.

>>7802620
>a 3d printer that can print another 3d printer

That's more alive than a virus. Viruses don't replicate themselves. The living cells they infect make the copies.

A virus is more like a piece of paper that says "If you find this paper, make a bunch of copies of it and scatter them around."

Please /sci/, answer this. What does it matter if a virus is considered alive or not. How does that change anything? I really need to know.

>>7802504
Yes.

Next question.

>>7801167
whats the difference between machines and living things?

Viruses are alien weapons sent to earth to wipe us out. Not very effective, we were smarter than they thought.

Viruses are literally just macromolecules and that is the best way to think of them. DNA wrapped with protein, with a lipid membrane sometimes.

>>7802494
It's hypothesized that the mitochondria used to be its own organism until cells eventually evolved to utilize them for energy, evidence is present in that mitochondria are the only organelles that contain their own DNA. Now the cell and mitochondria live in a symbiotic relationship, so that doesn't really make "us" viruses.

>>7802869
The only difference between humans is that humans are just a much more complex vessel.

Put a leaf in water and it will float. Poke the water and it will ride the ripples. Put the leaf on an automated warship/aircraft carrier and it will float. Push some waves at it and it will wave you from existance, among other capabilities.

>>7801167
> They're closer to machines than living things.
Are viruses nanomachines though?

>>7802493
many bacteria excrete DNA into the biofilm they form

that doesnt mean biofilms are alive

>>7802900
Yes. The distinction between gene technology and nanotechnology is rather blurry, especially regarding virus.

>>7801276
>When they "find" those receptors they attach to them and flex their base downwards to the cell and inject their genome from the "diamond" and into the cell like a syringe.
How then about making synthetic receptors to trigger them to inject their genome outside living organisms?

>>7802522
Fire increases entropy. Life, it seems to me, decreases its own local entropy.

>>7802886
But if mitochondria is it's own organism and we're incapable of living with out it then are we really alive?

It's argued viri aren't alive because they don't metabolize, but we're not metabolizing either. That's the mitochondria which we've latched onto doing the metabolizing.