Viruses are everywhere and they affect our lives greatly. But are they alive?
I would say no due to their in ability to self replicate with out hijacking a cells DNA to make it reproduce it for the virus.
Anyone else have any thoughts.
Full Version: Are Viruses alive or not?
QUOTE (Mattshark @ Feb 17 2008, 04:44 PM) 
Viruses are everywhere and they affect our lives greatly. But are they alive?
I would say no due to their in ability to self replicate with out hijacking a cells DNA to make it reproduce it for the virus.
Anyone else have any thoughts.
I would say no due to their in ability to self replicate with out hijacking a cells DNA to make it reproduce it for the virus.
Anyone else have any thoughts.
If they are not alive, how can they mutate?
Good thread idea, by the way.
QUOTE (Mattshark @ Feb 17 2008, 07:44 PM)
Viruses are everywhere and they affect our lives greatly. But are they alive?
I would say no due to their in ability to self replicate with out hijacking a cells DNA to make it reproduce it for the virus.
Anyone else have any thoughts.
I would say no due to their in ability to self replicate with out hijacking a cells DNA to make it reproduce it for the virus.
Anyone else have any thoughts.
I would agree, Viruses are life...but not life. A truly strange occurrence.
All a virus is, is basically genetic material (either DNA or RNA) inside a protein coat or capsid. They can't metabolize on their own or reproduce on their own.
It all comes down to the question of defining what life actually is.
QUOTE (glorybebe @ Feb 18 2008, 12:51 AM)
If they are not alive, how can they mutate?
Good thread idea, by the way.
Good thread idea, by the way.
Thanks, Cimber inspired it.
They have DNA or RNA which can be altered.
It all depends on your definition of "life". From a scientific point of view, virii are classified as nonliving, they are basically dna or rna covered by proteins, but there is no definate yes or no answer on that. I think a lot of time people confuse virii with bacteria, but they are two completely different things. To give you an idea of the scale; If a tiny virus were enlarged to the size of a baseball, a bacteria would be as big as a pitcher's mound, and a cell would fill the entire ballpark...
Viruses are some interesting buggers. In college I took a lot of biology courses, and was always amazed by how streamlined and effective they are at doing what they do. They are the bare minimum material required to get the job done...
Viruses are some interesting buggers. In college I took a lot of biology courses, and was always amazed by how streamlined and effective they are at doing what they do. They are the bare minimum material required to get the job done...
QUOTE (Fluffybunny @ Feb 18 2008, 02:06 AM)
It all depends on your definition of "life". From a scientific point of view, virii are classified as nonliving, they are basically dna or rna covered by proteins, but there is no definate yes or no answer on that. I think a lot of time people confuse virii with bacteria, but they are two completely different things. To give you an idea of the scale; If a tiny virus were enlarged to the size of a baseball, a bacteria would be as big as a pitcher's mound, and a cell would fill the entire ballpark...
Viruses are some interesting buggers. In college I took a lot of biology courses, and was always amazed by how streamlined and effective they are at doing what they do. They are the bare minimum material required to get the job done...
Viruses are some interesting buggers. In college I took a lot of biology courses, and was always amazed by how streamlined and effective they are at doing what they do. They are the bare minimum material required to get the job done...
Agreed, they are amazing things and variety found amongst them is incredible.
I'd be interesting to know of their origins. I have heard suggestions of them being a defensive product of eukaryotic cells, but I do not know how plausible that is.
QUOTE (Mattshark @ Feb 17 2008, 05:10 PM)
I'd be interesting to know of their origins. I have heard suggestions of them being a defensive product of eukaryotic cells, but I do not know how plausible that is.
I had a biology instructor who said something along the same lines, but that they were a streamlined, reversed evolution of a prokaryote that dropped everything but what we see in virii today. I dont know about that; they dont fossilize, so it is pretty much speculation at that point.
This is absolutely incredible.
There are many species of parasitic wasp that lay their eggs inside caterpillars and when the eggs hatch they act as parasites until they've grown large enough to molt into adults. One species has an incredible way of making this easier.
They contain an entire viral genome within their own genome - but instead of this viral genome directing their cells, they have genetic control over it and express it just as if it was their own genes. The cells in the wasp's reproductive tracts express the viral genome in small, controlled amounts, and actually secrete complete viruses! They're injected with the eggs into the caterpillars and keep their immune systems busy while the eggs establish themselves, and increase the percentage of the larvae that survive to adulthood. The viruses, when infecting a cell which does not have its genome already inside it, behave just like a normal virus and spread in just the way you would expect.
No one knows if this virus was originally a free-living strain that infected the wasp and became integrated into its DNA and eventually came under the wasp's control - or if the wasp just got more and more sophisticated secretions to help its eggs until it actually produced a self-replicating bio-weapon of its own. I believe some researchers don't want to call these viruses viruses, but "genetic secretions". I'll try to find a link to a reference... I read this in a book about evolution I have. Its crazy.
Should these be considered somehow symbiotic lifeforms? or self-replicating secretions?
There are many species of parasitic wasp that lay their eggs inside caterpillars and when the eggs hatch they act as parasites until they've grown large enough to molt into adults. One species has an incredible way of making this easier.
They contain an entire viral genome within their own genome - but instead of this viral genome directing their cells, they have genetic control over it and express it just as if it was their own genes. The cells in the wasp's reproductive tracts express the viral genome in small, controlled amounts, and actually secrete complete viruses! They're injected with the eggs into the caterpillars and keep their immune systems busy while the eggs establish themselves, and increase the percentage of the larvae that survive to adulthood. The viruses, when infecting a cell which does not have its genome already inside it, behave just like a normal virus and spread in just the way you would expect.
No one knows if this virus was originally a free-living strain that infected the wasp and became integrated into its DNA and eventually came under the wasp's control - or if the wasp just got more and more sophisticated secretions to help its eggs until it actually produced a self-replicating bio-weapon of its own. I believe some researchers don't want to call these viruses viruses, but "genetic secretions". I'll try to find a link to a reference... I read this in a book about evolution I have. Its crazy.
Should these be considered somehow symbiotic lifeforms? or self-replicating secretions?
I go with alive!! Their everywhere
QUOTE (Torgo @ Feb 18 2008, 02:08 AM)
This is absolutely incredible.
There are many species of parasitic wasp that lay their eggs inside caterpillars and when the eggs hatch they act as parasites until they've grown large enough to molt into adults. One species has an incredible way of making this easier.
They contain an entire viral genome within their own genome - but instead of this viral genome directing their cells, they have genetic control over it and express it just as if it was their own genes. The cells in the wasp's reproductive tracts express the viral genome in small, controlled amounts, and actually secrete complete viruses! They're injected with the eggs into the caterpillars and keep their immune systems busy while the eggs establish themselves, and increase the percentage of the larvae that survive to adulthood. The viruses, when infecting a cell which does not have its genome already inside it, behave just like a normal virus and spread in just the way you would expect.
No one knows if this virus was originally a free-living strain that infected the wasp and became integrated into its DNA and eventually came under the wasp's control - or if the wasp just got more and more sophisticated secretions to help its eggs until it actually produced a self-replicating bio-weapon of its own. I believe some researchers don't want to call these viruses viruses, but "genetic secretions". I'll try to find a link to a reference... I read this in a book about evolution I have. Its crazy.
Should these be considered somehow symbiotic lifeforms? or self-replicating secretions?
There are many species of parasitic wasp that lay their eggs inside caterpillars and when the eggs hatch they act as parasites until they've grown large enough to molt into adults. One species has an incredible way of making this easier.
They contain an entire viral genome within their own genome - but instead of this viral genome directing their cells, they have genetic control over it and express it just as if it was their own genes. The cells in the wasp's reproductive tracts express the viral genome in small, controlled amounts, and actually secrete complete viruses! They're injected with the eggs into the caterpillars and keep their immune systems busy while the eggs establish themselves, and increase the percentage of the larvae that survive to adulthood. The viruses, when infecting a cell which does not have its genome already inside it, behave just like a normal virus and spread in just the way you would expect.
No one knows if this virus was originally a free-living strain that infected the wasp and became integrated into its DNA and eventually came under the wasp's control - or if the wasp just got more and more sophisticated secretions to help its eggs until it actually produced a self-replicating bio-weapon of its own. I believe some researchers don't want to call these viruses viruses, but "genetic secretions". I'll try to find a link to a reference... I read this in a book about evolution I have. Its crazy.
Should these be considered somehow symbiotic lifeforms? or self-replicating secretions?
That is extremely interesting. I'd love to more about that.
http://www.life.uiuc.edu/whitfield/pubs/pdfs/JIP2003.pdf (a paper about it)
http://www.genoscope.cns.fr/spip/Cotesia-c...wasp-viral.html
Apparently I was wrong or my source was out of date - they generally do NOT reproduce inside the host, they just suppress the immune system after transferring their DNA into host cells. And weirdest of all, the genome inside these virus particles appears to contain very few genes derived from a wild lineage of viruses, lots of genes derived from the wasp genome, AND a few genes derived from a few species of bacteria! This is one crazy case of gene transfer between organisms.
This appears to be a case in which a previously "free-living" virus has been co-opted by the wasp until it is nothing more than a gene-transfer vehicle, or even just a very complicated secretion. Its like the way mitochondria or chloroplasts probably used to be free-living bacteria before they became endosymbionts and eventually mere organelles.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the original question, didnt want to hijack the thread, sorry - the line between "alive" and not seems to be quite possibly arbitrary. viruses are just particles that when they come into contact with living cells of the right type, can induce it to make more copies of itself. They stick around because increasing their numbers is in their nature... I wouldn't call them life, but they're certainly not inert matter.
http://www.genoscope.cns.fr/spip/Cotesia-c...wasp-viral.html
Apparently I was wrong or my source was out of date - they generally do NOT reproduce inside the host, they just suppress the immune system after transferring their DNA into host cells. And weirdest of all, the genome inside these virus particles appears to contain very few genes derived from a wild lineage of viruses, lots of genes derived from the wasp genome, AND a few genes derived from a few species of bacteria! This is one crazy case of gene transfer between organisms.
This appears to be a case in which a previously "free-living" virus has been co-opted by the wasp until it is nothing more than a gene-transfer vehicle, or even just a very complicated secretion. Its like the way mitochondria or chloroplasts probably used to be free-living bacteria before they became endosymbionts and eventually mere organelles.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the original question, didnt want to hijack the thread, sorry - the line between "alive" and not seems to be quite possibly arbitrary. viruses are just particles that when they come into contact with living cells of the right type, can induce it to make more copies of itself. They stick around because increasing their numbers is in their nature... I wouldn't call them life, but they're certainly not inert matter.
Have I got one of those bloody viruses " my screen has just gone blue"
Dan Dare
Dan Dare
QUOTE (Torgo @ Feb 18 2008, 03:17 AM)
... I wouldn't call them life, but they're certainly not inert matter.
That's about right. I once had a Biology Prof who answered this question with, "Viruses are kinda sorta alive, but not really *life*."
Whatever they are, they certainly stink....I have a terrible cold right now! *Sniff* *Cough*
Yes this is interesting... but can we say that it has intent???? that it requires certain conditions to replicate.. to activate... it ingests..excretes.. it evolutes... to increase it's chance of survival... it has more complex conditions required for survival..,. yet it achieves this... adapts...
it's parasitic... therefor alive???
Then there is Quorum sensing...
http://microbiologybytes.wordpress.com/200...ng-in-serratia/
http://www.bio-medicine.org/q/virulence/
it's parasitic... therefor alive???
Then there is Quorum sensing...
QUOTE
Communication doesn't automatically prevent cheating
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/denis036/thisweekinevolution/humans/
There are enough examples of ‘‘cheating’’ in bacteria ... that mindless obedience to such [quorum-sensing] chemical signals cannot be assumed. Mindlessness can be assumed, but not obedience. -- Denison et al. (2003) Ecology 84:838-845
Millions of cooperating cells can do things far beyond the ability of an individual cell. This is most obvious in multicellular organisms, whose cells cooperate because they are all genetically identical, or nearly so. Genetically diverse populations of cells could often benefit from cooperating, but do they? For example, the mixed bacteria populations associated with plant roots might benefit from keeping the plant healthy, so that it can continue to feed them with its root exudates. But for this to happen, they need some method of coordinating their plant-benefiting activities. Furthermore, cells whose genes lead to this form of cooperation must, on average, survive and reproduce more than "cheaters" who don't invest in cooperative activities. Otherwise, cooperative traits will disappear.
Quorum sensing, an exchange of chemical signals among bacteria, can solve the coordination problem. But this week's paper Cooperation and conflict in quorum-sensing bacterial populations shows that quorum sensing doesn't automatically solve the problem of cheaters. The paper is by Stephen Diggle, Ashleigh Griffin, Genevieve Campbell, and Stuart West and published in Nature.
Continue reading "Communication doesn't automatically prevent cheating" »
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/denis036/thisweekinevolution/humans/
There are enough examples of ‘‘cheating’’ in bacteria ... that mindless obedience to such [quorum-sensing] chemical signals cannot be assumed. Mindlessness can be assumed, but not obedience. -- Denison et al. (2003) Ecology 84:838-845
Millions of cooperating cells can do things far beyond the ability of an individual cell. This is most obvious in multicellular organisms, whose cells cooperate because they are all genetically identical, or nearly so. Genetically diverse populations of cells could often benefit from cooperating, but do they? For example, the mixed bacteria populations associated with plant roots might benefit from keeping the plant healthy, so that it can continue to feed them with its root exudates. But for this to happen, they need some method of coordinating their plant-benefiting activities. Furthermore, cells whose genes lead to this form of cooperation must, on average, survive and reproduce more than "cheaters" who don't invest in cooperative activities. Otherwise, cooperative traits will disappear.
Quorum sensing, an exchange of chemical signals among bacteria, can solve the coordination problem. But this week's paper Cooperation and conflict in quorum-sensing bacterial populations shows that quorum sensing doesn't automatically solve the problem of cheaters. The paper is by Stephen Diggle, Ashleigh Griffin, Genevieve Campbell, and Stuart West and published in Nature.
Continue reading "Communication doesn't automatically prevent cheating" »
http://microbiologybytes.wordpress.com/200...ng-in-serratia/
http://www.bio-medicine.org/q/virulence/
QUOTE
http://www.mrs.umn.edu/~goochv/CellBio/lec...irus/virus.html
1. enzymatic activity (Sometimes a lipid membrane type of coat is also possible - derived from the host.)
# Is a virus alive?
1. Yes - They reproduce which is a definite form of organization. True, they can not do it on their own, yet all living systems are open systems and depend upon their environment for survival. It is just that the environment a virus requires is another living cell. This is actually true for many symbiotic and parasitic cells.
2. No - A virus is not a living machine . It is only part of a machine, namely the blueprints. The virus only provides the plans, the cell has done the real living work. Outside of its host the virus shows no living qualities
Of this major scheme, the virus only provides the DNA or the m-RNA (the blue prints) while the living cell has to provide the living factory (energy, enzymes, ribosomes, amino acids, nucleic acids, etc.)
# Viruses have been found in a wide variety of forms.
1. Single stranded DNA, double stranded DNA, single stranded RNA.
2. Just nucleic acid with no coating (viroid), protein coated (e.g. phage), and membrane and protein coated.
3. Some viruses have been found such that they are directly incorporated into the DNA of the host organism and the viral DNA is dormant until stressful situations when it becomes activated.
# As viruses are reproduced in a cell, imperfect replication of the DNA or RNA code can occur just as can occur in normal cells DNA replication. Such changes are mutations, just like in normal cells. And, just like in normal cells, usually such mutations are a disadvantage to the virus BUT occasionally the change is an advantage. Hence viruses DO mutate and evolve. Some viruses mutate and evolve more rapidly than others. Human disease viruses that have a high mutation rate are hard to control - in this high mutation rate category are the flu viruses and the HIV virus. The smallpox virus and polio virus have a low mutation rate and we have been able to almost totally eliminate these!
1. enzymatic activity (Sometimes a lipid membrane type of coat is also possible - derived from the host.)
# Is a virus alive?
1. Yes - They reproduce which is a definite form of organization. True, they can not do it on their own, yet all living systems are open systems and depend upon their environment for survival. It is just that the environment a virus requires is another living cell. This is actually true for many symbiotic and parasitic cells.
2. No - A virus is not a living machine . It is only part of a machine, namely the blueprints. The virus only provides the plans, the cell has done the real living work. Outside of its host the virus shows no living qualities
Of this major scheme, the virus only provides the DNA or the m-RNA (the blue prints) while the living cell has to provide the living factory (energy, enzymes, ribosomes, amino acids, nucleic acids, etc.)
# Viruses have been found in a wide variety of forms.
1. Single stranded DNA, double stranded DNA, single stranded RNA.
2. Just nucleic acid with no coating (viroid), protein coated (e.g. phage), and membrane and protein coated.
3. Some viruses have been found such that they are directly incorporated into the DNA of the host organism and the viral DNA is dormant until stressful situations when it becomes activated.
# As viruses are reproduced in a cell, imperfect replication of the DNA or RNA code can occur just as can occur in normal cells DNA replication. Such changes are mutations, just like in normal cells. And, just like in normal cells, usually such mutations are a disadvantage to the virus BUT occasionally the change is an advantage. Hence viruses DO mutate and evolve. Some viruses mutate and evolve more rapidly than others. Human disease viruses that have a high mutation rate are hard to control - in this high mutation rate category are the flu viruses and the HIV virus. The smallpox virus and polio virus have a low mutation rate and we have been able to almost totally eliminate these!
QUOTE (crystal sage @ Feb 18 2008, 03:57 PM)
Yes this is interesting... but can we say that it has intent???? that it requires certain conditions to replicate.. to activate... it ingests..excretes.. it evolutes... to increase it's chance of survival... it has more complex conditions required for survival..,. yet it achieves this... adapts...
it's parasitic... therefor alive???
Then there is Quorum sensing...
http://microbiologybytes.wordpress.com/200...ng-in-serratia/
http://www.bio-medicine.org/q/virulence/
it's parasitic... therefor alive???
Then there is Quorum sensing...
http://microbiologybytes.wordpress.com/200...ng-in-serratia/
http://www.bio-medicine.org/q/virulence/
Prions are even stranger than viruses. In that case, it's merely a variably shaped, protease-resistant protein altering normal a protein's structure by a single enzymatic mechanism. It's one single molecule, yet it's infectious and can make copies of itself by altering similar structures to pass on its information.
It's not at all life, but it does muddy the water and make the need for a better definition of life more apparent.
I had a prof who described them as 'undead' like vampires. No kidding. They guy was weird.
But... it kinda works.
But... it kinda works.
QUOTE (Alondro @ Feb 19 2008, 09:55 AM)
Prions are even stranger than viruses. In that case, it's merely a variably shaped, protease-resistant protein altering normal a protein's structure by a single enzymatic mechanism. It's one single molecule, yet it's infectious and can make copies of itself by altering similar structures to pass on its information.
It's not at all life, but it does muddy the water and make the need for a better definition of life more apparent.
It's not at all life, but it does muddy the water and make the need for a better definition of life more apparent.
I think the definition of life is pretty good, actually, but way back in the evolutionary scheme life would have had to be a virus-like (organism) before it met all 7 qualities. I don't think viruses or prions are biotic, but there needs to be a proto/quasi-life category in which these structures are placed - so no, not "alive", technically. After all, they do have a classification system already in place, but it's not quite what we use for true living things.
According to the scientific community, viruses are not alive, due to the fact that they only develop one of the main life functions, which is reproduction. Even more strange is that viruses develop this reproduction in a parasital way, inserting their genetic material in other singal cell organisms, such as cells.
Even though the scientific community considers them not alive, this topic is still heavily discussed and debated.
Even though the scientific community considers them not alive, this topic is still heavily discussed and debated.
QUOTE (Mattshark @ Feb 17 2008, 06:44 PM)
Viruses are everywhere and they affect our lives greatly. But are they alive?
I would say no due to their in ability to self replicate with out hijacking a cells DNA to make it reproduce it for the virus.
Anyone else have any thoughts.
I would say no due to their in ability to self replicate with out hijacking a cells DNA to make it reproduce it for the virus.
Anyone else have any thoughts.
What are viruses?
I say viruses are mutated living organisms.
And yes, they have hijacked the ability to reproduce.
QUOTE (greggK @ Feb 24 2008, 03:18 AM)
What are viruses?
I say viruses are mutated living organisms.
And yes, they have hijacked the ability to reproduce.
I say viruses are mutated living organisms.
And yes, they have hijacked the ability to reproduce.
You just cannot bring up your own theories like this. Developing a theory follows some pointed principles, this allows them to obtain a common sense.
I'd say that viruses have more in common with a machine than a life-form.
But then, I'm just a Cat.
Meow Purr.
But then, I'm just a Cat.
Meow Purr.
QUOTE (greggK @ Feb 24 2008, 02:18 AM)
What are viruses?
I say viruses are mutated living organisms.
And yes, they have hijacked the ability to reproduce.
I say viruses are mutated living organisms.
And yes, they have hijacked the ability to reproduce.
Err, gregg, you may not have noticed, but all living things can reproduce. However, reproduction alone is not sufficient criteria to deem viruses *alive* (the debate in this regard still continues).
QUOTE (Alex01 @ Feb 24 2008, 04:39 AM)
You just cannot bring up your own theories like this. Developing a theory follows some pointed principles, this allows them to obtain a common sense.
OK let's go deeper and bring out a specific virus. Is the H5N1 bird flu a virus? H5N1 is a subclass of Influenza A. What makes a virus a virus? They cannot reproduce without a host and it does not grow outside of the host. Is your consciousness a virus? Viruses enter the body in some way and because they are made of the same thing the body is made of, they escape detection by the immune system.
In 1918-1919, there was an Influenza outbreak that took the lives of about 20 to 40 million people in about 2 years time.
http://www.arrestflu.com/1918-flu-epidemic.html
The article states the Influenza epidemic started in 1917 in Tibet. What was in Tibet in 1917 that caused the military forces to spread the virus?
Ever heard of Iatrogenocide?
In recorded history, what was the first virus? There was the Bubonic Plague in the 1300s throughout Europe stating in China and ended up killing 147 million people in about 30 years time, but spread how? It spread along a trade route and sea lanes.
But, no viruses do not have the right material to be classified as alive though they have elements of life that 'live' for a short time. That's how they can be transmiitted by contact.
Computer viruses exhibit many of the same abilities and activities as their biological counterparts. (hence the name). However, do we consider THEM to be 'alive' ?
We could probably construct a machanical machine to simulate the behavior of a virus. Would THAT be alive ?
A virus is a biological machine, NOT a life-form.
Meow Purr.
We could probably construct a machanical machine to simulate the behavior of a virus. Would THAT be alive ?
A virus is a biological machine, NOT a life-form.
Meow Purr.
QUOTE (ships-cat @ Feb 24 2008, 08:29 PM)
Computer viruses exhibit many of the same abilities and activities as their biological counterparts. (hence the name). However, do we consider THEM to be 'alive' ?
And computer viruses are not complex enough to be considered computer programs.
QUOTE (Alex01 @ Feb 24 2008, 02:02 PM)
And computer viruses are not complex enough to be considered computer programs.
I've always wondered just how a computer virus works. And I guess it works in the same way a human virus would work. Source code is inserted that contains loops and links to false programs or misdirects the linear logic, I guess.
"Viruses straddle the definition of life".They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple entities,Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life,but they are missing many of the others.In general,viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within protein capsule.Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize 'LIFE",including the biosynthetic material that is necessary for reproduction.In order for a virus to replicate it must infect a suitable host 'cell'.
QUOTE (greggK @ Feb 24 2008, 02:03 PM)
OK let's go deeper and bring out a specific virus. Is the H5N1 bird flu a virus? H5N1 is a subclass of Influenza A. What makes a virus a virus? They cannot reproduce without a host and it does not grow outside of the host. Is your consciousness a virus? Viruses enter the body in some way and because they are made of the same thing the body is made of, they escape detection by the immune system.
In 1918-1919, there was an Influenza outbreak that took the lives of about 20 to 40 million people in about 2 years time.
http://www.arrestflu.com/1918-flu-epidemic.html
The article states the Influenza epidemic started in 1917 in Tibet. What was in Tibet in 1917 that caused the military forces to spread the virus?
Ever heard of Iatrogenocide?
In recorded history, what was the first virus? There was the Bubonic Plague in the 1300s throughout Europe stating in China and ended up killing 147 million people in about 30 years time, but spread how? It spread along a trade route and sea lanes.
But, no viruses do not have the right material to be classified as alive though they have elements of life that 'live' for a short time. That's how they can be transmiitted by contact.
In 1918-1919, there was an Influenza outbreak that took the lives of about 20 to 40 million people in about 2 years time.
http://www.arrestflu.com/1918-flu-epidemic.html
The article states the Influenza epidemic started in 1917 in Tibet. What was in Tibet in 1917 that caused the military forces to spread the virus?
Ever heard of Iatrogenocide?
In recorded history, what was the first virus? There was the Bubonic Plague in the 1300s throughout Europe stating in China and ended up killing 147 million people in about 30 years time, but spread how? It spread along a trade route and sea lanes.
But, no viruses do not have the right material to be classified as alive though they have elements of life that 'live' for a short time. That's how they can be transmiitted by contact.
Wait...what? The Bubonic Plague is caused by Yersinia pestis, a bacterium.
QUOTE (Dog Fish @ Mar 1 2008, 01:37 AM)
Wait...what? The Bubonic Plague is caused by Yersinia pestis, a bacterium.
Yes Dog Fish, thank you for pointing that false statement.
Bubonic plague is a potentially fatal bacterial ( cause by bacteria) infection. It causes swollen, tender lymph nodes, high fever, and chills. The infected person may develop serious illnesses such as pneumonia, blood poisoning, or meningitis. Bubonic plague is not spread from person to person. Small rodents such as rats, mice, and squirrels carry the infection (bacteria cause infection). Fleas that live on these animals become infected, too, so people may get the bacteria from flea bites or from direct contact with an infected animal.
Viruses can be described as "organisms at the edge of life". Yes, they do reproduce. They also have DNR/RNA.
Virus reproduction is a bit more advanced than simple copying, and one can even go and say retrovirii function on a level considered advance. However, they lack all other basic metabolic pathways that are vital to all truly living organisms.
They, like savvyirl quoted, "straddle the definition of life".
Virus reproduction is a bit more advanced than simple copying, and one can even go and say retrovirii function on a level considered advance. However, they lack all other basic metabolic pathways that are vital to all truly living organisms.
They, like savvyirl quoted, "straddle the definition of life".
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.