Is A Virus A Living Or Non Living?

The article first addresses the issue of whether or not to consider viruses as living. Although viruses used to be thought of as being biological chemicals due to the fact that they consist of nucleic acids

Gabbatiss establishes his role as a conveyer of truth by referencing authorities in their respective fields. A look at the virology perspective reveals that the section is based almost entirely on expert opinion; neither the author’s analysis nor his personal beliefs are reflected in an explicit manner. The section begins with a textbook statement: “‘They are not cells, they have no metabolism, and they are inert as long as they do not encounter a cell, so many people (including many scientists) conclude that viruses are not living,’ says Patrick Forterre, a microbiologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France”, and later reveals Forterre’s personal belief that virus’s are alive (Gabbatiss). The deliberate centralization of the section around Forterre, whose research has shown the evolutionary and darwinistic tendencies of viruses despite the common beliefs of the scientific community, implies that a line has yet to be drawn (Forterre 151). Gabbatiss then acknowledges other scientists whose research paralleled or supported that of Forterre’s, referring to them as simply “others” or “some scientists” (Gabbatiss), thus driving the focus of

The argument on whether viruses are considered living or dead has been debated in science for years. While this topic has been extensively researched, a conclusion has yet to be reached. However, from my own research, I concluded that viruses are non-living. To better understand this topic, I will discuss cell theory, the differences between a prokaryote and a eukaryote cell, and the structures and functions of a nucleus and cell wall organelles.

It is often argued whether viruses are living or not. Those who don’t believe that viruses are living generally base their opinion off of the fact that they do not follow the basic definition of “life”. They do not carry out life-sustaining functions on their own like normal organisms. On the other side of the argument, some believe that viruses are in fact, living beings, which is where I rest my opinion.

Life, it might be argued, is the distinguishing feature of all organisms and may most usefully be thought of as involving various kinds of complex systems of organization providing individual organisms with the ability to make use of those energy sources available to them for both self maintenance and reproduction. Underlying this deceptively persuasive definition, however, lie those persistent traditional problems inherent in the search for an essential, distinctive substance characteristic of all forms of life. Additionally, as evolution theory makes clear, there is the problem of borderline instances, organisms of which it is not easy to say whether or not they may be defined as being alive. One such case

In general, viruses are a distinct group comparing to others. Viruses have similar characteristic as a living organism, but it also lack some of the element that a living organism have. Viruses are a hereditary material that may be single strand genome, or other may contain a double strand genome which is ribonucleic acid or deoxyribonucleic acid. Viruses are very small species, when a virus is not in contact with a cell, it is just a protein that contains a genome. In the other hand, when it is in contact with a cell, it will requires help from the cells that have been inserted into to duplicates itself. I agree that viruses are considered not living organisms because they can not do many functions by themselves without entering a cell.

Unlike bacteria, that have everything it needs to reproduce, viruses need to use a living cell's organelles in order to replicate.

1. In the 19th century researchers realized that some diseases such as hand foot mouth and also rabies were caused by particles that acted like bacteria. Which means virus's are alive because the particles would need t be alive to still contaminate people.

After researching this controversial question, I have come to the conclusion that viruses should be considered dead. My rationale is due to the simple fact that in order for something to be considered living, it needs to have the essential characteristics of life. These characteristics include growth, homeostasis, and the ability to reproduce as outlined below:

Did you know the name virus was coined from the word meaning slimy liquid or poison?In the document "study adds to evidence that viruses are alive" Diana Yates builds an argument to persuade the audience that viruses are living entities that share history with cells. Yates uses evidence, reasoning, stylistic and persuasive elements to, strengthen the logic and persuasiveness of her argument.

I believe that viruses do possess some of the characteristics of life processes. We still have to ask, does this classify them as a living organism? Compared to the seven characteristics of life, viruses don’t fall in all of the categories. From research and observation, studies have shown that viruses do have different levels of organization, which is important as a life process. Viruses contain either RNA or DNA nucleic acids genes, and a protein coat, which is usually called capsomeres. Even though it does not have many, it still has levels of organization. Viruses can also adapt to their environment. Viruses can live in two different phases; the lytic phase and lysogenic phase inside of their host cell. This shows that they can survive in different conditions. Viruses also have the ability to adapt, which makes it hard to treat, for example, HIV. It makes many mistakes when replicating a gene, which causes it to mutate frequently. Since the virus is constantly changing, it is hard to manufacture drugs and vaccines to combat it. Not all drugs and vaccines will be able to eliminate all of the virions, there will be a few remaining that have resisted the drug/vaccine and will be able to survive and infect more cells, producing more viruses. Those are the two life processes that viruses have.

For as long as we can remember, we have been fighting off viruses as they try to hijack our bodies for their own gain. They attack our cells and force them to create more new viruses, bringing discomfort, illness, and sometimes death to those afflicted with them. Viruses, however, are proving to be more necessary than we initially thought. Scientists have found that some DNA from viruses are vital for our survival as our bodies have learned to harness their abilities.

Biologist have generally agreed that being able to reproduce, react to external stimuli, produce metabolism, adapt and is made of up 1 or more cells are the characteristics of a living organism. Viruses are alive, because they accomplish tasks that non-living things can’t. As well as they share many qualities with living organisms, even making their own category of life.

There has always been one big question in biology, and that is, are viruses living or not? Some biologists claim they are alive, whereas others defend that they are not alive. Although biologists who believe that viruses are alive may have some good points, there is just not enough evidence to prove they are alive. Viruses meet most, but not all seven requirements for life, therefore making it impossible for them to be living.

A lot of biologists don't buy that. A virus is basically a chunk of DNA or RNA (or computer code, for that matter) that succeeds in reproducing itself. But it's not a cell, which many consider the fundamental unit of life, and it doesn't do the things cells do, such as metabolize, react to the environment,