Non-biological "life"? Here on Earth?

[The_DNA_Rose]

If only you would actually investigate your claim, you would realize how wrong you are.

Nothing is wrong with the claim, it is perfect.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Again, viruses are alive, they are different than you, and fulfill a very important role in the ecosystem, regardless of whether this role is understood or not.

Are you aware, that if you do not kill, to eat, then you will die. Thus you are dependent upon other organisms in order to survive, just like the virus. Even a fruit, just picked from a tree is alive, or was until the vegetarian, who wants to believe that they do not kill anything, ripped the fruit from the tree, ate the fruit, do you think that trees like that? So you are not as different in your dependence on other species as you might want to believe.

No. No no no. You aren’t getting it. Words have meanings. Words have definitions. Otherwise they are pointless, useless, and unable to be used to convey ideas.

The word “alive,” has a definitive definition in regards to science and biology. There are criteria necessary for a thing to be considered alive. A virus, while an existing thing, does not meet these criteria. It exists. It is not alive. A virus does not kill to survive. It does not need to survive. It does not even need to kill to exist. It does so due to the proteins and chemicals it is made up of. It isn’t actively seeking host cells. It comes across them, the cell incorporates the viral DNA, replicates it, and due to the DNA that is now very different than what is normal or functional for that cell, the cell then dies because it is replicating DNA that is not its own that does not enable it to function properly. The virus doesn’t care. The virus cannot care. Ebola for example is not some malevolent organism seeking cells to destroy so that it can continue to spread. It just exists. It’s a sequence of genetic code wrapped in a protein sheath that, when coming in contact with an animal cell, is replicated and continues to exist.

You are trying to make a virus into something it is not. It does not have organelles, it does not have a system of movement, it does not have it’s own method to replicate the genetic code it contains. It is just a virus. It is just genetic material wrapped in proteins. It just exists. Cells take it in and replicate it. It does not facilitate this process as some kind of survival mechanism. It isn’t alive. It doesn’t fit the definition of the word life. The word life has a definition that cannot apply to viruses, and as viruses are far different from anything we define as “alive,” it should not be considered alive, because it wouldn’t fit in. It is viral. It is its own category of existence.

We cannot call ourselves angels. We cannot say we are angels because we are not angels. No amount of calling ourselves angels will make it true, unless we drastically alter the meaning of the word “angel” to be something it is not. We are humans. Angels are not humans. A bacterial cell, even the simplest of them, is “alive,” by its nature and its characteristics. A virus is not alive due to the fact that its nature and characteristics do not fit the characteristics necessary for a thing to be considered “alive.” No bacterial cell can be considered a virus, because it does not have the characteristics of a virus. No matter how much you want to call a virus alive, it is not alive, because the word alive has meanings that do not apply to viruses. You can’t make up definitions for words to fit an agenda. You can’t change the definition of a word to fit your opinion. You can’t make up a definition for a word that already has a definition and expect an argument to retain any credibility. If you don’t understand how a virus actually works and what its characteristics are relative to bacterial cells, then fine, but you’re in error if you try to claim that a virus is alive. It is not.

The definition of the word alive is the reason a virus cannot be considered “alive.” It exists. A virus is certainly a thing that exists. It is a virus. It is not a bacteria. It is not a cell. The virus would have to meet certain required criteria to be considered a cellular organism. No virus does so. If there were a virus that met the criteria of a “cell,” then it wouldn’t be a virus in the first place, it would just be a cell because a cell and a virus are by definition different things. I cannot think of a way to say this more simply.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Are you aware, that if you do not kill, to eat, then you will die. Thus you are dependent upon other organisms in order to survive, just like the virus. Even a fruit, just picked from a tree is alive, or was until the vegetarian, who wants to believe that they do not kill anything, ripped the fruit from the tree, ate the fruit, do you think that trees like that? So you are not as different in your dependence on other species as you might want to believe.

Yes. If I do not cause the death of another organism in order to feed myself, I will not survive. I will die if I do not because in order to obtain the proteins, compounds, glucose, ATP, nitrogen, etc. that I need to survive and that my cells need to continue to function properly, I need to obtain them from other organisms.

For example. I need various proteins in order for my cells to synthesize the tissue that builds up my muscles. I need to obtain these specific components from somewhere. I cannot simply make them out of thin air. I need to eat meat, which is muscular tissue from an animal, in order to make muscular tissue for myself. If I eat the muscular tissue of a rabbit, that rabbit will almost certainly die. The compounds and proteins that make up the rabbit’s own muscle tissue will then be digested, broken apart into it’s molecular and elemental components, and then reassembled into human muscular tissue in for example my bicep. That rabbit’s life was given so that my own life could continue.

My sperm cells are alive. Those cells are able to combine with an egg cell within a human female to form a zygote that turns into a blastocyst that turns into a fetus that turns into an infant that grows into a toddler and so on. The stamen of an orange flower produces pollen. That pollen is spread through the air or by a bee or by a human being working in an orange orchard until it reaches the ovule of another orange flower. That orange flower is then fertilized, similar to a human egg. That flower begins to produce seeds. Those seeds are then enveloped by a fruit. A fruit, in this case an orange, provides a protective covering for the seed. The fruit is then taken from the tree or falls from the tree when ripe. It is often eaten by an animal, including a human. This is so that the seed will be moved away from the parent tree. If the seed germinates and produces an offspring tree too near by the parent orange tree, then the two will compete for resources and both may die, ending the genetic legacy of the parent tree. Therefore, the orange is evolutionarily designed to be carried away from the parent tree, so that the genetic material from the original tree will be continued in a location where the two are not competing for resources. The orange tree is the organism here. The fruit contains the egg of the parent tree, the seed. This egg must be transported in some way away from the parent tree in order to survive and is often eaten by an animal and then the seed, which is capable of resisting digestive acids within animal stomachs, is later passed on in the solid waste (feces) of the animal. This solid waste acts as a fertilizer and source of nutrients for the seed to germinate and grow into another orange tree.

The orange is not alive. The orange is part of the orange tree’s reproductive system. The seed is alive. The seed is able to grow into another orange tree, a child orange tree. The tree is not hurt when the orange is picked off of its branches. The orange is literally designed to be picked and carried elsewhere. So to answer your rhetorical and somewhat biologically ignorant question. Yes. The tree does in fact like that the orange was picked. The orange was meant to be picked because that is how the tree successfully produces offspring.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

No. No no no. You aren’t getting it. Words have meanings. Words have definitions. Otherwise they are pointless, useless, and unable to be used to convey ideas.

The word “alive,” has a definitive definition in regards to science and biology. There are criteria necessary for a thing to be considered alive. A virus, while an existing thing, does not meet these criteria. It exists. It is not alive. A virus does not kill to survive. It does not need to survive. It does not even need to kill to exist. It does so due to the proteins and chemicals it is made up of. It isn’t actively seeking host cells. It comes across them, the cell incorporates the viral DNA, replicates it, and due to the DNA that is now very different than what is normal or functional for that cell, the cell then dies because it is replicating DNA that is not its own that does not enable it to function properly. The virus doesn’t care. The virus cannot care. Ebola for example is not some malevolent organism seeking cells to destroy so that it can continue to spread. It just exists. It’s a sequence of genetic code wrapped in a protein sheath that, when coming in contact with an animal cell, is replicated and continues to exist.

You are trying to make a virus into something it is not. It does not have organelles, it does not have a system of movement, it does not have it’s own method to replicate the genetic code it contains. It is just a virus. It is just genetic material wrapped in proteins. It just exists. Cells take it in and replicate it. It does not facilitate this process as some kind of survival mechanism. It isn’t alive. It doesn’t fit the definition of the word life. The word life has a definition that cannot apply to viruses, and as viruses are far different from anything we define as “alive,” it should not be considered alive, because it wouldn’t fit in. It is viral. It is its own category of existence.

We cannot call ourselves angels. We cannot say we are angels because we are not angels. No amount of calling ourselves angels will make it true, unless we drastically alter the meaning of the word “angel” to be something it is not. We are humans. Angels are not humans. A bacterial cell, even the simplest of them, is “alive,” by its nature and its characteristics. A virus is not alive due to the fact that its nature and characteristics do not fit the characteristics necessary for a thing to be considered “alive.” No bacterial cell can be considered a virus, because it does not have the characteristics of a virus. No matter how much you want to call a virus alive, it is not alive, because the word alive has meanings that do not apply to viruses. You can’t make up definitions for words to fit an agenda. You can’t change the definition of a word to fit your opinion. You can’t make up a definition for a word that already has a definition and expect an argument to retain any credibility. If you don’t understand how a virus actually works and what its characteristics are relative to bacterial cells, then fine, but you’re in error if you try to claim that a virus is alive. It is not.

The definition of the word alive is the reason a virus cannot be considered “alive.” It exists. A virus is certainly a thing that exists. It is a virus. It is not a bacteria. It is not a cell. The virus would have to meet certain required criteria to be considered a cellular organism. No virus does so. If there were a virus that met the criteria of a “cell,” then it wouldn’t be a virus in the first place, it would just be a cell because a cell and a virus are by definition different things. I cannot think of a way to say this more simply.

Since you are not an angel, have never seen an angel, and will highly likely never see an angel, your entire idea of what an angel is, comes from human writings, and movies and such. Thus your entire concept of angel, is a human one, this is just as your concept of what a virus is, is from the human definition. Since humans do not know what viruses are, or how they came to be, they can not be considered as not alive. You do not look anything like an anaerobic bacteria on a thousand degree ocean ridge vent, but you both are alive… Not too long ago these bacteria could not survive in science, because they are not supported by the Suns ecosystem, but now they exist. Viruses have a purpose, that they were created for, which might just be killing the weak, thus making the surviving gene pool stronger. No one knows, but they are part of the living biosphere, you do know that your gut is filled with living bacteria…the virus has another purpose, in life.

 

[Kurisu35712]

If only you would actually investigate your claim, you would realize how wrong you are.

I like how you refute my point and then don’t offer any kind of counter-argument supporting your own. Prove to me that a computer program can do something other than what it was explicitly programmed to do. Except that you won’t, because that isn’t how computer programs function at all, and they can’t function that way given the current state of our technology.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

I like how you refute my point and then don’t offer any kind of counter-argument supporting your own. Prove to me that a computer program can do something other than what it was explicitly programmed to do. Except that you won’t, because that isn’t how computer programs function at all, and they can’t function that way given the current state of our technology.

Well it is evident, that you have no clue as to how computers operate. Of course, you are sure that you do.

Hmmm, could you tell us how it is that you believe computers function? Educate us.

All that said, what you have actually done, is to change the subject off the one, where I just completely obliterated your ideas of life.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Since you are not an angel, have never seen an angel, and will highly likely never see an angel, your entire idea of what an angel is, comes from human writings, and movies and such. Thus your entire concept of angel, is a human one, this is just as your concept of what a virus is, is from the human definition. Since humans do not know what viruses are, or how they came to be, they can not be considered as not alive. You do not look anything like an anaerobic bacteria on a thousand degree ocean ridge vent, but you both are alive… Not too long ago these bacteria could not survive in science, because they are not supported by the Suns ecosystem, but now they exist. Viruses have a purpose, that they were created for, which might just be killing the weak, thus making the surviving gene pool stronger. No one knows, but they are part of the living biosphere, you do know that your gut is filled with living bacteria…the virus has another purpose, in life.

No. That’s still inaccurate. I am not an angel and have never, to my knowledge, seen one. But going by the definition of what an angel is, as given by the Catholic Church, I am not one. And yes. All of these things are based on the human definition of the words. Because we are human and speak human languages and need to communicate ideas and concepts to other humans. Every word we use is a human word because we are humans. This isn’t really a problem considering we are also communicating human ideas from a human perspective.

And that point about anaerobic bacteria is incorrect. They are not directly supported by the sun, this is true. But it isn’t as if they didn’t exist until we found out that they did. They still existed, they still survived without the sun and oxygen, and they were still alive before we knew that they existed to term them as such. Just because we didn’t say “oh there are bacteria that are alive but don’t need the sun or oxygen to survive,” doesn’t mean that they didn’t exist prior to their discovery. I’m not sure what your point is. The anaerobic bacteria is much different from me because in this case you’re comparing a complex multicellular specialized mammalian organism with a single celled anaerobic bacteria. Of course they’re different. But we are both alive because we both meet the basic criteria necessary to be considered such. No virus meets these criteria while still being able to be defined as a virus. No virus is alive. If a virus were alive and met the criteria for life, it is no longer a virus, it would be some kind of bacterial species.

I’m not saying viruses don’t have a point or a purpose in our world and in our global ecosystem. They most certainly have a purpose, even if we aren’t aware of what that purpose is. They exist, and their existence has an effect on living organisms that come into contact with them. To say that a virus isn’t alive is not to say that a virus is not significant or important, it just means that a virus is a thing that exists that does not fit into the category of “living organism,” just as a human being does not fit into the category of “virus” or “mineral.”

 

[Kurisu35712]

Well it is evident, that you have no clue as to how computers operate. Of course, you are sure that you do.

Hmmm, could you tell us how it is that you believe computers function? Educate us.

All that said, what you have actually done, is to change the subject off the one, where I just completely obliterated your ideas of life.

"A computer is a general purpose device that can be programmed to carry out a set of arithmetic or logical operations automatically. Since a sequence of operations can be readily changed, the computer can solve more than one kind of problem.

Conventionally, a computer consists of at least one processing element, typically a central processing unit (CPU), and some form of memory. The processing element carries out arithmetic and logic operations, and a sequencing and control unit can change the order of operations in response to stored information. Peripheral devices allow information to be retrieved from an external source, and the result of operations saved and retrieved."

From Wikipedia. If you are trying to prove that a computer program can think and react of its own volition, please provide an example. Also, define a computer as you are using it in this context. An abacus can be considered a computer. A calculator can be considered a computer. My laptop is most certainly a computer. Theoretically, you could probably consider our brains a computer, just an organic one that is capable of adaptation, as opposed to my laptop which is only capable of arithmetic and logical processes.

And I apologize if I changed the subject. I was responding to a different post that was going in a different direction. There seem to be two conversations going on in this thread, so forgive me if I have to neglect one temporarily to respond to the other. That being said, my “ideas of life” were not obliterated. Your definition of life is not seemingly the same definition as the one I am using. Perhaps we need to come to an agreed definition before the discussion can effectively continue.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

No. That’s still inaccurate. I am not an angel and have never, to my knowledge, seen one. But going by the definition of what an angel is, as given by the Catholic Church, I am not one. And yes. All of these things are based on the human definition of the words. Because we are human and speak human languages and need to communicate ideas and concepts to other humans. Every word we use is a human word because we are humans. This isn’t really a problem considering we are also communicating human ideas from a human perspective.

And that point about anaerobic bacteria is incorrect. They are not directly supported by the sun, this is true. But it isn’t as if they didn’t exist until we found out that they did. They still existed, they still survived without the sun and oxygen, and they were still alive before we knew that they existed to term them as such. Just because we didn’t say “oh there are bacteria that are alive but don’t need the sun or oxygen to survive,” doesn’t mean that they didn’t exist prior to their discovery. I’m not sure what your point is. The anaerobic bacteria is much different from me because in this case you’re comparing a complex multicellular specialized mammalian organism with a single celled anaerobic bacteria. Of course they’re different. But we are both alive because we both meet the basic criteria necessary to be considered such. No virus meets these criteria while still being able to be defined as a virus. No virus is alive. If a virus were alive and met the criteria for life, it is no longer a virus, it would be some kind of bacterial species.

I’m not saying viruses don’t have a point or a purpose in our world and in our global ecosystem. They most certainly have a purpose, even if we aren’t aware of what that purpose is. They exist, and their existence has an effect on living organisms that come into contact with them. To say that a virus isn’t alive is not to say that a virus is not significant or important, it just means that a virus is a thing that exists that does not fit into the category of “living organism,” just as a human being does not fit into the category of “virus” or “mineral.”

The Catholic church once defined that the Sun revolved around the Earth. And as for viruses, the Catholic church has no stance as to what they are, so you will have to reach your own conclusion. Which seems to revolve around Catholicism is some strange way.

The virus, is real, it is a part of the natural biosphere, different than, with a different use than, but just like bacteria.

Accept that humanity when it first came down from the tree, did not understand 99.999 percent of all knowledge, and that currently humanity does not understand, 99.999 percent of all knowledge.

Question, why do you care that I believe that viruses are part of the biosphere of life anyway?

 

[Kurisu35712]

The Catholic church once defined that the Sun revolved around the Earth. And as for viruses, the Catholic church has no stance as to what they are, so you will have to reach your own conclusion. Which seems to revolve around Catholicism is some strange way.

First point, there are other threads debunking this on this very forum, so I won’t, but technically that isn’t true. Second, the Church has no reason to take a stance on what a virus is because the Catholic Church is not a biological research institute, and what a virus is isn’t really significant in regards to Catholic doctrine. I do not have to reach my own conclusion as to what a virus is, because biologists and virologists have already defined what is and what is not a virus. I’m not sure what your last sentence means.

The virus, is real, it is a part of the natural biosphere…

Yes. It is indeed a thing that exists on Earth in nature.

different than, with a different use than, but just like bacteria.

This doesn’t make sense. I think the sentence has too many parts. A virus is different from a bacteria. Yes. If a virus were no different from a bacteria, it wouldn’t be a virus, it would be a bacteria. I’m not sure what you mean by a different use, but if you mean that a virus has a different ecological purpose than a bacteria, this is correct. A virus does not perform the same functions as a bacteria in an ecosystem. It is not just like a bacteria however, because if it were, there would be no point in specifying it as a virus rather than a bacteria.

Accept that humanity when it first came down from the tree, did not understand 99.999 percent of all knowledge,

Humans did not understand 99.99% of the information in the universe when they first existed.

and that currently humanity does not understand, 99.999 percent of all knowledge.

Human beings, as individuals and as a species, do not understand 99.99% of the information contained in the universe. I’m not sure why I need to admit this.

Question, why do you care that I believe that viruses are part of the biosphere of life anyway?

I’m not saying viruses are not part of the biosphere. But I feel like it’s crucial for me to clarify what these words mean before I say anything more. The biosphere is Earth. It contains various ecosystems, minerals, organisms, viruses, rocks, plants, birds, water molecules, photons, gravitational forces, buildings, clouds, babies, and soda cans, among many other things. Viruses are things that exist on Earth. They have been observed to exist on Earth. Viruses are part of the biosphere. I’m not arguing that.

You are not claiming that viruses are part of the biosphere. If that was what you had claimed earlier, I would not have disagreed with you. You claimed that viruses could be considered alive. This is incorrect. Viruses are a part of life as we experience it. Viruses do not have the biological quality called “life.” Viruses:

1. do not maintain homeostasis. They contain viral DNA and are surrounded oftentimes by some kind of protein sheath. They have no organelles to keep in homeostasis, and have no mechanisms with which to maintain a consistent internal environment.
2. are not composed of one or more cells. They do not possess the qualities or components necessary to be considered cellular, and as a result are not cellular organisms.
3. do not metabolize some kind of element or compound into an energy source. They do not have mitochondria. They do not have chloroplasts. They do not have cytoplasm. They cannot metabolize compounds, and they have no need to metabolize compounds.
4. they do not grow. A virus does not have a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A virus is capable of neither anabolism or catabolism at all.
5. they do not adapt. They do not change in response to their environmental factors or to a series of internal processes or external stimuli. A virus is capable of mutation, however, that is due to changes in their genetic sequence when replicated by a host cell, not an internal process that the virus itself initiates.
6. they do not respond to external stimuli.
7. they do not reproduce, either sexually or asexually. A virus cannot mate with another virus. A virus cannot copy its own genetic material and then split itself into two viral units. In order to replicate, a virus requires enzymes and proteins found in living cells that replicate that cell’s DNA ordinarily. A virus possesses none of these proteins or enzymes of its own, and is incapable of producing them.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

First point, there are other threads debunking this on this very forum, so I won’t, but technically that isn’t true. Second, the Church has no reason to take a stance on what a virus is because the Catholic Church is not a biological research institute, and what a virus is isn’t really significant in regards to Catholic doctrine. I do not have to reach my own conclusion as to what a virus is, because biologists and virologists have already defined what is and what is not a virus. I’m not sure what your last sentence means.

Yes. It is indeed a thing that exists on Earth in nature.

This doesn’t make sense. I think the sentence has too many parts. A virus is different from a bacteria. Yes. If a virus were no different from a bacteria, it wouldn’t be a virus, it would be a bacteria. I’m not sure what you mean by a different use, but if you mean that a virus has a different ecological purpose than a bacteria, this is correct. A virus does not perform the same functions as a bacteria in an ecosystem. It is not just like a bacteria however, because if it were, there would be no point in specifying it as a virus rather than a bacteria.

Humans did not understand 99.99% of the information in the universe when they first existed.

Human beings, as individuals and as a species, do not understand 99.99% of the information contained in the universe. I’m not sure why I need to admit this.

I’m not saying viruses are not part of the biosphere. But I feel like it’s crucial for me to clarify what these words mean before I say anything more. The biosphere is Earth. It contains various ecosystems, minerals, organisms, viruses, rocks, plants, birds, water molecules, photons, gravitational forces, buildings, clouds, babies, and soda cans, among many other things. Viruses are things that exist on Earth. They have been observed to exist on Earth. Viruses are part of the biosphere. I’m not arguing that.

You are not claiming that viruses are part of the biosphere. If that was what you had claimed earlier, I would not have disagreed with you. You claimed that viruses could be considered alive. This is incorrect. Viruses are a part of life as we experience it. Viruses do not have the biological quality called “life.” Viruses:

1. do not maintain homeostasis. They contain viral DNA and are surrounded oftentimes by some kind of protein sheath. They have no organelles to keep in homeostasis, and have no mechanisms with which to maintain a consistent internal environment.
2. are not composed of one or more cells. They do not possess the qualities or components necessary to be considered cellular, and as a result are not cellular organisms.
3. do not metabolize some kind of element or compound into an energy source. They do not have mitochondria. They do not have chloroplasts. They do not have cytoplasm. They cannot metabolize compounds, and they have no need to metabolize compounds.
4. they do not grow. A virus does not have a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A virus is capable of neither anabolism or catabolism at all.
5. they do not adapt. They do not change in response to their environmental factors or to a series of internal processes or external stimuli. A virus is capable of mutation, however, that is due to changes in their genetic sequence when replicated by a host cell, not an internal process that the virus itself initiates.
6. they do not respond to external stimuli.
7. they do not reproduce, either sexually or asexually. A virus cannot mate with another virus. A virus cannot copy its own genetic material and then split itself into two viral units. In order to replicate, a virus requires enzymes and proteins found in living cells that replicate that cell’s DNA ordinarily. A virus possesses none of these proteins or enzymes of its own, and is incapable of producing them.

I never pointed to what the church says about viruses, why must every statement be compared to the church? Did the church believe that the Earth revolved around the Sun? is this why the Church arrested Galileo?

So if the church can learn and grow, can you?

 

[Hee_Zen]

I like how you refute my point and then don’t offer any kind of counter-argument supporting your own. Prove to me that a computer program can do something other than what it was explicitly programmed to do. Except that you won’t, because that isn’t how computer programs function at all, and they can’t function that way given the current state of our technology.

Are you a computer programmer? Just Google “self-modifying algorithms”. Of course it will only give you some pointers how to go on with your investigation. Here is one: Self modifying algorithms.

Now, in a sense you are right, computers do what you tell them to do - at least at the **beginning **of their existence - but that is neither here nor there. You program them to modify themselves, and they will do it, until the original programmer cannot even understand the new code, and this new code if far superior to the original. The new computer chips are no longer designed by humans any more. On the other hand, humans do not come with a full-fledged “operating system” either. We come with a very few, rudimentary, built-in abilities, like the propensity to learn languages - and none of those abilities are volitional, they are all instincts. Most of what we comes comes from learning - in other words, we are being “programmed” by our environment, our teachers, parents, etc and ourselves. Similarly, computers can learn from their experiences. They can change their own internal algorithms, just like humans do. The only difference is the building material, and that is irrelevant.

Next to the field of self-modifying algorithms you need to study “cellular automata”. This field was originally developed by John von Neumann, and worked upon by other people. For example E. F. Codd, who is famous for inventing the concept of relational databases. I suggest to look at John Conway’s game of life. It is a very interesting example of how a few, simple algorithmic steps can exhibit fascinating “life-like” behavior.

For obvious reasons, silicon-based computers are not “biologically” alive, but they can be “intellectually” alive. And that is what counts.

 

[Kurisu35712]

I never pointed to what the church says about viruses, why must every statement be compared to the church? Did the church believe that the Earth revolved around the Sun? is this why the Church arrested Galileo?

So if the church can learn and grow, can you?

Stop changing the subject. You ignored the entire bulk of my post regarding what a virus actually is and what the criteria required for the state “living” actually are to focus on something I pointed out as insignificant in the post anyway. Address my points on biological life and how viruses do not fit those criteria. I couldn’t care less what the Church’s opinions on the definition of a virus are, seeing as it doesn’t have one.

Stop shifting the focus and address the actual topic. You brought up Galileo. You brought up the Earth revolving around the sun. The Church did not teach that as doctrine, and you can find that argument on other threads. This one is about viruses and life. Address the points I brought up that are actually pertinent please.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Stop changing the subject. You ignored the entire bulk of my post regarding what a virus actually is and what the criteria required for the state “living” actually are to focus on something I pointed out as insignificant in the post anyway. Address my points on biological life and how viruses do not fit those criteria. I couldn’t care less what the Church’s opinions on the definition of a virus are, seeing as it doesn’t have one.

Stop shifting the focus and address the actual topic. You brought up Galileo. You brought up the Earth revolving around the sun. The Church did not teach that as doctrine, and you can find that argument on other threads. This one is about viruses and life. Address the points I brought up that are actually pertinent please.

Let me give you some advise, not being smart either. If you can say something in two sentences, say it in one instead, and then shrink the sentence. Why, because, more people will read the one sentence, than will read eight long paragraphs.

So if you want to be read, keep it short.

Capish?

Oh, and viruses are still alive, but if you want to write a book to disprove this, be my guest.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Let me give you some advise, not being smart either. If you can say something in two sentences, say it in one instead, and then shrink the sentence. Why, because, more people will read the one sentence, than will read eight long paragraphs.

So if you want to be read, keep it short.

Capish?

Oh, and viruses are still alive, but if you want to write a book to disprove this, be my guest.

Regardless how many sentences I use, if you aren’t going to read them, there’s no point in continuing this discussion. Your tone is condescending. Your points are nonsensical. Your logic is faulty.

Viruses are not biologically alive because of the definition of life used by virologists.

Capisce?

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Regardless how many sentences I use, if you aren’t going to read them, there’s no point in continuing this discussion. Your tone is condescending. Your points are nonsensical. Your logic is faulty.

Viruses are not biologically alive because of the definition of life used by virologists.

Capisce?

Excellent, you have learned.

Ok, so if viruses are not alive, what are they? do they reproduce, because they are dead? or perhaps they are not real?

The only logical answer is that they are alive.

You will see this, when you accept that, the variations in life, are the key to its success, in every Earth environment.

Oh yea, CIAO.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Excellent, you have learned.

Ok, so if viruses are not alive, what are they? do they reproduce, because they are dead? or perhaps they are not real?

The only logical answer is that they are alive.

You will see this, when you accept that, the variations in life, are the key to its success, in every Earth environment.

Oh yea, CIAO.

Incorrect. You are equating the word life with the word exist.

Viruses are neither alive nor dead. To be dead, something must have been alive previously. Viruses can be neither of those things.

They do not reproduce. This is one reason why they are not considered alive. They are only replicated, and not by their own potency.

Your logic is still flawed.

Ciao, buonasera.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Incorrect. You are equating the word life with the word exist.

Viruses are neither alive nor dead. To be dead, something must have been alive previously. Viruses can be neither of those things.

They do not reproduce. This is one reason why they are not considered alive. They are only replicated, and not by their own potency.

Your logic is still flawed.

Ciao, buonasera.

Ok, so if viruses are not alive, what are they? do they reproduce, because they are dead? or perhaps they are not real?

The only logical answer is that they are alive.

You will see this, when you accept that, the variations in life, are the key to its success, in every Earth environment.

So you can not answer… I thought so

Oh yea, CIAO.

 

[MPat]

Excellent, you have learned.

Ok, so if viruses are not alive, what are they? do they reproduce, because they are dead? or perhaps they are not real?

The only logical answer is that they are alive.

No, there are other answers. An alternative view is that viruses are a special type of poison.

It is true that there is a sense in which viruses “reproduce”, but that is not enough to show that they are alive. Other things that are not alive also can be said to “reproduce” in some sense. For example, fire. Or prions (en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prion&oldid=636421160). Or those same computer viruses.

It would be much better to try out different definitions and to see which of them would make viruses alive. For example, if we tried to apply Feser’s definition (“Living things, the Scholastic holds, are those which exhibit immanent causation as well as transeunt (or “transient”) causation;”, “Immanent causal processes are those which terminate within the cause and tend to its good or flourishing” - edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/03/stop-it-youre-killing-me.html), we would have to think of some way in which a virus could be said to “flourish”. At the moment I can’t think of anything like that…

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

No, there are other answers. An alternative view is that viruses are a special type of poison.

It is true that there is a sense in which viruses “reproduce”, but that is not enough to show that they are alive. Other things that are not alive also can be said to “reproduce” in some sense. For example, fire. Or prions (en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prion&oldid=636421160). Or those same computer viruses.

It would be much better to try out different definitions and to see which of them would make viruses alive. For example, if we tried to apply Feser’s definition (“Living things, the Scholastic holds, are those which exhibit immanent causation as well as transeunt (or “transient”) causation;”, “Immanent causal processes are those which terminate within the cause and tend to its good or flourishing” - edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/03/stop-it-youre-killing-me.html), we would have to think of some way in which a virus could be said to “flourish”. At the moment I can’t think of anything like that…

How can you say that viruses are not flourishing, when all of humanity is trying and failing to be able to eradicate them?

That said, there should be something very valuable that can be learned from viruses, as they clearly have a niche and a purpose in the ecosystem.