Non-biological "life"? Here on Earth?

[Kurisu35712]

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.

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.

If you’re going to repeat the same exact post I will repeat my response to it, seeing as I addressed every one of those questions with an answer.

 

[MPat]

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

Ah, but then it is “viruses” (in plural) that are “flourishing”, not a specific, individual virus. The virus exits the cell and waits until it is dissolved so that the cell would make other viruses. I am not sure it can “flourish” between those events… Maybe it can, but that doesn’t seem to be obvious…

Also, fire, computer viruses and prions can also “flourish” in that same sense.

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.

Um, maybe…? But then we can learn from them even if they are not alive.

 

[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.

If you’re going to repeat the same exact post I will repeat my response to it, seeing as I addressed every one of those questions with an answer.

Interesting thought, but all you can actually do is to copy my idea, perhaps because it is more interesting, than any that you could garner on your own.

Life evolves, wait I hear bells ringing…the flu virus does what…yea it evolves.

Life wins again.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Interesting thought, but all you can actually do is to copy my idea, perhaps because it is more interesting, than any that you could garner on your own.

Life evolves, wait I hear bells ringing…**the flu virus does what…yea it evolves.
**
Life wins again.

False. The flu virus does not evolve. It mutates. And an individual viral unit doesn’t mutate, the virus as a strain mutates similarly to how your DNA mutates over time due to transcription errors.

The DNA transcription proteins in your nucleus copy your DNA. When it copies incorrectly, you experience a mutation of that DNA. Since your DNA transcription proteins are also copying the viral DNA, when it copies an error, the virus mutates.

No virus evolves. Viruses are not alive and cannot evolve. They can only mutate like incorrectly transcribed DNA.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

False. The flu virus does not evolve. It mutates. And an individual viral unit doesn’t mutate, the virus as a strain mutates similarly to how your DNA mutates over time due to transcription errors.

The DNA transcription proteins in your nucleus copy your DNA. When it copies incorrectly, you experience a mutation of that DNA. Since your DNA transcription proteins are also copying the viral DNA, when it copies an error, the virus mutates.

No virus evolves. Viruses are not alive and cannot evolve. They can only mutate like incorrectly transcribed DNA.

Hey I missed you, what happened, you get the flu or something?

Sheesh, evolution is mutation silly. All organisms, including viruses evolve, as a result of mutations in the code.

However, as for DNA mutations being random, this is now in question, as the mutations always achieve a better suited to its environment organism, so it is illogical, for a mistake, to end up being correct. Thus the mistake in code, is actually purposeful, and part of the nature of DNA.

You see the mutation parallel, but dismiss it for some reason, why, because you have closed your mind.

So again, viruses are still alive, though we may not understand their nature and purpose as of yet.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Hey I missed you, what happened, you get the flu or something?

No, worse. Architectural Structures final.

Sheesh, evolution is mutation silly. All organisms, including viruses evolve, as a result of mutations in the code.

False. Evolution is the proliferation of certain genetic traits over generations that enable an organism to survive more effectively than another organism. Mutation is an error in the DNA’s sequence, which can be beneficial, detrimental, or neutral, that occurs during transcription of DNA. A virus cannot transcribe its own DNA. It requires the DNA transcriptase of a living cell.

However, as for DNA mutations being random, this is now in question, as the mutations always achieve a better suited to its environment organism, so it is illogical, for a mistake, to end up being correct. Thus the mistake in code, is actually purposeful, and part of the nature of DNA.

False. Find me a published, peer-reviewed scientific journal stating that. Mutations are most certainly not always beneficial, and to say that they are makes me question whether you understand what a genetic mutation even is.

You see the mutation parallel, but dismiss it for some reason, why, because you have closed your mind.

No I do not, because there is not parallel here. The only way a virus is able to mutate if mutations are introduced through transcription by a living cell. A virus cannot simply mutate on its own because that isn’t even mutation. This may help you understand what mutation is in reference to cells and biology.

So again, viruses are still alive, though we may not understand their nature and purpose as of yet.

No. They aren’t. But I agree, we do not know their purpose.

 

[Latias]

No I do not, because there is not parallel here. The only way a virus is able to mutate if mutations are introduced through transcription by a living cell. A virus cannot simply mutate on its own because that isn’t even mutation. This may help you understand what mutation is in reference to cells and biology.

No. They aren’t. But I agree, we do not know their purpose.

I thought (no know) viruses have their own replication polymerases, and they are fairly inaccurate. RNA replicase and reverse transcriptase have a high error rate. The latter contributes to the difficulty of treating HIV with antiretrovirals.

 

[Kurisu35712]

I thought (no know) viruses have their own replication polymerases, and they are fairly inaccurate. RNA replicase and reverse transcriptase have a high error rate. The latter contributes to the difficulty of treating HIV with antiretrovirals.

They don’t, hence why the only way mutations are introduced is if a living cell (animal cell for instance) replicates the viral DNA. Sorry if I made it sound like viruses had polymerase. They do not.

 

[Latias]

Viruses do have their own polymerases. I thought you said that they didn’t and was quickly correcting you for making a rather basic error.