obviously you are not good at thinking. if there was a nonliving thing that satisfied ALL the characteristics of living things then it would also be living.
2006-09-18 16:00:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by s_e_e 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
The very definition of nonliving means not living so if it had characteristics of a living thing, it would be called a living thing and not a nonliving thing. Some things have some properties of life like viruses, prions and naked RNA but is a shady area.
2006-09-18 17:00:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by leikevy 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Fire. It's not living, but it satisfies quite a few of the characteristics of life...but not all...because, as said before, that wouldn't make sense.
2006-09-18 16:04:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by corridor89 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Viruses, when outside of a living environment, they pretty much act like non living things, no reproduction, no replication, no metabolism of any kind nothing, when inside a living cell they act like living beings, by replication
2006-09-18 17:39:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by virgodoll 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Viruses.... they skirt the edge between living and non-living.
Without the machinery of other living cells to use, they cannot replicate, one of the requirements of "living".
2006-09-18 16:06:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by jzc17 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is/was a theory that mad cow disease is caused by a protein. A protien isn't alive but in this guess, it was converting protiens to take it's form.
2006-09-18 16:13:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by something 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
If there were, it would be characterized as living.
2006-09-18 16:05:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Some like to say that fire does.
* it moves
* it "propagates"
* it "feeds"
etc...
2006-09-18 16:05:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Umm...no. Those are opposites.
2006-09-18 16:00:44
·
answer #9
·
answered by Shaun 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
No
2006-09-18 16:00:04
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋