Are viruses a form of life?

Answer 1

Lifeform debate
Multiple rotavirus virions
Enlarge
Multiple rotavirus virions

Argument continues over whether viruses are truly alive. According to the United States Code, they are considered micro-organisms in the sense of biological weaponry and malicious use. Scientists however are divided. They have no trouble classifying a horse as living, but things become complicated as they look at simple viruses, viroids and prions. Viruses resemble life in that they possess nucleic acid and can respond to their environment in a limited fashion. They can also reproduce by creating multiple copies of themselves through simple self-assembly.

Viruses do not have a cell structure, regarded as the basic unit of life. They are also absent from the fossil record, making phylogenic relationships difficult to determine. Additionally, although they reproduce, they do not metabolise on their own and therefore require a host cell to replicate and synthesise new products. However, bacterial species such as Rickettsia and Chlamydia, while living organisms, are also unable to reproduce outside of a host cell.

An argument can be made that all accepted forms of life use cell division to reproduce, whereas all viruses spontaneously assemble within cells. The comparison is drawn between viral self-assembly and the autonomous growth of non-living crystals. Virus self-assembly within host cells also has implications for the study of the origin of life, as it lends credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.

If viruses are considered alive, then the criteria specifying life will have been permanently changed, leading scientists to question what the basic prerequisite of life is. If they are considered living then the prospect of creating artificial life is enhanced, or at least the standards required to call something artificially alive are reduced. If viruses were said to be alive, the question could follow of whether other even smaller infectious particles, such as viroids and prions, would next be considered forms of life.

[wikipeida]

Answer 2

Some say yes others say no. In truth this isn’t all that useful a debate (no offence intended). Viruses are viruses, and at the end of the day – alive or not – they are still viruses.

The debate of what is and is not alive is rather complicated. There are bacteria that are completely dependent on a host, they lack crucial metabolic pathways and cannot live (if I may use the term) without another organism acting as a host.

A virus cannot replicated without a host cell and as such could be said to not be alive, however if we say a virus is alive and merely requiring a host to complete replication, then what of the satellite DNA, these pieces of DNA are parasitic on the virus, and will replicate in a virus infected cell, be packaged in the virus coat protein and can infect a new cell. But themselves do not code for genes for the coat protein or a replicase and require a virus infection to provide what they cannot.

Answer 3

Even though viruses are made from natural compounds, for example, the membrane or capsid is made of proteins and the glycoproteins are made of carbohydrate, viruses aren't truely alive, because they don't metabolize, reproduce, or grow like normal living things. Viruses need living cells (host cells) to reproduce and stay alive. Viruses use these host cells' DNA to make more viruses through a process called the Lytic Cycle, or it can go through another cycle called the Lysogenic Cycle, which eventually, through internal enviromental changes, goes back to Lytic Cycle.
-Pre-AP Biology Freshman Student

Answer 4

No....viruses are not "alive". Life is dictated by being able to self replicate. A virus cannot reproduce by itself or with other viruses...it needs to hijack a host cell and utilize the parts of the cell to make copies of itself.

It's organic, but not alive according to the widely accepted definition of life.

Answer 5

No a working laptop or trojan horse isn't a existence style. I completely agree along with your anology yet laptop viruses so no longer rather look after themself and that they do no longer extremely multiply interior the way a lifeform could. laptop viruses do no longer evolve on their own they want the programmer/author to code the evolution into the virus therefor they are no longer alive they're purely doing what they have been programmed to do

Answer 6

Viruses are NOT organism, so they are NOT a form of life.

Answer 7

actually there is a big controversy regarding the form of viruses whether they are alive or not.that is why i can't tell if it is live or not

Answer 8

Yes

Answer 9

I was just having this conversation the other day with some colleagues. One is an evolutionary scientist and his answer is 'yes' because if something can evolve he considers it life. Another said 'no' because they can not replicate on their own (they require a host).

Answer 10

Yes.