2007-03-05 13:35:25 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
That's still up for debate, some say yes, some say no.
2007-03-05 13:37:53 · answer #1 · answered by Moral Orel 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
2
2016-08-25 06:29:18 · answer #2 · answered by Dwayne 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a big debate among scientists, but I think you can answer it by looking at the kingdoms of living things. No matter whether you use a 5-kingdom system or a 6-kingdom system, viruses are not in any of the kingdoms.
Why aren't viruses classified with living things?
1. Viruses don't have cytoplasm or plasma membranes - they are not cells. The cell theory says all living things are made of cells.
2. Viruses do not use energy.
3. Viruses do not reproduce themselves.
Why does the debate go on?
Viruses have a single strand of DNA or RNA and a protein coat. Those are parts we associate with living things.
2007-03-05 13:40:22 · answer #3 · answered by ecolink 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Viruses are self-replicating chemicals with DNA, which some say meet the criteria for a life form. But, they do not have metabolic functions, so others say they do not meet the criteria.
It's important to remember that the viruses are what they are, and we can define life to include them or not. Either way, I don't think they'd mind.
2007-03-05 13:54:27 · answer #4 · answered by Stacy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I always thought it weird that they are not considered to be living organisms. I guess it's because they need the DNA of a host cell to hijack in order to reproduce.
2007-03-05 13:38:38 · answer #5 · answered by mamabear1957 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no theyre not classified as living organisms bc they cannot live and reproduce on their own.
i never really understood how living breathing things are not just that but w/e lol
2007-03-05 13:39:16 · answer #6 · answered by Jimmy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
They do not have a metabolism, so they do not synthesize their macromolecules from smaller monomers gathered from the environment.
No metabolism = nonliving.
2007-03-05 14:28:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
scientists say no but since it has viable DNA and can reproduce it should be considered living
2007-03-05 13:40:47 · answer #8 · answered by zainabainza 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋