Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are Viri (viruses?) Alive?
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 16 of 30 (82507)
02-03-2004 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
02-03-2004 5:56 AM


quote:
Nonetheless I see the distinction as arbitrary. A virus can only replicate in a specific chemical environment - the cell. A prion can only replicate in a specific chemical environment - one that includes the nominal protien. A bacterium can replicate in any envrionment in which it can maintain life chemistry.
You can only replicate in a specific environment yet you are alive. And the specific environement on which the bacterium depends is equivalent to the environment on which the virus depends in many ways.
quote:
"Modifers?" Prions modify protiens into exact copies of themselves. Living things "modify" materials into copies of themselves. Seems like the terms aren't much of a distinction to me.
Viruses have no metabolism. Prions have no metabolism. Bacteria have metabolism.
There is a distinction. You do not replicate i.e. reproduce by modifying your wife to become a copy of you. You produce a novel offspring. Prions do not. There is no net gain of prions. Only a net loss of normally folded prions. Prions are a part of normal metabolism so they do not have metabolism. The bacterial mutB gene does not have metabolism either because it is part of a lifeform. Without input in the form of nutrients, bacteria have no metabolism. Viruses, without a cell host, have no metabolism.
I am not sure if defining life would benefit by looking at one system and then comparing it to those that lack that system. We lack things bacteria have in terms of metabolism and function but we consider both ourselves and bacteria to be life.
quote:
Viruses don't respond to changes in their environment. Prions don't respond to changes in their environment. Bacteria respond to changes in their environment.
Viruses certainly do respond to changes in the environment. They go into a latent proviral phase by integrating into the genome (some viruses not all). If the cell is damaged or distressed, the viruses respond by going into a lytic phase ultimately destroying the cell and releasing many copies of themselves to infect new targets. Viruses have all sorts of ways of responding to the cells signals and changes in cellular environment. As before, I don't think prions are alive either so no, they don't respond to the environment.
quote:
If I might ask - how would you tell the difference between a "living" virus and a dead one?
There are many examples of dead viruses. They are called HERVs or human endogenous retroviruses (though not all are dead..you know, biology can never be simple ). They are unable to produce any viral proteins or replicate even in the appropriate environment.
I don't really have such a strong position or feeling regarding life vs. non-life. However, given that viruses have population genetics, evolve, and do so in a host independent way I find them clearly distinct from prions which lack these qualities. Even if they are much simpler than bacteria.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 5:56 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 17 of 30 (82590)
02-03-2004 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
02-03-2004 3:26 AM


quote:
Viri just don't do enough by themselves.
Those lazy good for nothing Viri!
Heheheh. While I see what you are saying, I think you have added a kind of hidden premise in your definition of life. Not that it is wrong, but it should be more out in the open for exploration.
It seems that you want "life" to be self-sufficient to some degree. Kind of like a snail or hermit crab, it carries it's home of proper chemical environment with it.
I am unsure why that should be the correct dividing line. I realize that property let's bacteria operate in a greater variety of exterior environments, and have a lot fewer dormant periods, but is that enough to separate one from the other?
The bacteria must still sit in environments that allow those Homes they carry around to keep being replenished, otherwise just like a virus it shuts down.
So maybe a way to look at it (the way I look at it anyway), they are both forms of life, but one kind has the ability to move around and stay active for longer periods, while the other sacrificed activity, for much greater endurance.
In a later post you ask how you can tell a virus is dead. I think it would be safe enough to say when it has been damaged enough that it can no longer function, given introduction to the proper chemical environment. That is essentially the same for bacteria that for all intents and purposes are "immortal" unless damaged by their environments.
Viri are much hardier than bacteria, though more restricted in their activity, requiring hosts to do what we would call living.
Wait a second, that sounds familar. Vampires!
Perhaps Viri should be classified as undead... never quite alive but never quite dead, unless obliterated.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 3:26 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 12:50 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 18 of 30 (82596)
02-03-2004 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Silent H
02-03-2004 12:40 PM


Perhaps Viri should be classified as undead... never quite alive but never quite dead, unless obliterated.
And animated by foul necromancy!
I'll accept this classification. Damned, dirty zombie viruses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 02-03-2004 12:40 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 02-03-2004 1:58 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 19 of 30 (82619)
02-03-2004 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
02-03-2004 12:50 PM


And they are never good are they? Evil undead things.
That would be a trip to suddenly reclassify virology as necromancy.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 12:50 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 2:12 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 20 of 30 (82626)
02-03-2004 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Silent H
02-03-2004 1:58 PM


That would be a trip to suddenly reclassify virology as necromancy.
Well, the T-Virus can reanimate dead tissue. It's true! I saw it in a movie.
Yeah, the undead suffer from universally negative portrayals in movies. That's why I've started the Zombie Anti-Defamation League. I'm lobbying Hollywood to opt for more appropriate movie villians, like Nazis or those darn Ay-rabs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 02-03-2004 1:58 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Silent H, posted 02-03-2004 5:03 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 21 of 30 (82639)
02-03-2004 2:45 PM


My 2 cents...
The whole argument about what is "alive" and what is "non-alive" is too arbitrary to be at all fruitful, IMHO.
AFAICS, the property of "life" is something we ascribe to certain organizations of matter that exhibit a certain class of behavior. The important thing to understand, though, is that HUMANS define this class of behavior. It is very much analagous to the property of color. We arbitrarily say that frequency range X is "red" and frequency rage Y is "yellow," and frequencies out side these ranges are "non-red" and "non-yellow." Yet there are no signs anywhere on the light spectrum that divide it so neatly for us. We just postulate the definitions according to an aribtrarily specified range. We even slice and dice within the color ranges to get more refined yet equally arbitrary colors like "Fire Engine Red" or "Candy Apple Red" or "Brick Red."
So, similarly, there is nothing about "life" that objectively distinguishes itself from "non-life." The distinction exists in our minds only. This is not to say that the distinction is totally meaningless, but I don't believe that there is some ethereal "vitality" that is inherent in some clusters of matter and not in others that makes some things "alive" and others not.
This is quite advantageous to keep in mind when considering theories of abiogenesis. In this light, it's not so much that we're looking for a point in history where life was "inserted" into matter, but rather where clusters of matter which are already part of a universe in motion and transition happened to begin exhibiting the behaviors we presently and arbitrarily define as "life."

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 3:09 PM :æ: has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 30 (82659)
02-03-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by :æ:
02-03-2004 2:45 PM


The important thing to understand, though, is that HUMANS define this class of behavior.
That's a really great point, and it leads me to consider - where is the most useful division between life and non-life going to be?
Which "rules" are going to be most useful when applying them to viruses - life rules or crystal rules?
Upon reflection, I'd have to say life rules. So I guess I'm changing my position. It's most useful to consider viruses as alive but prions as not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by :æ:, posted 02-03-2004 2:45 PM :æ: has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 23 of 30 (82736)
02-03-2004 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by crashfrog
02-03-2004 2:12 PM


quote:
I'm lobbying Hollywood to opt for more appropriate movie villians, like Nazis or those darn Ay-rabs.
Oh that's already firmly entrenched. Someone I know wrote a script which made it pretty high up the Hollywood chain to a big producer (of a VERY FAMOUS horror film series).
The script was an adaptation of a successful horror novel. The thing that ended up breaking the deal, was that the person I knew and the original author (of the book it was based on) refused to make a change (the only real change) that the producer insisted on.
For some reason he could not accept that the maniac running an island filled with horrors was not an arab. The producer eventually insisted that the only people capable of killing and raping other people were Arabs, and everything in the story (again based on a popular selling novel) had to be changed just to propagandize that the killer was an Arab.
... and before you ask, no the producer was not Buz.
Here's a way to accomplish your goal in Hollywood. Write a script where a doctor figures out a way to engineer a virus that will work on dead flesh, which as a biproduct reanimates the dead. Then tweak it that it is a Jewish doctor, who ends up reanimating the corpses of those killed in the Holocaust... or if you want something more timely, to those killed in suicide bombings.
The dead then go on to avenge themselves against either NeoNazis (American or European), or Arabs.
You will save both the image of viruses and the undead in one fell swoop.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 2:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Peter, posted 02-04-2004 6:41 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 24 of 30 (82983)
02-04-2004 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Silent H
02-03-2004 5:03 PM


quote:
Here's a way to accomplish your goal in Hollywood. Write a script where a doctor figures out a way to engineer a virus that will work on dead flesh, which as a biproduct reanimates the dead. Then tweak it that it is a Jewish doctor, who ends up reanimating the corpses of those killed in the Holocaust... or if you want something more timely, to those killed in suicide bombings
Isn't the first part of that the plot to 'Resident Evil: Apocalypse'?
.... or IS that the plot to 'RE: Apocalypse' ??????
As to the life Vs non-life issue, maybe the problem is that
there isn't really a distinction at all. It's all just
'stuff' that reacts with other 'stuff' in a particular
way (governed by the chemical and physical properties).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Silent H, posted 02-03-2004 5:03 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 02-04-2004 7:09 AM Peter has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 25 of 30 (82986)
02-04-2004 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Peter
02-04-2004 6:41 AM


Isn't the first part of that the plot to 'Resident Evil: Apocalypse'?
I don't think they're the first ones to make up the "zombism caused by virus" idea, by any means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Peter, posted 02-04-2004 6:41 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Mammuthus, posted 02-04-2004 7:48 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 28 by Peter, posted 02-04-2004 8:21 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 26 of 30 (82990)
02-04-2004 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by crashfrog
02-04-2004 7:09 AM


A recent entry is 28 Days Later...a fun flick to watch but you really have to suspend you disbelief with the virus itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 02-04-2004 7:09 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 02-04-2004 8:02 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 30 (82991)
02-04-2004 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Mammuthus
02-04-2004 7:48 AM


A recent entry is 28 Days Later...a fun flick to watch but you really have to suspend you disbelief with the virus itself.
That was a bitchin' movie, but I didn't really think it was a "zombie" movie... zombies are usually supposed to be the walking dead. Those folks were still alive.
It'd chalk it up as an "outbreak" movie, not a zombie movie. But I'm a stickler for genres, I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Mammuthus, posted 02-04-2004 7:48 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 28 of 30 (82996)
02-04-2004 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by crashfrog
02-04-2004 7:09 AM


It was just that in Resident Evil: Apocalypse the
umbrella corporation has a beauty product that
regenerates dead skin cells and ....
Rather than just a general similarity to zombie/living dead
causation.
I like George A Romero's 'Well this satellite crashed so it
must have been something to do with that...' explanation.
Not seen 28 Days later ... just seemed like an Omega Man
rip-off to me -- might give it a look though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 02-04-2004 7:09 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Silent H, posted 02-04-2004 1:46 PM Peter has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 29 of 30 (83040)
02-04-2004 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Peter
02-04-2004 8:21 AM


quote:
It was just that in Resident Evil: Apocalypse the umbrella corporation has a beauty product that regenerates dead skin cells and ....
Yeah but the dead don't come back as the good guys do they? That was my little twist on it.
quote:
Not seen 28 Days later ... just seemed like an Omega Man rip-off to me
Ahem, and Omega Man was original? I believe it was preceded by a little something called "I am Legend."

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Peter, posted 02-04-2004 8:21 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Peter, posted 02-05-2004 4:50 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 30 of 30 (83286)
02-05-2004 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Silent H
02-04-2004 1:46 PM


Yeah but the dead don't come back as the good guys do they? That was my little twist on it.
True ... now I'd go to see your one
Ahem, and Omega Man was original? I believe it was preceded by a little something called "I am Legend."
Yeah ... but 'The Omega Man' bills itself as an adaptation
of 'I am Legend' .... and it's got Chuck Heston and Anthony
Zerba

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Silent H, posted 02-04-2004 1:46 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024