Should viruses be considered living

should viruses be considered living 23-09-2015 i think that a virus should be considered a living thing even though it needs a host cell to live, we need food and water to live so who's to say that we aren't living.

Viruses, like bacteria, are microscopic and cause human diseases but unlike bacteria, viruses are acellular particles (meaning they aren't made up of living ce why aren't viruses considered living things. 06-12-2006  mejor respuesta: a virus cannot reproduce, on its own instead it must infect a host cell and use that cell's machinery (organells, enzymes, etc) in order to procreate bacteria, on the other hand, can reproduce naturally without depending on the organelles of another organism it should be noted that in the. Instead, viruses enter living cells and then hijack the host’s cellular equipment to copy viral genetic information, build new capsids, and assemble everything together we use the term replicate, instead of reproduce, to indicate viruses need a host cell to multiply. The central role of viruses in the origins of life was cemented with haldane’s famous essay, the origin of life, published in 1929, in which he not only considered viruses as living entities, but also asserted that “life may have remained in the virus stage for many millions of years before a suitable assemblage of elementary units was. These viruses are considered to be a plausible link between viruses and cells, suggesting a continuum in life between the two[7] i'd say this more than meets.

Viruses do not belong to any kingdom and don't contain any cellstherefore, they are considered nonliving in addition, viruses do not have the characteristics of life itcannot respond to a. 10-02-2008  best answer: b viruses cant feed, reproduce independantly, or move independantly i don't know where these people heard that viruses were surrounded by a polysaccharide because it's simply not true technically a virus is genetic material (dna or rna) plus some enzymes and bound proteins surrounded by a protein coat those that say the. 30-09-2007  viruses are considered to be non-living because they lack any independant means of reproduction they have to hijack the organelles of a living cell to reproduce.

Viruses are not considered living organisms because they are not composed of cells (the cellular theory of life) also, viruses cannot replicate independently - they must infect a living cell before their structure and genetic material can be reproduced and multiplied. Viruses are not cells but non-living, infectious particles they are capable of causing a number of diseases, including cancer , in various different types of organisms viral pathogens not only infect humans and animals , but also plants , bacteria , protists , and archaeans. A virus is a small infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of other organismsviruses can infect all types of life forms, from animals and plants to microorganisms, including bacteria and archaea since dmitri ivanovsky's 1892 article describing a non-bacterial pathogen infecting tobacco plants, and the discovery of the tobacco mosaic virus by martinus beijerinck in 1898. 12-02-2009  (viruses in the body like invading cells and stufff) should they be considered living or nonliving please include as much detail + reasoning as possiblee thank youu.

Viruses are not living, though they are considered microorganisms according to the basic characteristics of life, viruses do not meet the criteria, so unless our characteristics of life are revised, viruses cannot be considered as living. To most people, it seems self-evident that a virus is some kind of living creature we usually put viruses into the same mental category as bacteria — a category that we popularly call “germs. Such bacteria are regarded as living things, albeit very simple ones -- and the researchers argue virus factories should thus be regarded as the true self of a virus, while the infectious. Like viruses, they are not considered alive as they lack the cellular machinery to grow and reproduce, and are dependent on living cells to do this since it is a normal protein with an abnormal conformation, they can spontaneously occur. A virus is a microscopic particle that can infect the cells of a biological organism viruses can only replicate themselves by infecting a host cell and therefore cannot reproduce on their own at.

Should viruses be considered living

should viruses be considered living 23-09-2015 i think that a virus should be considered a living thing even though it needs a host cell to live, we need food and water to live so who's to say that we aren't living.

Viruses are not living things viruses are complicated assemblies of molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates, but on their own. Yet viruses should not be considered living because they do not possess the three most important characteristics of life: reproduction, homeostasis, and metabolism viruses cannot multiply without a host, which isn’t even reproduction the definition of reproduction is, the production of offspring by a sexual or asexual process. Viruses are not considered living organisms because a they need host to reproduce b they aren't made of cells c they don't metabolize or grow 2 bad effects viruses have on plants are they can cause stunted growth and yield losses in their host plants.

  • Viruses are not considered alive because they lack many of the properties that scientists associate with living organisms primarily, they lack the ability to reproduce without the aid of a host cell, and don't use the typical cell- division approach to replication.
  • Viruses are responsible for some of the most dangerous and deadly diseases including influenza, ebola, rabies and smallpox despite their potential to kill, these potent pathogens are in fact.

09-12-2009  anonymous said we believe that viruses should be considered as living organisms viruses have many qualities that could make them be considered to be non-living, but we think that the living qualities of viruses outweigh those non-living characteristics. If you want to call a virus a living thing, then yes, viruses are microbes as stated on the wiki article: some microbiologists also classify viruses (and viroids) as. Seems like the reasons why viruses are typically not considered life are pretty well covered here, so i'll just add that i think it comes down to what you have in mind when you say life or living thing.

should viruses be considered living 23-09-2015 i think that a virus should be considered a living thing even though it needs a host cell to live, we need food and water to live so who's to say that we aren't living. should viruses be considered living 23-09-2015 i think that a virus should be considered a living thing even though it needs a host cell to live, we need food and water to live so who's to say that we aren't living. should viruses be considered living 23-09-2015 i think that a virus should be considered a living thing even though it needs a host cell to live, we need food and water to live so who's to say that we aren't living.
Should viruses be considered living
Rated 3/5 based on 25 review

2018.