Why is virus not considered life?

Cool idea, you might say the host is just the ecosystem.

But that's wrong, you idiot.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

If you look at those six boxes that a living organism has to check, you'll see that humans check all of them while viruses do not. You're just making up your own definitions to suit your needs.

Humans also need internal ecosystem of other organisms. Like mitochondria, gut bacteria, skin bacteria.

>argument by authority

Sure sure.

>Fetus doesn't have any metabolism or active functions while it's outside a host cell, therefore it's not considered "alive".

>Extremophile archaea doesn't have any metabolism or active functions while it's dormant, therefore it's not considered "alive".

>Human doesn't have any metabolism or active functions while it is dead, therefore it's not considered "alive".

Yes, exactly. Thank you for clarifying my point.

That's my point. According to the current definition of 'life', viruses cannot be considered to be "alive". Maybe in ten years there'll be a new definition that includes viruses. Right now, though, they are not alive because they don't meet the definition of 'life'.

It's not "argument by authority", it's just using the accepted definition. This whole argument is literally just semantics.

Fetus is 'life'.
So is that extremophile.
So was that human.

>accepting poor work from others

Sad.

Make up your own definition if you like, but don't expect others to use it.

Wrong.

Yes, but in the conditions you described they are not alive.

Like said, it's all about the current definition, and by that all the things you described are not alive.

>brainlet can't grasp the difference between certain stages of a lifecycle lacking certain things and 'organisms' that *never* display those traits

Statistically most viruses live their ENTIRE LIFE inside an organism. Statistically virus life cycle is ALMOST ENTIRELY of life inside organism.

Are you a virus? Is that why you're so butthurt about this?

The fuck are you on about?

Virussen aren't consideres life under the common definition because they lack *fundamental metabolic processes", not whether they are in a host.

When I said stages life cycles, I was referring to your stellar counterarguments of fetusses and dead people not being alive (gee willy, dead people are dead?)

Most viruses are born inside organism, live their entire life inside organism, replicate inside organism, and die inside organism.

Insignificant amount of the viruses experience any part of their lifecycle outside organism.

"Fundamental metabolic processes" isn't accepted terminology. It doesn't convey any meaning. "Metabolic processes" do.

>Most viruses are born inside organism, live their entire life inside organism, replicate inside organism, and die inside organism.
>Insignificant amount of the viruses experience any part of their lifecycle outside organism

You dense motherfucker, this is entirely irrelevant to the argument being made
Did you even fucking read?

Are you really this dense? Even if they live inside another organism, they still can't reproduce or have metabolism without it.

Using your analogies, if you put a dead baby in a wonb it's alive?

You are just referring to the established accepted definition aka authority-argument.

Yes? And you are just making up a fucking retarded definition of your own.

It's not 'fucking retarded' if you can't disprove it.

If you have a gripe with the established definition then propose a new one and it can be debated on its own merits.

As it stands you're just saying "I don't like thing".

Think of them as very well programmed robots. They're aren't living things just pieces of code wrapped in a protein shell.

Used to work in a generic engineering lab and worked with viruses everday.

Listen here bud, seeds and spores are not really living, they are dormant forms that can give rise to a living being BY THEMSELVES if environmental conditions are favourable.
Viruses dont give rise to a living being. Why? Because they are just genetic material packed in a protein shell. They dont make energy, their own components and they dont combine with others.

Because THAT'S HOW LANGUAGE FUCKING WORKS

>"You are just referring to the established accepted definition aka authority-argument"
That's not what an argument from authority is. Why do you think the current criterion for life is "established" and "accepted?"

>"It's not 'fucking retarded' if you can't disprove it."
It has been disproven. You played a semantic game and said you didn't like the way the "disproof" was presented. That doesn't mean the disproof is incorrect.

Because if they extended the "life" term beyond its cellular forms, they'd have to consider everything living enough to grow and reproduce like crystals do.

What does it change ?

>you guys, tables are actually chairs because they both have four legs and a flat surface you can place things on!
>w-what? a table isn't meant for sitting because that's what the dictionary says?
>stop using argument from authority! according to MY definition, tables are totally chairs!

Because one of the characteristics of life that define whether something is an organism or not is "consisting of one or more cells"
Viruses are not cellular - just a protein structure containing genetic material.

It's like calling a furby alive because it makes noise and can move around. It just seems like it's alive because it does more than a rock, but it's nothing more than a few electrical components arranged in a clever way.

life is a abitrary . it isn't a thing that has objective physical significance and could only ever really have one definition like say an electron. there's only really one sensible definition for what an electron is.

life on the other hand is a bit arbitrary.

do you just want to say that something is alive if it is able to reproduce itself and pass on it's own information and evolve?
then you can say viruses are alive

Do you want to say that something has to have metabolism to be alive? most of the chemical processes of viruses used to carry out the life cycle don't occur within the 'boundaries' of the virus, it doesn't take chemicals into themselves and do chemical reactions to them to keep itself alive as far as I know.

So if you want to make that a necessary criterion for life that would discount viruses.

it's a bit of an arbitrary decision though.
You could have a functioning concept of life either saying that things have to process chemicals inside themselves to be alive , or without that requirement.

You couldn't have a working idea of an electron with a number of arbitrary ideas though.
There's something different about when humans define the idea of "alive" from defining the idea of velocity or force or mass or electron.

He's right

So nobody of you can disprove my argument?

I guess the question remains open then. We don't have credible proposition for definition of virus yet.

>if I conveniently avoid the fact I got BTFO, I win!

It's just a stupid definition. Invent your own word that describes regular life plus viruses if that makes your happy.

No one knows

Viruses don't use the typical cell division approach to replication.

Invent your own word that describes regular life plus viruses (sic)

Alivish.

See, now everyone is happy

Fetus have their own metabolism. They can produce hormones, red blood cells, do apoptosis. They consume glucose, proteins and fat and eliminate its products. Therefore is very much alive

life is a social construct

Scientific terminology should reflect layman usage to some extent, so some definitions are more apppropriate than others.
Where the generally accepted definition is unintuitive from a non-scientific perspective, there is an argument for substituting a revised definition.
The current definition of 'life' is thus superior to the definition: 'any stable compound', though this would also be a useful term.

Some viruses contain or are coated with their own polymerases, so they can be metabolically active, if only while in their host cell.
So compare viruses to plasmids. Plasmids are a means of gene transfer between bacteria. Plasmids give the cells that accept them advantageous adaptations. They are packaged and generally organized by mechanisms in the host cells.
Viruses are different in that they take over cellular processes in "self-interest", without necessarily providing any benefits to the cell.
I would like to consider viruses 'alive' and plasmids 'inert', as the former seem to have an independence analogical to that of parasites, while the latter are tools of their species, from my perspective.

kek

>dead people are alive

>Human doesn't have any metabolism or active functions while it is dead, therefore it's not considered "alive".

lmao nice

That's a very good question, and it's one that still pervades the life sciences today. They are made up of the most basic components of life, yet lack the ability to perform basic functions as defined by scientists for what life is (hence their need to invade cells and hijack their machinery). Maybe they're an intermediate between living and non-living? Either way, that's far from a stupid question, contrary to what most people here seem to think...

No metabolism

same fag

You're right

Life is nothing, but a set of functional definitions an organism has to satisfy. It's not as if "life" is some fundamental element of the universe like electromagnetism. It's simply a definition.

I suppose that would really require a definite definition of life. It's near impossible to give an exact definition.

Agent Smith pls

Questioning life is like questioning species taxonomy and how species work, you may never know really if either are like we think they are.

Why it has to be a definition?, as far as we know, it is uncertain if life plays a major role and how far it affects the universe existence.

All 'living' things replicate either through sexual reproduction or asexual division but viruses don't. They manipulate their hosts into reproducing for them.

Because like you it is a parasite that leaches off the IQ of others.

Yeah every time i look at a virus magnified i cant help feel but some sinister wizard designed them.

Let's give you few minutes

same goes with crystals, in a way

they fit certains definitions of life since they grow up and stuff like this

Viruses don't use tools so they are not human.