From owner-cellbiol@net.bio.net Thu Feb 06 22:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!U.ARIZONA.EDU!azpiroz From: azpiroz@U.ARIZONA.EDU (Ricardo Azpiroz) Newsgroups: bionet.cellbiol Subject: Re: RE: Is a virus alive? Date: 7 Feb 1997 10:41:01 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 43 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <5dcv55$plj@falcon.le.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net On 6 Feb 1997, Dr E. Buxbaum wrote: p.french@ARNIE.CFI.UNSW.EDU.AU (Peter French) wrote: >From which I conclude that s/he thinks that a virus is not alive. This is >clearly nonsense. If a virus is not alive how can it be killed by viricidal >agents? Saying it is not alive because it uses cellular metabolism to >propagate itself is like saying that humans are not alive because we need >the earth's atmosphere to be able to live. Clearly under any sensible >definition of life, viruses are living organisms. A better question is "Are >prions alive?" Unfortunately, it is part of the common definition of living organisms, that they have a metabolism and that they are able to reproduce themselfs. That bit with the atmospere is irrelevant, by the way. Every organism needs material from its surounding, otherwise metabolism would be impossible. Now I want to say, again, this is a waste of time. THINK, for one minute, about whether the definitions prersented here for "life" and "alive" and such, are merely semantically different. What is or isn't alive is wholly dependent upon your definition of life, which itself depends upon where you draw the boundaries for your conception of the set of items that can be considered "alive". IT IS A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT. It leads nowhere. Thinking is fun. Thinking is good. This discussion is neither. Please, stop. ---------------------- Ricardo Azpiroz Department of Biochemistry Life Sciences South University of Arizona Tucson AZ 85721-0106 azpiroz@U.Arizona.EDU .