Quite an interesting concept - that computer viruses are alive. But they would have to exhibit the behaviors we associate with life. I guess one could certainly say that they reproduce - but what about feeding? Of course there was also the same argument when I took biology about whether viruses were alive or not. They have to hijack their hosts' DNA in order to reproduce. I sort of liken it to the concept of zero in math. Is it positive or negative? One can answer with equal veracity that it is both or neither.
----- Original Message ----- From: Hank Roth To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:22 AM Subject: [PNEWS-L] Re: Living on the Edge I have this to add. Steven Hawkings says computer viruses are alive. Apparently he also suggests that biological viruses are alive. However my mentor (well, I've read all his books), Richard Dawkins says otherwise: "Dr Richard Dawkins, professor of evolutionary zoology at Oxford University and author of the The Selfish Gene, said yesterday that although Professor Hawking's claim was interesting, even biological viruses are on the borderline between living and non-living things." "Although I would agree with Stephen Hawking that computer viruses are approximately as alive as ordinary viruses, that's not very alive." He said his criteria for identifying a living thing would be that it should have some independence, which both biological and computer viruses lack." The quotes were taken from The Independent - London August 4, 1994.. Hank --- In [email protected], "Hank Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Of course this is spliting hairs BUT there are no absolutes in science > which is why it is often so much fun and why nobody stops trying to > disprove everyone wrong so they can prove something new. I welcome > your comments about viruses being alive and I have been aware of the > different opinions, but I think to be honest it is a minority > position. Most scientists consider a viruses not alive, if not > completely dead - for all the reasons I have given and others > supporting both positions. > > However, that said, there is some virus that is extremely large. > Mimivirus is a case in point. So is it alive? Well, it is definitely > parasitic as are all viruses. A viruses needs a cell to hijack to > replicate itself but it can also be modified by genes jumping > laterally. What a concept but it happens all the time which kind of > knocks evolution out of the box. In fact I wonder how much our genes > are modified by gene drift? I know it happens and it has nothing to do > with evolution. > > Again thanks for your input. > > Hank > > Addendum: > > Science. 2004 Nov 19;306(5700):1344-50. Epub 2004 Oct 14. > > * Science. 2005 May 20 > > The 1.2-megabase genome sequence of Mimivirus. > > Raoult D, Audic S, Robert C, Abergel C, Renesto P, Ogata H, La > Scola B, Suzan M, Claverie JM. > > Unité des Rickettsies, Faculté de Médecine, CNRS UMR6020, > Université de la Méditerranée, 13385 Marseille Cedex 05, France. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > We recently reported the discovery and preliminary > characterization of Mimivirus, the largest known virus, with a > 400-nanometer particle size comparable to mycoplasma. Mimivirus is a > double-stranded DNA virus growing in amoebae. We now present its > 1,181,404-base pair genome sequence, consisting of 1262 putative open > reading frames, 10% of which exhibit a similarity to proteins of known > functions. In addition to exceptional genome size, Mimivirus exhibits > many features that distinguish it from other nucleocytoplasmic large > DNA viruses. The most unexpected is the presence of numerous genes > encoding central protein-translation components, including four > amino-acyl transfer RNA synthetases, peptide release factor 1, > translation elongation factor EF-TU, and translation initiation factor > 1. The genome also exhibits six tRNAs. Other notable features include > the presence of both type I and type II topoisomerases, components of > all DNA repair pathways, many polysaccharide synthesis enzymes, and > one intein-containing gene. The size and complexity of the Mimivirus > genome challenge the established frontier between viruses and > parasitic cellular organisms. This new sequence data might help shed a > new light on the origin of DNA viruses and their role in the early > evolution of eukaryotes. > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], michael haaheim <MIKKELHPANDA@> wrote: > > > > Yes, I am aware of all of that. That is the primary argument made on > the part of those biologists who would classify virii as the most > complex non-living organisms. I am just saying that, as of yet, I > don't believe that a consensus has yet been determined on the subject. > Those biologists who argue that they are the simplest of living > organisms would argue that, although they can not reproduce on their > own, they CAN, in fact, reproduce, as well as evolve. They argue that > virii outside of other organisms are in a dormant state. Also, while > they don't take nourishment into themselves, they DO consume > nourishment (externally) in their process of reproduction. > > Again, one of the problems is that biologists have not yet arrived > at a consensus as to what constitutes life. According to SOME > definitions, you are entirely correct. Again, I just point out that > (to the best of my knowledge) a consensus has not been reached. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Hank Roth <harry@> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:23:51 PM > > Subject: [PNEWS-L] Re: Living on the Edge > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viruses can not sustain life by definition without infecting the > > > > nucleus of living cells, therefore they are dead genetic material. > > > > They are not dead as in decomposed or dead due to necrosis or > > > > apoptosis. Viruses are just a few genes, thus they are protein making > > > > information. Viruses are extremely small. HIV is only 9 genes. They > > > > can't do much on their own. Viruses don't eat anything, What they do > > > > is infect; hijack and change genes. Viruses can't reproduce on their > > > > own and that is why they are considered dead. They just are there, > > > > chunks of genetic material which is also why they are excellent for > > > > gene modification and used in all kinds of applications to insert gene > > > > information into the DNA of cells where they then spread to all the > > > > cells which are targeted. The cell(s) they infect reproduces the new > > > > infected cell. > > > > > > > > Hank > > > > > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] .com, michael haaheim <MIKKELHPANDA@ ...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > As I understand it, biologists have STILL not yet come to any > > > > definite conclusion as to whether or not virii are living organisms. > > > > Part of the problem is that our definitions of "living" organisms are > > > > not complete nor universal, and are extremely arbitrary. > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > > > From: adar <adar@> > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] .com > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:35:33 AM > > > > > Subject: [PNEWS-L] Living on the Edge > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Living on the Edge > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viruses are not alive. Bacteria and Eukaryotes are alive. Archaea is > > [...] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
