Are viruses life?

[SpaceGuy50]

Are viruses life?

[Ygggdrasil]

It depends on how you define life (which surprisingly is not very well defined).

[DaveC426913]

What are your thoughts on the matter?

[symbolipoint]

Do they perform metabolism, even if using a hosts organisms cells to do so?
Are virii irritable?
Can they reproduce?

If yes to all of those, then virus seems to be life.

[DaveC426913]

Are virii irritable?
As a discrete unit, no.

Can they reproduce?
As a discrete unit, no.

Virii corrupt living cells. Arguably, it is the living cells that is doing the irritation and reproduction.

[Moridin]

One of the main issues with discussions whether viruses are living or not, is that we are trying to establish a discontinuous, essentialist barrier on what is most probably a continuous transition. None of the proteins, carbohydrates or lipids in your body are alive, however, in certain configurations together with other building blocks, something we call life emerge on a higher level of analysis (but of course completely explicable from these basic building blocks; no particular elan vital or life force).

[mgb_phys]

As a discrete unit, no.
Virii corrupt living cells. Arguably, it is the living cells that is doing the irritation and reproduction.
Virii have inheritable traits that they pass on to their offspring so they are alive.
They can't reproduce without a host cell but lots of species can't reproduce without a host body, from tape worms to cuckoos.

[DaveC426913]

Virii have inheritable traits that they pass on to their offspring so they are alive.
Logical phallacy: hasty conclusion. That is not the only criteria for life.
[/QUOTE]

[granpa]

all living systems depend on some external factors beyond their control for survival. we depend on the sun for energy. are we therefore not really alive?

reproduction and the ability to evolve are the 2 most basic necessities for life. but like all categories, inclusion within the category 'living' is not all or nothing. see the wikipedia article on 'fuzzy logic' for more on that idea.

[CRGreathouse]

I'd like to see some examples of creatures that can't reproduce on their own -- I'm sure there are some corner cases. That might be an illuminating comparison.

Grammar nazi alert:
1 virus, 2 viruses; 1 criterion, 2 criteria.

[cesiumfrog]

Logical phallacy
Whatever you say, Freud.

[Moridin]

all living systems depend on some external factors beyond their control for survival. we depend on the sun for energy. are we therefore not really alive?

reproduction and the ability to evolve are the 2 most basic necessities for life. but like all categories, inclusion within the category 'living' is not all or nothing. see the wikipedia article on 'fuzzy logic' for more on that idea.

Hard to evolve if you cannot reproduce.

[DaveC426913]

Whatever you say, Freud.:bugeye::tongue2:

[DaveC426913]

I'd like to see some examples of creatures that can't reproduce on their own -- I'm sure there are some corner cases. That might be an illuminating comparison.

Grammar nazi alert:
1 virus, 2 viruses; 1 criterion, 2 criteria.
Then you don't believe in:
1 forum, 2 fora
1 vox, 2 voxen

[Andy Resnick]

1 mongoose, 2 mongooses
1 axis, 2 axes

This is fun!

[philnow]

Every living this is dependent on something, as has been said. I don't think that virii require host cellular machinery is sufficient to rule out virii are "alive".

Really, this could all be straightened out if we had a better definition of life.

[DaveC426913]

Every living this is dependent on something, as has been said. I don't think that virii require host cellular machinery is sufficient to rule out virii are "alive".But it's more than merely a dependency. Sorry, I can't back that up with facts...


Really, this could all be straightened out if we had a better definition of life.
(Sorry phil, but I gotta: :tongue:) This is kind of stating the exceedingly obvious. No discussion of "is a virus alive" in the history of the universe has gone more than 3 nanoseconds before resulting in the question "what is the definition of life"? And it's never been satisafactorily answered.

[granpa]

Hard to evolve if you cannot reproduce.
what is your point exactly?

[ViewsofMars]

Are viruses life?

Good question. Thank you. (A nice break from what I had planned to do.:cool:) What came to my mind is a quote, "Viruses today spread genes among bacteria and humans and other cells, as they always have... We are our viruses " by Lynn Margulis, 1998, Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution, Basic Books, 1998. p 64. This link tells you about Lynn Margulis. If you would like more information about her I can provide it.:smile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis

And what a fasinating and awe inspiring world it tiss even when one is flat out tired from a four day wedding event of a good friend.

[mgb_phys]

Logical phallacy: hasty conclusion. That is not the only criteria for life.
No - but it's a good one :biggrin:

The question is of course - what is life? I was just putting forward one definition.

[philnow]

That's more of a definition of one of the factors in a list of criteria for life. That sole statement has never been a definition of life in itself.

[Moridin]

what is your point exactly?

Reproduction is already included in the criteria for evolution, so it is uncalled for to state it a second time.

[ViewsofMars]

The question is of course - what is life? I was just putting forward one definition.

Good answer. The question is too. :smile: What is life?

Here's an excerpt from NASA-Astrobiology Roadmap, Goal 3: Understand how life emerges from cosmic and planetary precursors, Perform observational, experimental and theoretical investigations to understand the general physical and chemical principles underlying the origins of life:

Origins and evolution of functional biomolecules. Life can be understood as a chemical system that links a common property of organic molecules—the ability to undergo spontaneous chemical transformation—with the uncommon property of synthesizing a copy of that system. This process, unique to life, allows changes in a living molecular system to be copied, thereby permitting Darwinian-like selection and evolution to occur. At the core of the life process are polymers composed of monomeric species such as amino acids, carbohydrates, and nucleotides. The pathways by which monomers were first incorporated into primitive polymers on the early Earth remain unknown, and physical properties of the products are largely unexplored. A primary goal of research on the origin of life must be to understand better the sources and properties of primitive polymers on the early Earth, and the evolutionary pathway by which polymerization reactions of peptides and oligonucleotides became genetically linked.
http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/roadmap/g3.html

Science is my baby! I just love it!

[DaveC426913]

Life can be understood as a chemical system that links a common property of organic molecules—the ability to undergo spontaneous chemical transformation—with the uncommon property of synthesizing a copy of that system. This process, unique to life, allows changes in a living molecular system to be copied...Except that it is a definition of organic life.

[mgb_phys]

Origins and evolution of functional biomolecules. Life can be understood as a chemical system that links a common property of organic molecules—the ability to undergo spontaneous chemical transformation—with the uncommon property of synthesizing a copy of that system. This process, unique to life, allows changes in a living molecular system to be copied,
There are self-catalysing chemical reactions for which this is true.
there are even a couple of them that take different pathways depending on external conditions and so can be said to adapt. But they don't pass on the 'chosen' properties so don't have inheritance.

[ViewsofMars]

Ahhh, a meeting of the minds! Remember it wasn't me that brought up this sub-topic, What is Life?.:biggrin: I admit it is a worthy pursuit and am grateful for the input and our ability to learn by sharing.:smile: By far, that is highly important to me and other interested parties.:wink: I'm not in the mode to critique only examine pertinent material while enjoying what I love - Science.

Let’s continue onward and further explore by reading the Nobel Prize Organization’s 'perspectives' of What is Life? Erwin Schrödinger's idea that physics could help solve biological riddles was the spark that led many researchers to try to unlock the secrets behind our book of life, the structure of DNA.
http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/imaginglife/documents/article_med_1962.html

As well as WHAT IS LIFE? , ERWIN SCHRODINGER, published 1944. What is life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell. Based on lectures delivered under the auspices of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies at Trinity College, Dublin, in February 1943.
http://whatislife.stanford.edu/Homepage/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf

I discover something new each time I open a new door. I did wholeheartedly agree with what the Nobel Prize Organization noted "Looking at heredity from his perspective, Schrödinger argued that life could be thought of in terms of storing and passing on biological information. Understanding life, which would invariably involve discovering the gene, could possibly go beyond the laws of physics as was known at the time, he stated."

[//:phoenix:\\]

One of the main issues with discussions whether viruses are living or not, is that we are trying to establish a discontinuous, essentialist barrier on what is most probably a continuous transition. None of the proteins, carbohydrates or lipids in your body are alive, however, in certain configurations together with other building blocks, something we call life emerge on a higher level of analysis (but of course completely explicable from these basic building blocks; no particular elan vital or life force).

Wouldn't that mean they are just pseudo life, in that they cannot live on their own? I would say viruses weren't living things but rather a type of false life as they can't live without infecting a host organism.

[philnow]

Erm, so you're implying that they're "alive" when they infect a host but "false alive" when on their own?

[DaveC426913]

Erm, so you're implying that they're "alive" when they infect a host but "false alive" when on their own?Yes. Without a host, they do not metabolize at all; they are nothing more than fragments of DNA in a shell. (Caveat: My facts may be out-of-date and this may be oversimplifying.)

[CRGreathouse]

Wouldn't that mean they are just pseudo life, in that they cannot live on their own? I would say viruses weren't living things but rather a type of false life as they can't live without infecting a host organism.

Wouldn't this mean that no parasites are living?

[DaveC426913]

Wouldn't this mean that no parasites are living?Parasites are still living creatures when they're not parasitizing. Phoenix's definition is too broad.

If I understand correctly, viruses are chemically inert when they're not in a cell.

[mgb_phys]

If I understand correctly, viruses are chemically inert when they're not in a cell.
Viruses are just a length of DNA (or RNA) with a sugar coating.

A similair problematic example is mitochondria, they exist in all our cells, but they have their own DNA and their own evolutionary history. They are probabaly originally bacteria that were absorbed into the first cells.

Since we can't live without them I suppose mitochondria could argue wether people are really alive!

[DaveC426913]

Since we can't live without them I suppose mitochondria could argue wether people are really alive!

There's a definite line between:
- organisms that metabolize by parasitizing off other organisms and, denied those other organisms, will sooner or later die
and
- virii that do not metabolize at all on their own

See, it's not that virii "can't live without a host" it's that virii do not live absent a host. They're inert.

[ViewsofMars]

Wouldn't that mean they are just pseudo life, in that they cannot live on their own? I would say viruses weren't living things but rather a type of false life as they can't live without infecting a host organism.

If you are implying that a virus is a pseudo life then I would say "no" because "pseudo" implies false or fraudulent such as pseudoscience.

Let's examine this closer.
Virus - An infectious microbe that requires a host cell (plant, animal, human, or bacterial) in which to reproduce. It is composed of proteins and genetic material (either DNA or RNA).
http://publications.nigms.nih.gov/thenewgenetics/glossary.html

What is a Microbe? You may next ask. Here is an excerpt from a larger article that can be helpful:

Microbes are single-cell organisms so tiny that millions can fit into the eye of a needle.

They are the oldest form of life on earth. Microbe fossils date back more than 3.5 billion years to a time when the Earth was covered with oceans that regularly reached the boiling point, hundreds of millions of years before dinosaurs roamed the earth.

Without microbes, we couldn’t eat or breathe.

Without us, they’d probably be just fine.

Understanding microbes is vital to understanding the past and the future of ourselves and our planet.

Microbes <my-crobes> are everywhere. There are more of them on a person's hand than there are people on the entire planet!
Microbes are in the air we breathe, the ground we walk on, the food we eat—they're even inside us!
http://www.microbeworld.org/microbes/


Now here is something very interesting from MIT, Volume 53, Number 21, Wednesday, April 8, 2009, TechTalk, Article VIRUS: New battery, built with bacteriophages, could power cars, electronic devices by Anne Trafton News Office by Anne Trafton - FANTER Researchers at MIT have found a way to use benign viruses and nanotubes to create high-powered batteries.(VIRUS, PAGE 5)

Here's an excerpt from that article:
... MIT Professor Gerbrand Ceder of materials science and Associate Professor Michael Strano of chemical engineering, genetically engineered viruses that first coat themselves with iron phosphate, then grab hold of carbon nanotubes to create a network of highly conductive material.

Because the viruses recognize and bind specifically to certain materials (carbon nanotubes in this case), each iron phosphate nanowire can be electrically “wired” to conducting carbon nanotube networks. Electrons can travel along the carbon nanotube networks, percolating throughout the electrodes to the iron phosphate and transferring energy in a very short time.
The viruses are a common bacteriophage, which infect bacteria but are harmless to humans.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/techtalk53-21.pdf


Learning is great fun! :!!) it and your world will sparkle.

p.s. Dave, looking up at you. I really like your signature! Yee gads, I can't stop chuckling. Thanks!

[Phrak]

What are the distinguishing characteristics that would tell us that a tobacco mosaic virus is a living thing and that a mineral crystal of any sort is not?

[DaveC426913]

p.s. Dave, looking up at you. I really like your signature! Yee gads, I can't stop chuckling. Thanks!

Glad to know someone finally appreciates it... :smile:

[ViewsofMars]

I sure do. Thanks again. It's time for me to leave the virus issue. I got the giggles.

[CRGreathouse]

If you are implying that a virus is a pseudo life then I would say "no" because "pseudo" implies false or fraudulent such as pseudoscience.

Pseudopod, pseudonym, pseudocode? I don't find false/fraudulent to be the dominant meaning of the English prefix, Latin roots notwithstanding.

[philnow]

Yes. Without a host, they do not metabolize at all; they are nothing more than fragments of DNA in a shell. (Caveat: My facts may be out-of-date and this may be oversimplifying.)

But they literally just expose their DNA to the host, that's certainly not metabolism. If a puzzle lands in my room and I follow the template and re-arrange the puzzle into another form (say that a part of the template was for me to copy it several times), I wouldn't say that the puzzle took any action :P

[DaveC426913]

But they literally just expose their DNA to the host, that's certainly not metabolism. If a puzzle lands in my room and I follow the template and re-arrange the puzzle into another form (say that a part of the template was for me to copy it several times), I wouldn't say that the puzzle took any action :P

Agreed. Which is why I'm arguing that virii are not life.

[DaveC426913]

Pseudopod, pseudonym, pseudocode? I don't find false/fraudulent to be the dominant meaning of the English prefix, Latin roots notwithstanding.Regardless, that is simply a semantics issue. It doesn't help define if virii are life, it simply creates a third label.

[ViewsofMars]

Are viruses life?

The American Society for Microbiology says:
When is a life form not a life form? When it's a virus.:smile:
http://www.microbeworld.org/microbes/virus/default.aspx

p.s. Dave's signature is invisible unless you are a member who has logged on. I can't stop laughing! Dave, come on, share your *bug* with those who aren't members. (tee hee)

[Lancelot59]

Whether or not viruses are alive is a matter of opinion. If you take a look at biology on a lower level, 'life' as we commonly define it is just a series of chemical reactions. Life itself following Opram's Hypothesis (I probably misspelled that) say that life was just a coincidence. The right conditions at the right time.

Personally I say they aren't alive. They are not capable of carrying out any of life's functions on their own. They are just particles that float around, and when they bump into a cell the DNA release process is triggered. They can't move or do anything else on their own. They just drift along and happen to infect cells along the way.

[Ophiolite]

It is quite irrelevant whether they are alive or not, since as several have pointed out that is matter of semantics, not science. It will make no difference to their behaviour, evolution, or what we learn of them whether they are alive, dead, or in some half way house.

[philnow]

Well, obviously, but it's still a classic debate.

[Lancelot59]

Why don't we just call them something in between? Like zombies? Not living but not dead.

[byohannan]

Life is a borderline unit of lifeform. The exactly sit the border of the quick and the dead.

they do reproduce using a host cell
they are self contained
they mutate
they understand the presence of a potential host cell

[byohannan]

Yes viruses are a lifeform .So also were the their rudimentary predessors who were capable of self sustaining and duplication

[DaveC426913]

Life is a borderline unit of lifeform. The exactly sit the border of the quick and the dead.

they do reproduce using a host cell
they are self contained
they mutate
they understand the presence of a potential host cell

They are not self-contained. The virus unit itself is not enough to metabolize or meet most of the other criteria for life.

They do not "understand the presence" of a potential host cell. The chemistry to enter a cell either works or does not.

[dhaxelbarqs]

One thing is for sure; viruses are very much a part of life on Earth and the human experience. Viruses do not meet the criteria for any of them.And they lack any form of energy.
______________________________
Get your CPAP mask in Toronto (http://www.cpapclinic.ca) with Respironics CPAP machines in Toronto (http://www.cpapclinic.ca/Respironics-products.php) and Sleep apnea mask in Toronto (http://www.cpapclinic.ca/sleep-apnea-at-home-screening.php).

[2kbucks]

First I'd like to point out (as I believe it was touched on already) that no 'life' can truly survive on its own. And I believe that even humans could be considered 'parasites' in the 'host cell' that is the Earth. ie we cannot preform basic life functions 'outside' our ideal environment. (spaceships aside) considering this I'd say that maybe viruses are more alive than us because some could survive outside their environment until they return to one, giving them better survival ability.

Second, I like to ask whats the point of life? Aside from all Philosophical debate, I believe the evolution and passage of our DNA to be the primary objective, as all or most criteria for life are based around this ability. Which viruses do. I think the fact that it's pretty much all they do just makes them the simplest and most efficient form of animated matter or life.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure that virii is the plural for the Latin Vir which means Man. So I'm also pretty sure it's viruses!

[kuzao]

the definition i like and which makes sense to me is (as far as we talk about earth based biological life):

the ability to ranscribe and translate.

or even better: the presence of DNA and RNA at the same time

until now i nerver saw a better definition.

of course you can wander in the philosophical realm and talk about abilities, intend... blah blah. but this short and 'hard' definition i prefer.

a virus doesnt have the ability to transcribe and translate. same goes for dna and rna.

alex

[DaveC426913]

the presence of DNA and RNA at the same time


But this is not a definition. You've found common properties, granted, but that doesn't define life.

[kuzao]

dear dave,
you are just arguing semantics!

are you unsatisfied with the grammar of my statement? should i rather say
any entity that contains dna and rna at the same time is to be called life?

or how about 'life:things transcribing and translating'

i do not think that your point is valid. that is as long as we talk about a biological definition of live. as soon as you want to argue the philosophical side you might be right. but then on the other hand your previous attempt to define life would look rather clumsy.

from your previous posts i get that you do share my view, so could you tell me what you dislike about my definition?

by the way last time i checked the molec. micro biology books i usually use called viruses infectious particles.

oh and another thing: until now i met nobody who uses virii. which might be also based on the fact that -ii is the ending for F. and M. latin words ending on -ius. which would naturally mean that virii is nonsense. (that so as long as you dont write normally virius)

alex

[DaveC426913]

dear dave,
you are just arguing semantics!

are you unsatisfied with the grammar of my statement? should i rather say
any entity that contains dna and rna at the same time is to be called life?

No, I'm unsatisfied that this defines (Earth) life.

Hm. Let me compose my argument...


or how about 'life:things transcribing and translating'

No. Far too vague. Lots of artificial non-living things transcribe and translate.

[kuzao]

hmm i wonder what non living things you are refering too when you say there are some which transcribe and translate?

[DaveC426913]

hmm i wonder what non living things you are refering too when you say there are some which transcribe and translate?
Computer programs for a start.

[junglebeast]

are you unsatisfied with the grammar of my statement? should i rather say any entity that contains dna and rna at the same time is to be called life?

Understanding the function of DNA makes it obvious that DNA itself is not necessary for life. It's role is simply to store information in a way that can be copied to allow evolution to occur. DNA is certainly not the only molecule that could potentially fill this purpose.

I believe there has been at least one organism identified on Earth that does not use DNA, although I can't remember the name of it. Anyway, life on other planets almost certainly will not use the exact form of DNA as here on Earth. Moreover, there is no fundamental reason why life must be molecular at all. Life could theoretically be formed out of sub-atomic particles, or even out of virtual building blocks in a computer.

[DaveC426913]

DNA is certainly not the only molecule that could potentially fill this purpose.
...
Anyway, life on other planets almost certainly will not use the exact form of DNA as here on Earth. Moreover, there is no fundamental reason why life must be molecular at all. Life could theoretically be formed out of sub-atomic particles, or even out of virtual building blocks in a computer.
All of which I would agree with, if he hadn't qaulified it by saying Earth life.

[BoomBoom]

Understanding the function of DNA makes it obvious that DNA itself is not necessary for life. It's role is simply to store information in a way that can be copied to allow evolution to occur.

That is most certainly not the only function of DNA. DNA is essential to cellular function.


Anyway, life on other planets almost certainly will not use the exact form of DNA as here on Earth.

How can you be so certain? The "central dogma" could very well be universal.....across the universe. Until we actually find extraterrestrial life, the words "almost certainly" has no substance to it whatsoever.

[junglebeast]

How can you be so certain? The "central dogma" could very well be universal.....across the universe. Until we actually find extraterrestrial life, the words "almost certainly" has no substance to it whatsoever.

The same way you can be certain than 10 = x + y has multiple solutions. No experiments are necessary once you understand addition...

[kuzao]

@ dave
while we seem to agree on the answer our way of comming ot that conclusion seem to be different.

no offense meant but could it be that it is a while ago since you studied molecular biology?

as for transcription and translation, i used these as biological terms. they are defined as coppying dna to rna and then making poly peptides out of rna.
this means that there are actually no artificial 'things', entitys or what ever who translate and transcribe.

@ jungle beast

im not aware of any organism who doesnt contain dna. could you find the name? im curious.

Understanding the function of DNA makes it obvious that DNA itself is not necessary for life. It's role is simply to store information in a way that can be copied to allow evolution to occur. DNA is certainly not the only molecule that could potentially fill this purpose.

first: of course its not the only molecule but its is certainly the only for EARTH based BIOLOGICAL (some call it organic) life. and that was as, dave pointed out, exactly what i said. are we trying to define what we have here based on 'hard' definitions or are we trying to be philosophical? there is nothing wrong with that, but then the defintion would be so much longer and 'softer'.



second: again there is no offense meant when i say: you didnt had any molecular biology classes, or?
boomboom is right when he says that dna's task are many and not limited to only storing information. expression regulation by dna folding, dna binding and many more ways is big topic in mole. bio.

i do not totaly agree with boomboom on his 'central dogma' theory.
yes it MIGHT. but it might also NOT. we cant say and i proclaim we will never find out because that would require to locate and analyse ALL life (and i mean ALL! not only on earth or in this galaxy) hencefore this is a irrelevant point and futile to discuss.


one thing we should have a common understanding of is the term 'definition'. do we want something which desribes the essence, the principle of life or do we want a definition as lawyers tend to make them ^^ loooong, wound in strange shape so that every possible and impossible exeption is included and useless? (this time the offense to lawyers is intended :P )

alex

p.s. sry for the typos. being dyslexic AND tired is fatal ^^

[DaveC426913]

as for transcription and translation, i used these as biological terms.Which is a circular argument.

Basically your argument boils down to "life is that which performs biological functions".

[DaveC426913]

How can you be so certain? The "central dogma" could very well be universal.....across the universe. Until we actually find extraterrestrial life, the words "almost certainly" has no substance to it whatsoever.Because amino acids can form a nearly infinite variety of proteins. For DNA to arise the same twice - let alone common - is astronomically unlikely.

Personally, I think it will be very similar, but not the same.

[kuzao]

@dave

oh far from beeing true. my statement could be read as 'life is what is based on these two functions' (still doesnt sound flashy)

one could see it as a circular argument IF these were the only functions present in organism and thus they could be called the only biological functions.

maybe i should have explained more.
transcription and translation are terms closely realted to presence of rna and dna. thus saying transcription and translation is defining life means presence of dna and rna is defining life.

does this make it more clear to you? do you see now that this is not a 'soft' argument but a very ahrd one? and also not a circular one?

[kuzao]

Because amino acids can form a nearly infinite variety of proteins. For DNA to arise the same twice - let alone common - is astronomically unlikely.

Personally, I think it will be very similar, but not the same.


first i think its futile to find a defintion for something we dont even know about yet. thats just discussing because we like to read our on writings...

however i agree on the point that it is unlikely. to be exactly the same. but how exactly the same does it has to be to be still called dna? what if it incorporates uracil instead of thymine. could i then still be called dna?

i assume dave then would argue that its not the same thus he was right while boomboom would say hey look it basically the same?

lets dont wander into that realm. there is no merit there.

[DaveC426913]

@dave

oh far from beeing true. my statement could be read as 'life is what is based on these two functions' (still doesnt sound flashy)

one could see it as a circular argument IF these were the only functions present in organism and thus they could be called the only biological functions.


maybe i should have explained more.
transcription and translation are terms closely realted to presence of rna and dna. thus saying transcription and translation is defining life means presence of dna and rna is defining life.


does this make it more clear to you? do you see now that this is not a 'soft' argument but a very ahrd one? and also not a circular one?
No and no.

Translation and transcription do not define life. There are non-living things that translate and transcribe that have nothing to do with DNA or RNA. It is too general.

Your argument is the equivalent of:

All cars have motors. Therefore, the definition of a car is that which has a motor.

[kuzao]

as i said before transcription and translation are terms of molecular biology and in this context i used them.

do you understand what translation and transcription means?

there are no things which can translate and transcribe and are artificial (at least to my knowledge and if you dont purposly trying to ridicule my argument by saying that a vial where you put in some dna, rna, polymerase and other things should then be called life)

your car argument is a faulty one. if you understand the meaning of transcription and translation you will understand that all things which inherit these two abilities are life. while not all things inhereting a motor are cars.

if you define life via rna and dna or translation and transcription you will as a result get all the things who can 'do' the 'things' most people asscociate with life. like proliferation, metabolism and so on. which is in my opinion a reason to chose this defintion because it avoids to define something by some 'effect' but instead defines by source / reason.

alex

[DaveC426913]

as i said before transcription and translation are terms of molecular biology and in this context i used them.

OK, so let's make that context explicit.

"Life is that which performs biological transcription and translation."

That is circular.

[kuzao]

we are talking about viruses and life here of course taht implies that we talk biology here.

do you realise that transcription and translation are synonymes for the presence of rna and dna?

how can chosing the two elemental functions of an organism as lifes definition be a circle argument?


if your point would be valid that woul mean that you need life to define transcription and translation. but you dont.

translation and transcription are chemical processes. you do not have to use 'life' to define them. so how can this definition then be a circular argument?

by the way i feel sorry for the other discussion participants because we take up to much space. should we continue this conversation in skype or via email?

alex

[BoomBoom]

i do not totaly agree with boomboom on his 'central dogma' theory.
yes it MIGHT. but it might also NOT. we cant say and i proclaim we will never find out because that would require to locate and analyse ALL life (and i mean ALL! not only on earth or in this galaxy) hencefore this is a irrelevant point and futile to discuss.

Well, I wasn't claiming that is was for sure, I was making the point that it could be...in order to counter the assertion by JB that it is "almost certain" that DNA from another planet would be different.

The true answer is we don't know, nor can we know until we find some...then we could start to make some educated assumptions perhaps.

[kuzao]

totally agreed :)

[DaveC426913]

we are talking about viruses and life here of course taht implies that we talk biology here.
We are trying to define life. That means we cannot refer to life processes as definors.


do you realise that transcription and translation are synonymes for the presence of rna and dna?
Only in a biological context. And an Earth biological context at that.

All I am requiring is that you create your life definition without referring to life processes in doing so.



if your point would be valid that woul mean that you need life to define transcription and translation. but you dont.
Transcription is the process of copying something from one medium to another.

Translation is more broad, and involves moving something from one place to another, and several other definitions.

If you wish to further define or qualify those, do so. If you qualify those words in the context of the very thing we are trying to define, you will end up with a circular argument.

translation and transcription are chemical processes. you do not have to use 'life' to define them.
Now you're getting closer to a valid definition. You've removed the reference to biology (life - the circular reference), and are defining it on terms of chemistry. That is not how you were contextualizing it previously.

That is what I was asking for.

"Life is that which performs chemical transciption."



by the way i feel sorry for the other discussion participants because we take up to much space. should we continue this conversation in skype or via email?They are quite capable of jumping in when and if they wish. It's not like walkie-talkies, where they have to wait for us to finish.

[kuzao]

ok maybe i assumed too much.

let me make it absolutly clear: whenever i talk about translation and transcription i mean the biological transcription and translation which is a) copying dna to rna and b) rna to poly peptide.

i thought evrybody realizes that these are chemical processes which can even be done invitro. thus i was bewilderd by your staement that this is a circular argument.



and i stated before that i only talk about earth and biological life.


to explain what an airplane is can you use wings? i belive you can because you can explain what wings are and then say that an airplane is a thing with attached wings. if however you only say in the first place wings are the things attached to an airplane and then in the second step that an airplane is a thing with attaaeched wings that would be plain stupid.

but you can explain the whole matter by saying tha wing are surfaces generating lift utilizing bernoullis principle. i belive that is the way i try to explain life. i do not use life to define transcription and translation. hence i say that the presence of dna and rna or transription and translation are a nice compact definition of life. (assuming you know what is translation and transcription)

in molecular biology or gentics or biochem or biotech you do never call transcription or translation chemical because these processes take place in the cell and are thus biochemical or by comon agreement 'biological'

so i would say

life is what performs transcription and translation


alex

[DaveC426913]

ok maybe i assumed too much.

let me make it absolutly clear: whenever i talk about translation and transcription i mean the biological transcription and translation which is a) copying dna to rna and b) rna to poly peptide.You could have made it absolutely clear by putting it in your definition anytime after post 52! :grumpy::grumpy::grumpy:


It's not that I didn't understand your point, it's that it doesn't make it a definition. Definitions narrow generalities.

[kuzao]

as for transcription and translation, i used these as biological terms. they are defined as coppying dna to rna and then making poly peptides out of rna.
this means that there are actually no artificial 'things', entitys or what ever who translate and transcribe.


i belived i made it clear in post 62. i guess i was wrong. sry for that. :)

i see the short commings of this definition my self. there can or better there could be exceptions but i still think this is a good starting point and defines life in its essence (but may be not in total... still curious about the organism which is supposed to contain no dna...)

[CRGreathouse]

let me make it absolutly clear: whenever i talk about translation and transcription i mean the biological transcription and translation which is a) copying dna to rna and b) rna to poly peptide.

life is what performs transcription and translation

So life is that which
Copies DNA to RNA
Copies RNA to polypeptides

So a virus, which performs neither, is not alive by your definition. A genetics lab which performs ligation and transcription would be alive.

[sokrates]

So life is that which
Copies DNA to RNA
Copies RNA to polypeptides

So a virus, which performs neither, is not alive by your definition. A genetics lab which performs ligation and transcription would be alive.

Great post.

Very well put after all that hullabaloo.

[kuzao]

as i said before you could take this definition and ridicule it by using it for something like a vial where you put the nececary agents in.

this however would be same as finding a definition for an airplane and then trying to ridicule that definition by carying around all the neccecary parts of an airplane and saying here see its not flying....


yes a virus would be not alive (this by the way a view shared by most of the scientific comunity to my knowledge).

what is a genetic lab using to do these tasks?

one of the most delightfull things my chemical analysis prof. said once was: no scientist however mighty or smart he/she might be can perform an analysis with a hplc or a transformation with a lab. he might however use pipets vials gloves solvents coulmns hplcs restrictionenzymes agents etc....

so who in you example is performing the tasks you mentioned? i am pretty sure there is not a single lab in the world which can perform excersion interagtion ligation translation transformation or any other gentic task. there might be however many labs which use certain ezymes and agents do this.

lets ask ourself how these things are done?
i think the answer is by using small little helpers extracted from living organisms or viruses to modify, analyse and alter organsims or generally perform microbiological tasks.

is this making the devinition i suggested before invalid? i do not thing so.
similar you could say the definition is invald because i live but do not know how to transcribe.

alex

[DaveC426913]

A genetics lab which performs ligation and transcription would be alive.This argument could apply to anything you want.
"Life makes copies of itself."
"A lab can do that so it must be alive."
I think it's safe to say that "a bunch of humans performing roles that model the mechanisms of life" is disqualified as being an example of life itself.

[Phrak]

DaveC, what's your definition of life? This is very long thread, so if you stated it already, it's worth repeating.

Mine had been: A self replicating, adaptable system.

This leaves out crystals, and includes viruses. I'd want to have prions in the ambiguous middle, but it excludes them entirely.

Edit: :tongue2: The time was getting late. That should have been
A self-similar replicating, adaptive system.

[CRGreathouse]

This argument could apply to anything you want.
"Life makes copies of itself."
"A lab can do that so it must be alive."
I think it's safe to say that "a bunch of humans performing roles that model the mechanisms of life" is disqualified as being an example of life itself.

I would expect that most definitions of life would not apply to a genetics lab. For example, genetics labs don't self-replicate; I consider self-replication a requirement for life.

[kuzao]

but self replication is quite dangerous that would leave all strile organisms out of the definition so many crops would count as life anymore so many sterile organisms etc tehy can only grow on their own thei cant replicate.

you could get around that at least a bit by saying you apply the definition only to cell sized entitys but still i would say excluding annything what cant grow anymore is a bit difficult

[sokrates]

This argument could apply to anything you want.
"Life makes copies of itself."
"A lab can do that so it must be alive."
I think it's safe to say that "a bunch of humans performing roles that model the mechanisms of life" is disqualified as being an example of life itself.

After all those useless points (circular arguments, discussions on semantics, stating big remarks on how definitions narrow generalities), is this your definition of life: anything but "a bunch of humans performing roles that model the mechanisms of life".

I thought you were defending the view that it all depended on the definition... Based on what you complain in this thread without stating your own take on the issue, this example is a perfect satirical example of "life"...

[sokrates]

DaveC, what's your definition of life? This is very long thread, so if you stated it already, it's worth repeating.

Mine had been: A self replicating, adaptable system.

This leaves out crystals, and includes viruses. I'd want to have prions in the ambiguous middle, but it excludes them entirely.

Well put. I agree with this. I am just curious though, what are the adaptation mechanisms of a virus?

[Phrak]

Well put. I agree with this. I am just curious though, what are the adaptation mechanisms of a virus?

Can't say as I know much about viruses, or biology for that matter. Mutation and genetic mixing between subspecies comes to mind.

[CRGreathouse]

but self replication is quite dangerous that would leave all strile organisms out of the definition so many crops would count as life anymore so many sterile organisms etc tehy can only grow on their own thei cant replicate.

you could get around that at least a bit by saying you apply the definition only to cell sized entitys but still i would say excluding annything what cant grow anymore is a bit difficult

Fair enough. Do you have an alternate definition?

[DaveC426913]

After all those useless points (circular arguments, discussions on semantics, stating big remarks on how definitions narrow generalities), is this your definition of life: anything but "a bunch of humans performing roles that model the mechanisms of life".

I thought you were defending the view that it all depended on the definition... Based on what you complain in this thread without stating your own take on the issue, this example is a perfect satirical example of "life"...

You have not been following the discussion. You are interpreting my post in a vacuum.

Read post 77 (http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2283100&postcount=77) (in particular, the last line) where CRG makes a satirical example of life based on kuzao's definition.

Then skip to post 80 (http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2283234&postcount=80), where I demonstrate that CGR's satirical example is itself invalid, since it is so broad that anything could be defined that way.

[kuzao]

Fair enough. Do you have an alternate definition?

hmm

is still think that transcription and translation or the presence of rna and dna at the same time ist the most fitting definition. however i also think that this is a very strict biological /scientific definition.

the 'self replicating' defintion sounds a bit philosphical to me. if you applie it there is room for interpretation. if you are looking for this kind of defintion, i would include the ability to metabolzie.

there is something else. i think its a bit difficult to define life for single entitys. that would leave me with the need t use the word species. but i think the word species is not usefull because itself is a bit wobbly.

so how about: a group of similar organisms / entitys with the ability to metabloize and mechanism to ensure (or is promote a better choice?) the groups continued existence.

this would eliminate the problems of sterile organisms. because as long the group or species has some means of survival (be it growing, replication or something else) they would still fit in the definition. and the metabolizing part is limiting this to organic life and excluding viruses.

any thougs about this definition?

EDIT: argh some typos are ok but that was too much

[CRGreathouse]

You have not been following the discussion. You are interpreting my post in a vacuum.

Read post 77 (http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2283100&postcount=77) (in particular, the last line) where CRG makes a satirical example of life based on kuzao's definition.

Then skip to post 80 (http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2283234&postcount=80), where I demonstrate that CGR's satirical example is itself invalid, since it is so broad that anything could be defined that way.

I don't think your criticism in post #80 sticks; I don't think that most definitions would be tripped up by my (admittedly satirical) counterexample. But see post #83 where I was put back in my place by kuzao. :)

[CRGreathouse]

any thougs about this definition?

a group of similar organisms / entitys with the ability to metabloize and mechanism to ensure (or is promte a better choice?) the groups continued existence

I think it's an improvement over the more specific earlier one.

I do have some problems with it, though. What is "metabolize"? I think it's hard to define that without reference to life. (Feel free to disagree, with a definition!) Also, the more I think about it, the more difficulties I have with "similar". Not only is this abstract, but it also causes problems with symbiosis. What about humans and our symbiotic bacterial cultures? Worst, what about our mitochondria? How do we draw the line so those are includes but other symbiotes are not?

[Phrak]

but self replication is quite dangerous that would leave all strile organisms out of the definition so many crops would count as life anymore so many sterile organisms etc tehy can only grow on their own thei cant replicate.

you could get around that at least a bit by saying you apply the definition only to cell sized entitys but still i would say excluding annything what cant grow anymore is a bit difficult

Self-similar replicating system.

We're talking at odds. I'm attempting to define 'life'. You are defining 'living organisms, or living things."

What system would include crops that cannot reproduce or the product of a horse and a donkey? Individual organisms without reference to a group would not qualify, but as elements of a group, or asystem, do qualify. For instance, sexual reproduction takes two. In isolation, an individual person doesn't normally reproduce.

[kuzao]

I think it's an improvement over the more specific earlier one.

I do have some problems with it, though. What is "metabolize"? I think it's hard to define that without reference to life. (Feel free to disagree, with a definition!) Also, the more I think about it, the more difficulties I have with "similar". Not only is this abstract, but it also causes problems with symbiosis. What about humans and our symbiotic bacterial cultures? Worst, what about our mitochondria? How do we draw the line so those are includes but other symbiotes are not?

hmm how about replacing metabolizing with take up and process materia.

a bit difficult to answer. let me ask something in return. is a nucleus alive? he is sorounded by a wall can replicate even has sometimes dna and rna present. while the cytoplasma most offen doesnt even posses dna. so can we judge that the cell core is alive while evrything else orgaells, cytoplasma etc is dead materia?

i dont think so.

can we find a small area in a cell where we draw a circle around a partion of the space and say here inside is dna and rna. this place is alive?

i odnt think so

can we go don look at one molecule and decide if this one is living or dead materia?

no.

i think the use of the word entity is to be favored because this implies that its a unit which can consist of many parts. i guess nobody will tell you taht you are not alive but your cells are. so i would sugegst to use the defintion not for organells but only for organisms.

im not sure if we should use 'self sufficient' that would eliminate the discussion about nuclei or mitochondria but lead us to discuss only whole organisms. but then we get the problem that we have to define the environment which is enableling the self sufficiency.

[kuzao]

Self-similar replicating system. What system would include crops that cannot reproduce or the product of a horse and a donkey? Individual organisms without reference to a group would not qualify--but as elements of a group structure, do. For instance, sexual reproduction takes two. In isolation, an individual person doesn't normally reproduce.

im sorry but i dont understand your argument. could you elaborate?

[DaveC426913]

im sorry but i dont understand your argument. could you elaborate?Many things such as mules and certain crops are unable to reproduce, yet are very much alive.

[Phrak]

Many things such as mules and certain crops are unable to reproduce, yet are very much alive.

Are you going to just criticize definitions or offer your own?

[kuzao]

Many things such as mules and certain crops are unable to reproduce, yet are very much alive.

dave do you think he/she meant that? then it would back my argument that reproductions isnt a usefull thing to inculde in a dfinition of life, or?

[Phrak]

im sorry but i dont understand your argument. could you elaborate?

I'm not sure I can, unless you can tell me what you want elaborated. After being unsuccessful at defining what is living vs. not-living in terms of individual organisms, I attempt to define life as more than one organism. This is what I've called a system. Living things are then part of a living system whether they can self-similarly replicate, or not.

It would be a good to define what I've been calling a 'system' in solid terms, otherwise, it's philosohpy, as you've called it. A very good point. I don't have an answer. I was hoping someone with more insight than I could identify it.

[kuzao]

I'm not sure I can, unless you can tell me what you want elaborated. After being unsuccessful at defining what is living vs. not-living in terms of individual organisms, I attempt to define life as more than one organism. This is what I've called a system. Living things are then part of a living system whether they can self-similarly replicate, or not.

It would be a good to define what I've been calling a 'system' in solid terms, otherwise, it's philosohpy, as you've called it. A very good point. I don't have an answer. I was hoping someone with more insight than I could identify it.

ah ok i understand :)

that would be a similar aproach as in post 89, or?

there i also had problems with using species as description, i think neither species nor system is good enough. group of similar entities might be a bit better but still not good.
anyone got a good idea?

i still have some issues with replication as criteria because i think that this term complicates
the definition of the 'system' group or what ever we call it.

i will think about and write later more. now im off to a bike tour with my wife :)

[DaveC426913]

dave do you think he/she meant that?
Yes.

then it would back my argument that reproductions isnt a usefull thing to inculde in a dfinition of life, or?
I wouldn't say not 'useful', I would say not unilateral.

[Phrak]

ah ok i understand :)

that would be a similar aproach as in post 89, or?

There are two approches. You can generate a list of things like reproduction, and the ability to metabolized things, and make copies of DNA. or take this sort of list and try to identify some global attributes. The later is more abstract, with the idea that life could be more than RNA/DNA based, or include reproducing machines or software objects. You're approch is sorta in the middle.

But, let's admit it. This is all make-believe. There is no right answer; any answer is human invention. In the arena of global attributes, some want to include viruses, some don't, and both taylor their attributes accordingly.

And to throw gasoline on the fire, no one has yet brought up entropy.