 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Herpes / December 2003Viruses ARE life forms
http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~faculty/wagner/hsvimg04z.jpg Look at the above link at HSV1 genetic code. It seems so complex. Viruses can multiply themselves. There is no way viruses are non-living forms. They are ALIVE. Think about a human being or a tiger or whatever. For 9 months the unformed child depends on the mother in the case of humans and so on. Without that "outside" help at the beginning, how can a human, mammal live? The same for viruses. A virus has a different life span then a mammal. A virus can live up to, I guess, (from what I am aware of) a few ours or days in a non-human environment (on towels, etc). The fact that the virus depends on the mammal cells to reproduce, so what? It take 2 to tango, right? There are species out there that can reproduce by themselves. At least a virus will "mate" with the cell. Yes, viruses are life forms. Perl Molson >http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~faculty/wagner/hsvimg04z.jpg >Look at the above link at HSV1 genetic code. That's a pretty picture, Perl. Maybe if you print it out, crumple it up, and throw it away your virus will disappear, too. >It seems so complex. Viruses can multiply themselves. Ooops, wrong again. Without the ready availability of the cell machinery in a particular host no virus that I know of will ever "multiply". >There is no way viruses are non-living forms. >They are ALIVE. Way to go, Perl. You just unravelled the last 100 years of science and research. Unfortunately, while you were busy getting it wrong again you didn't make a damn bit of difference to anyone looking to this newsgroup for support. Mike > http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~faculty/wagner/hsvimg04z.jpg > Look at the above link at HSV1 genetic code. > It seems so complex. Viruses can multiply themselves. > There is no way viruses are non-living forms. > > They are ALIVE. Um, no. Once, a Long time ago, I thought you might be the type of person that the medical community was lacking. Some who would go over the evidence ONE MORE TIME, and see something differently than before, But this, Perl... I'm embarassed for you. GO to bionet.virology, or bioneet.biology and talk to the people who ACTUALLY ARE WORKING on the Herpes virus RIGHT NOW!! Check out the DECADES of researc by "really smart people" read the dictionary. Viruses ARE NOT alive. No, Perl. They aren't. Perl.... That's enough, now. they're not living things. > http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~faculty/wagner/hsvimg04z.jpg > Look at the above link at HSV1 genetic code. > It seems so complex. Its 150kb long. THats not a huge strand. Big for a virus sure, compared to even a bacteria its trivial. THere are many many complex macromolecules around. > Viruses can multiply themselves. So can prions. So can clay crystals. > There is no way viruses are non-living forms. There are a very very large number of pretty eminent scientists who would disagree. > They are ALIVE. Not by the most commonly accepted definition. THere are a lot of features needed for that and viruses fall flat on not having their own internal metabolism, and failure to respond to external stimuli is a problem too. Failure to meet the criteria for being alive does not imply biological inactivity nor does it imply that they can;t have some of the features of life. Like much of terminology we draw lines to aid our understanding of things, biology is much more of a continuum and so around those lines you will see many things close to the line but one side or another. Each criteria is in itself an important facet of life, but its only together you get the accepted definition. Because its only together that the criteria seperate us from more random chemistry and physics in a big way. > Think about a human being or a tiger or whatever. > For 9 months the unformed child depends on the mother in the case > of humans and so on. > Without that "outside" help at the beginning, how can a human, mammal live? Well that is the central core of the arguments in and around both ethics of abortion and ethics of crimes against unborn children and civil suit concerning such. Where and when a fetus can sustain itself is a BIG issue. But it also does develop and CHANGE what it can do. A child pre birth moves on to be able to sustain individual life. > The same for viruses. > A virus has a different life span then a mammal. You are not lining the relevant bits up to compare for a start and the issue of development and final end points is the fact you fall over on. > A virus can live up to, I guess, (from what I am aware of) a few > ours or days in a non-human environment (on towels, etc). I have human cells in a bottle upstairs - they do meet the criteria for life because despite being in a non human environment they continue to display said criteria. A virus literally just sits there doing nothing. > The fact that the virus depends on the mammal cells > to reproduce, so what? It take 2 to tango, right? No not really - it relies on the host cell to do anything. On its own it sits still, doing nothing, interacting with nothing and eventually decaying. A plastic bag does as much. TO be even more biological - so does a corpse. Both are membrane bound collections of proteins and lipids. Having you own metabolism and hence being an independant entity not requiring another creature to survive is a criteria of life. Sure viruses are close, hence they are considered organisms by many (this due to an identifiable and heritable structure based on nucleic acid), and biologically active entities as a generally accepted notion, but they do fail. Even closer would be such things as mitochondria, mycoplasms and similar.....then you actually get into serious grey areas around the criteria, but viruses can be definitively shown to fail. Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 Viri show a desire (wrong word, admittedly) to exist and replicate. The fact that they lack the machinery to replicate on their own seems more a technical demarcation than a philosophical one. They are worthless parasites and the world is worse because of them, but the fact they are able to outsmart and out evolve man is impressive. Still, what we have inside of us are organisms intent on replication, regardless of how primitive of an organization they have. -John > Viri show a desire (wrong word, admittedly) to exist and replicate. The fact > that they lack the machinery to replicate on their own seems more a technical > demarcation than a philosophical one. At the level of this sort of question the philosphy and the technical converge. The standard definition was arrived at by trying to look at the philosophy and draw a line in the technical to correspond to it. THe idea was to seperate life from chemistry. Yes its a human definition for human purposes but its not a random line. They miss more than one feature in the definition and do take a step away back to chemistry....though obviously by meeting some of the features in the definintion they make the point I was trying to raise that biology is a continuum. There are more serious challenges to the life definition. > They are worthless parasites and the world is worse because of them, but the > fact they are able to outsmart and out evolve man is impressive. Still, what > we have inside of us are organisms intent on replication, regardless of how > primitive of an organization they have. Indeed, hence they are classified as organisms, blurring the line that was drawn from some perspectives, and reinfocring the decisions made on it from others....with the devlopment fo the prion theory though that grouip of diseases if anything reinforces the choices made about viruses by filling in the step down from virus to crystals..they challenge the organism definition and here many people consider that agent to fall outside of the definition of organism Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 > > Viri show a desire (wrong word, admittedly) to exist and replicate. The fact > > that they lack the machinery to replicate on their own seems more a technical [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Tim Avoiding to get into other details for now, from the lack of time, the reason that I had pointed out the initial question regarding the virus as being a living thing or not, was actually because it seems to matter whether the virus has intelligence or not ( even at some quantum level or whatever else); why? Because if the virus has it is alive which means has intelligence, than the virus might be trying to find different ways to survive after we deal with it. For example, in the theory of kampo treatment, which is --letting the virus to exit the skin in its regular shedding areas-- (without causing symtoms and implicitly without bothering us much), if we can succeed in allowing such patterns for the virus, at one point eventually the virus will fail to continue its existance. On the other hand, if the virus is alive, then it will try variuos other ways to survive- life means survival, right?. Perl Molson P.S. Some explanation regarding of my refering the Kampo methods. Kampo method is a method by wich the viruses will exit trough the skin areas without causing OB's. Additional, if we use antivirals against thus viruses located in their regular assymptomatic shedding areas, the viruses at one point should be killed in totality. But like I've said above, the viruses can be smart enough to try to escape such a trap of Kampo + antivirals; wouldn't that made the viruses intelligent? P.P.S. Of course, it is necessary a clarification of the difference between using Kampo method + antivirals and antivirals only ( I mean here non prescription antivirals). In the first case scenario, the viruses, through the Kampo method will be allowed to easily exit the layers of skin by having the skin sort of virus permeable. In the case of only antivirals use, the skin will not necessarily (and most likely it won't) allow such a flow towards the outside skin layers) and only will act on killing the viruses. Thus, killing the viruses and letting them penetrate the layers of mucosa-skin (those viruses that will escape the antivirals), it seems more effective I repeat. What we do though, if the viruses outsmart these methods and try other patterns, like other locations in our body or staying dormant in ganglia for too long to allow our body to fight the virus on the skin? These questions, answered, would be of a great deal of help. >Avoiding to get into other details for now, from the lack of time, >the reason that I had pointed out the initial question regarding >the virus as being a living thing or not, was actually >because it seems to matter >whether the virus has intelligence or not It's the same thing I wonder about you, Perl. It's one thing to sit around over tea and natter about whether the ability to replicate qualifies in the strictest sense as life, but it's a whole other train off the tracks when you take the step of assigning sentience to a submicroscopic cluster of proteins. > ( even at some quantum level >or whatever else); why? >Because if the virus has it is alive which means has intelligence, >than >the virus might be trying to find different ways to >survive after we deal with it. <snip of stuff a child might believe> You are deeply confused, Perl. Deeply. First, I believe you are confused on the question of viruses being "alive" by the fact that they are made up of some of the same components that living organisms are. Unfortunately, you seem rather unconcerned that they *aren't* made up of a whole bunch of other things that ARE found in ALL living cells. Second, I believe you are confused as to some parity or equality between "life" and "intelligence". It seems clear (at least to me) that THAT confusion stems from trying to warp your shoddy understanding of the facts to fit the stupid conclusions that periodically bubble up out of the miasma of your tiny mind. To deconstruct simply... your conclusion is based on two false premises. You posit that IF viruses are alive (they're not) and IF life equals intelligence (it doesn't) THEN maybe the HSV virus has the ability "to find different ways to survive". Two wrongs don't make a right, Perl. Your theory is little short of lunacy. I suggest that before you attempt to tackle the larger biologic issues, you take a couple courses in English (I don't know how you can expect to THINK if you can't even SPEAK) and then partake of some instruction in Logic. After all "logic" is better part of "biologic". Take care, Mike > >Avoiding to get into other details for now, from the lack of time, > >the reason that I had pointed out the initial question regarding [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Mike On short, my point was that the virus, if not alive, will not present adaptability trends. Thus, the patterns the virus will use, will remain constant in time, relative to the human body. On the other hand, if alive, the virus would use it's "surviving skills" to not perish. I am looking forward to understanding more about the above issue. Perl Molson |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.