I think they are alive because how can something not living cause so much damage to something living, example, us. That also have this system in themselves where they create alternatives to the things they lack.
1. When they host a cell it becomes their own in a way.
2. They can reproduce with the help of the cell.
3. They don't react because they have an outside layer that protects them from harsh environments.
There are a few more but these are just three. Also viruses are organisms that makes them living.
Because they have the ability to reproduce which is only necessary if they are alive, a non living thing has no need to reproduce. Being able to steal energy from other living things is an adaptation, not a sign that it isn't alive. The definition of adaptation is any trait of an organism that increases it's chances of surviving and reproducing. That is what viruses do, increase their chances of surviving and reproducing.
They do not have all of the 10 traits of life, therefore making them non living. They have living space, reproduce, respond to surroundings but that's about it. Having a "Virus trial" in class right now. On the side that says that they are not alive, so that it what I am supporting right now.
Viruses ARE, in fact, alive. Many people think that they are not because they don't have cells, but maybe it's time to redefine the characteristics of life. Viruses reproduce, produce energy, and all of that stuff, even though they are made up of just molecules. I mean, do we really need this other characteristic to specify life? I mean, what difference does it make? A rock is still nonliving, and cells and animals are! If cells don't even have cells, then how are THEY alive? To me, we only need 6 characteristics to define life, and the seventh one just confuses people and makes them believe that certain things that things are not alive when they actually are.
Even though viruses don't have all the qualities of being officially alive, they have enough to be counted as alive in my mind. They move, grow, react to substances, and, even if they have to shoot DNA into a cell to reproduce, that's still reproducing. Viruses are made of molecules, though, but they are still able to perform as a living thing.
According to the Webster dictionary the definition of a living organism is “an organism state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.”
Viruses are a nucleonic acid that contains DNA concealed in a protein shell. In my opinion I think that viruses are alive. Viruses contain some characteristics of life in them such as reproduction, DNA or RNA. Some may disagree that viruses are not alive. Viruses don’t have cellular machinery it must use the host’s in order to make copies of itself. Viruses only exist to make more of themselves. There are two types of reproduction, lytic and lysogenic cycles.
Lytic cycle is when a bacteriophage (or better known as a phage) attaches itself to the host cell and injects its DNA and proteins into the cell, which then copies itself into other cells. Another cycle, lysogenic cycle, a virus injects its DNA into the host. As the host cell reproduces the DNA spreads, very rarely the DNA will separate and start a lytic cycle. Viruses exist in two states, virions (when a virus is dormant) and a virus itself after it comes in contact with a host. Viruses react and adapt to their environment during self-replication.
Though viruses are not made of cells, they are generally considered non-living. However, they have genetic information. No other non-living things have genetic information. What would a non-living thing have genetic information for? They can reproduce too, which is a characteristic of life. Maybe the science community should redefine "cell" and "life".
Nature and biology through research proves that there are thousands or millions of actual live viruses out there. There are also ones that are considered dormant or dead but can be brought back to life. There are some question if they are truly alive, but their constant evolution points towards the answer being yes.
Nature and Biology prove that there are live viruses out there, they have the ability to adapt and feed of the energy around them. The fact that viruses can remain dominant and come back to life is another answer, because they have the ability to respond to the different changes their hosts go through.
Organisms always find a way to get what they need from their environment. They rely on material, both biotic and abiotic, to be available and adapt to that which is least restrictive, finding their niche in the world. Organisms that fail at that cease to exist. Viruses are no different. Their niche is minimalist. No need for glucose, so no need to consume or do photosynthesis. Also there is no need for water to diffuse those molecules. All that simplicity is the secret for the longevity of viruses. I feel the presence of a successful combination of DNA which is able to continually be passed along to future generations and the ability to adapt to changes in the environment are the only traits necessary to qualify as living. Remember, all the lists of traits that living things share were put together AFTER the category was created. If viruses were known back then, the list would be very different.
They need Cells to be living things. They may have some traits of life i.e. reproducing, respond to their surroundings and stealing energy from other living things, but to be composed of life it needs cells. Most of these arguments can be solved if people can simply learn their facts.
They are not alive because accruing to the characteristics of live, a living thing has to be composed of cells, and a virus is made up of molecules, also viruses can only reproduce if they go attack a cell of any kind and reproduce this that cell. They are dead
Though viruses are able to use a host, they are not able to do one of the eight functions of life, which is taking things from their environment and using them to create energy. Viruses can't live on their own. Theoretically, I guess if they stole enough DNA, they could become living by using the host's traits as their own, but until that happens, viruses are not alive.
Viruses are not alive because they do not move and they lack the structures and mechanisms to support themselves. They can not survive on their own because they use the hosts' energy and nutrients. The definition of a life should at least include the ability to move and being able to convert nutrients into energy.
Viruses have no cells, and cannot live without a host. If there is no host, then the virus can not multiply or survive. Viruses genetic material has to bind with that of a living cell to reproduce. Some people are confused, thinking that because viruses have genetic material they are alive. But they are wrong. The genetic material is like a manual for directions. It is there, but without someone to carry out the instructions, the manual doesn't do anything. The genetic material is there, but without a hosting cell to control, it doesn't do anything.
Viruses aren't alive. They need to have a host cell to reproduce, and according to biology, it is one of the eight characteristics needed to be classified to be a living organism. If something does not have all eight of these characteristics, they can not be considered to be alive.
Viruses do not satisfy many of the requirements of being alive. They are not made of cells, do not metabolize energy, cannot reproduce (without another cell), do not produce waste, do not grow, and do not respond to the environment. They are just a sack of RNA and DNA protected by a layer of protein.
Viruses do not have their own cell membrane and are not self-replicating. Cell Theory states living things are made of cell(s). Viruses are not made of cells. Therefore, they're not alive.
Having genetic material is not enough to qualify them as living. They have to be able to act on their own to reproduce it.
Viruses are not living, though they are considered microorganisms. According to the basic characteristics of life, viruses do not meet the criteria, so unless our characteristics of life are revised, viruses cannot be considered as "living." For those who argue "They must be alive if they can cause so much harm" I respectfully point out that numerous non-living substances are capable of producing harm. For example, excess radiation, arsenic, toxic antibiotics... The list could go on-and-on.
To me, a virus is nothing more than a complex molecule. Salt (NaCl) is also a molecule, albeit not very complex. A virus reproduces by way of chemical reactions occurring under "just the right conditions", but in order to reproduce it always requires material from the surrounding environment. In effect, salt can also be replicated when the conditions of the surrounding environment are just right. In fact, you could say the same thing about molecules in general - each can reproduce under just the right conditions. A virus does not appear to strive for survival, nor does it actively seek out the environment in which it might become active. It is only by chance that it finds itself inside a chemically ideal host environment. Outside of that host environment, it's just a complex molecule floating about among billions of other molecules - no more alive than sand (SiO2) or salt (NaCl). If you disagree, ask yourself these questions; is the virus alive -before- it enters the host? If yes, then shouldn't every other complex molecule floating around the universe also be alive. What about -after- it enters the host? So then it has to be actively reproducing in order to be alive, right? Maybe, but isn't that reproduction just a reaction between two or more molecularly compatible elements? And, if so, doesn't that lead us back to the same conclusion: that every other complex molecule floating around in the universe is alive? Personally, I think viruses cannot be alive because they contribute nothing more to the equation of life than does chemical bonding. If you say a virus is alive, you pretty much have to concede that everything is alive.