90.5k views
2 votes
20 points please hurry

Do you think a virus should be considered a living thing? Why or why not?

User Bekce
by
7.3k points

2 Answers

4 votes

Answer: I'd argue it's a gray area. Viruses can't reproduce without a host, so are they truly living? So in my opinion, no they aren’t a living thing.

User Martin Morterol
by
7.7k points
6 votes

The classification of viruses as living or non-living is a topic of debate among scientists. The majority of biologists do not consider viruses as living organisms because they lack some of the key characteristics that define life.

Viruses are acellular, meaning they do not have a cellular structure. They also lack metabolic processes required for independent growth and reproduction. Viruses are only able to replicate by infecting host cells and hijacking their cellular machinery.

On the other hand, viruses can exhibit some characteristics of living organisms. They contain genetic material (DNA or RNA) and can evolve over time. Viruses can also respond to external stimuli and exhibit adaptation and mutation.

Given the ongoing scientific discussion and the lack of consensus, whether or not viruses should be considered living things remains a matter of interpretation and perspective. Some argue that viruses occupy a sort of "gray area" between living and non-living entities, blurring the traditional boundaries of life.

User IndoKnight
by
8.0k points