From: Gene McAloon 

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:00:32 GMT, John Beckett
 wrote:

>Sorry, I missed your claim to a higher authority earlier.
>
>Did you actually post a quote in which EB said that viruses are alive?

" The earliest indications of the biological nature of viruses came from studies
in 1892 by the Russian scientist Dmitry I. Ivanovsky and in 1898 by the
Dutch scientist Martinus W. Beijerinck. Beijerinck first surmised that the
virus under
study was a new kind of infectious agent, which he designated contagium
vivum fluidum, meaning that it was a live, reproducing organism that,
nevertheless, differed from other organisms."

That is just the introductory sentence of a very long article all of which
confirms that viruses are indeed living organism. Different, but alive.
They reproduce using their own genetic material, mutate and whatnot. Most
of the things you would expect of any living creature. There has never been
any doubt about their live nature.

Granted, there have been maverick types who have claimed they really aren't live
because they don't conform to some conventional definitions of life or that they
can't live without a host. Others have said it depends on your definition
of life and it is really all a matter of opinion.

I suppose you can choose to go down those roads if that makes you more
comfortable and you don't care about being charged with being a renegade by
virologists. 

Gene

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4