From: Gene McAloon 

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:51:28 GMT, John Beckett
 wrote:

>My vague recollection from general reading is that Adam is right. Viruses
>are NOT currently regarded as alive! Obviously, however, this issue boils
>down to how life is defined.

While it is true that viruses are not plants, animals or even bacteria,
there can be no doubt that they are living creatures. Nor does the fact
that they require a host to carrying on their life processes make them any
less alive. The
latter simply makes them quintessential parasites.

Viruses contain DNA or RNA that carries their genetic material and they
reproduce based on that genetic material. That is and can only be
considered a life process, a biological process if you will.  They probably
should be thought
of as occupying  a separate kingdom of life that as far as we know is
unique to them. They can be excluded as life forms only if based on their
not conforming to the more usual plant, animal or bacterial life forms.
That is not good enough. No matter how different from the usual, they are
nonetheless very much alive.

This is not even a controversial subject. Those who argue that viruses are
not alive do so only as a result of having locked themselves into the
straightjacket
of conventional  definitions of life based essentially on plant or animal
life forms. Again, that doesn't begin to be good enough. Viruses are alive
and there can be and is no doubt of that.

Gene

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