Hi Erik and other repliers,
Almost right for some of them.
The definition of a living entity in general has more in it than
reproduction itself.
Anything "alive" must have several characteristics.
One: reproduce itself
Two: metabolize (change energy forms from sunlight to chemical energy or
from chemical to kinetic -eg move or from chemical to electrical -eg think
(I think?!?!))
Three: "there are more but I can't recal them now.
Ergo: a virus is dead just as plasmids or pollen.
Bye Jan
Trond Erik wrote:
> Hello
>> I know that virus is not a living organism, but is it still normal to
> refer to a functionable virus as "living"?
>> The reason for this question is some quotas I've read in newspapers.
> It's about the danger of finding intact and active virus in a 80 year
> old grave containing corpses who died of a disease caused by this virus.
>> Commenting on this risk, many scientists referred to such viruses as
> "living". It struck me as strange to call a biological robot as being
> alive, just as strange as calling my car living when it's not broken, or
>> my computer living when it's not crashed.
>> Sincerely,
> Trond Erik Vee Aune
