IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Has anyone read this book?

g1687jkarh at umbsky.cc.umb.edu g1687jkarh at umbsky.cc.umb.edu
Mon Jul 24 11:49:52 EST 1995


In Article <austinDC3s5y.J1q at netcom.com>
austin at netcom.com (Tommy Beach) writes:

>	I thought it was written well from a dramatic standpoint
>	but it failed in that it anthropormorhized viruses in
>	general giving ebolai a quasi-conscious identity.  The 
>	author made comments like, "...a virus does not want to kill
>	its host." As if the virus' had a game plan in that they
>	are seeking to survive and try to plan their attack.

     "Anthromorphism" makes for clearer language which is more compact and 
more easily understood by people in general. I heard someone criticize 
anthropomorphizing white supremecists by saying that there is no "conspiracy"
or "game plan". Anthropomorphism doesn't imply this, it just cleanly describes
structure and function.     
     If one wanted to endlessly argue semantics, couldn't they contend that 
the information content of the viral genome or the virus population's gene 
pool IS the game plan that the viruses use in seeking to survive or plan their
attack? 

>	Viruses are nothing more than packets of information
>	containing DNA or RNA.  They are not alive and cannot be
>	"killed" but only rendered unviable. 

     Any packet of information containing of DNA or RNA, whether it be a 
virus, a single cell, or a multi-cellular organism is said to be "killed"
when it has been rendered unviable (definition of kill). 
     



More information about the Virology mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net