The criteria for living things is actually a quite extensive list. Living things must exchange gas, drink, eat, grow, and excrete waste.
Living things that have been decayed
No. Virologists, the scientists who study viruses, don't consider them living things because they do not meet all the criteria of the definition of life.
The basic idea is to have a set of criteria that let you distinguish "life" from "non-life".
One example of things that are similar to living things but do not fit all of the seven criteria of life is viruses. Viruses possess some characteristics of living organisms, such as the ability to replicate and evolve, but they lack cellular structure and cannot carry out metabolic processes on their own. Another example is prions, which are misfolded proteins that can cause infectious diseases, but do not have cells or genetic material of their own. These entities challenge our traditional understanding of life due to their unique properties and behaviors.
The six criteria that determine if something is a living thing are: growth, reproduction, response to stimuli, metabolism, organization, and homeostasis. These characteristics help differentiate living organisms from non-living entities.
According to a student taking the AP biology exam, he/she lost 10 points by choosing an answer that said viruses are living things and as a result, states that viruses are not living things :http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080926021144AAwdJ2h According to MCAT training materials (MCAT is the test taken to get into med school) Viruses are no considered cells because, among other reasons, they cannot live independently. The MCAT materials say that there is a debate as to whether viruses are living things because of the nature of their life cycle (again - they cannot live independently). Other posts that I found on this topic by searching ask.com say that viruses are not living things because they fail to meet the 7 criteria of living things. Viruses are 20 - 300nm in size and prokaryotes are 1 - 10um. While viruses are smaller, many feel they manufacture rather than reproduce and therefore are not living things. MCAT training materials do not come out and say whether they are living or non-living but refer to them as parasitic, acellular, and incapable of living independently and note that there is debate as to whether they are living things. Once can say truthfully, as another poster noted, viruses fail traditional, established criteria for 'life'. In this instance, I would say the smallest thing that meets the criteria for life is prokaryotes (bacteria). Debatable is whether or not established criteria for life need to be modified in order to accommodate the unique nature of viruses.
A true vampire is somebody who is already dead and is animated by the ability to steal life-force from living things. Living creatures have a criteria that determines how long they can live. This is done by a replication limit on chromosomes. A vampire does not have this limiting criteria any more and there is no additional one to restrict their age. Therefore their potential age is undetermined.
living things can not respair&Non living things are respair
Living things are alive.
What a thought-provoking question! Scientists have established criteria about whether a "thing" is living or non-living. For example, two common criteria are respiration and reproduction. However, DNA is actually a chemical compound, and chromosomes are nucleic acids and protein. So, neither one is considered living; both are non-living.
living things move while non living things not
4 Things that distinguish living things from non-living things 1. Living things need space to live 2. Living things need water 3. Living things need air 4. Living things need to reproduce