No, they are classified as nonliving and most scientists agree with that designation. There has been an ongoing debate as to whether viruses are alive or not in the past, but it is currently the more accepted answer among virologists.
With the facts given below, see what you think:
All Living things:
-are composed of cells with a complex, organized structure
-actively maintain their complex structure and internal environment (homeostasis)
-respond to stimuli in their environment
-acquire and use materials and energy from their environment and convert them into new forms
-reproduce, using the molecular blueprint of DNA
-have the capacity to evolve
Viruses:
-are not made of cells and do not have cells
-cannot accomplish the basic tasks of living cells
-have no ribosomes to make protein
-have no cytoplasm
-cannot acquire energy or steal the host's energy*
-cannot grow or reproduce by themselves or with other viruses
-do not respond to stimuli
-cannot maintain a stable internal environment
-can evolve
*However, they do make use of the energy of the host in that they take over command of the host's cell into which the virus put the genetic material when it invaded. This makes the cell a "virus building factory" using the host energy and materials to do the work of viral replication. See the question about the lytic cycle in the related questions for more about how viruses reproduce.
A cell is considered alive because it can independently carry out the functions necessary for life, such as metabolism and reproduction. A protein molecule is not considered alive as it lacks the ability to perform these functions on its own. A virus is a debated topic in science as it cannot reproduce on its own but requires a host cell to do so, blurring the line between living and non-living.
Viruses only infect living organisms and since they are not alive, they can not infect other viruses. The question is interesting though.
Well a rock isn't really alive, and a virus is actually moving if you get a scope to look at it. it gets into your body to form a disease. We know you cant really see it but try to wash you hands free of germs and viruses! ;)
A pathogen = a virus. An organism, macro or micro, is alive, but viruses cannot technically be considered 'living.' Thus, non-pathogenic means 'not a virus'.
The common cold virus, or rhinovirus, belongs to the kingdom Viruses. Viruses are not classified under any kingdom in traditional biological classification systems because they are considered acellular and do not fit the criteria for living organisms.
It's a virus. It's alive.
A virus does not fulfill all requirements for life, eg. no reproduction through meiosis or mitosis
Neither. A virus is not really alive in a traditional sense.
No.
A pathogenic bacterium is alive while a virus is not.
No: Mumps is a virus, and by definition viruses are nonliving, neither dead or alive.
It is a virus and not alive but if blood or any body fluids are in the soil, someone who touches the contaminated soil can get the virus.
They are not classified into a kingdom as they are not alive.
Viruses has a charateristics of being alive but they are NOT since they are single-cell organisms.
The HIV virus can only be transferred through blood, so no.
No. It is not alive so it doesn't need to respire.
Viruses are not alive and so do not "eat".