A virus can be considered nonliving because it cannot carry out metabolic processes independently; it requires a host cell to replicate and perform functions necessary for life. Additionally, viruses do not possess cellular structures or organelles, which are essential characteristics of living organisms. They exist in a dormant state outside of a host, lacking the ability to grow or respond to stimuli on their own.
to be considered living most scientist agree it must have the following properties:organizationexhibit evolutionary adaptationrespond to environmental stimuliregulationenergy processesgrowth and developmentreproductionAs a result virus are non-living because they DO NOT REPRODUCE ON THEIR OWN. They have to have a host to reproduce, grow, and develop.Also a good rule of thumb that i tell my students, if its not a virus, but has DNA in it....its a living thing.
1. The virus cannot reproduce on its own, it needs to have a host cell to help it reproduce. 2. The virus is not even a single-celled organism! 3. The virus can't even function on its own! The virus needs to have a host cell to live! 4. The virus does not grow on the inside of the protein coat. 5. The virus only has two main parts: the DNA and the protein coat, which protects the DNA.
an oxymoron, maybe a virus, something that died
This is (generally) referring to a VIRUS particle. Viruses can reproduce (a characteristic of living organisms) but may also be crystallised (a characteristic of non-living organisms). For this reason, a good number of scientists prefer not to talk of a virus as a living thing and even find discord classifying it under the normal taxonomic concepts and rules.
No, viruses do not require living space because they are not considered living organisms. They are simple genetic material contained within a protein coat, and they replicate by hijacking the machinery of host cells.
Viruses are considered to be non-living things, and are capable of causing disease. The reason viruses are not considered living is because they lack many of the characteristics of life until they infect a host cell.
a virus
A virus is considered non-living. It does not have all the characteristics of a living thing unlike bacteria. Viruses need living cells to reproduce while any living things can reproduce (asexually or not).
No. It is nonliving.
it can move
at first i was crying but then it just hit me it was a stupied virus
to be considered living most scientist agree it must have the following properties:organizationexhibit evolutionary adaptationrespond to environmental stimuliregulationenergy processesgrowth and developmentreproductionAs a result virus are non-living because they DO NOT REPRODUCE ON THEIR OWN. They have to have a host to reproduce, grow, and develop.Also a good rule of thumb that i tell my students, if its not a virus, but has DNA in it....its a living thing.
No: Mumps is a virus, and by definition viruses are nonliving, neither dead or alive.
Since viruses are nonliving, they are not given genus and species names. This virus is called the Ebola hemorrhagic virus (EHV).
1. The virus cannot reproduce on its own, it needs to have a host cell to help it reproduce. 2. The virus is not even a single-celled organism! 3. The virus can't even function on its own! The virus needs to have a host cell to live! 4. The virus does not grow on the inside of the protein coat. 5. The virus only has two main parts: the DNA and the protein coat, which protects the DNA.
HIV is a virus, and since viruses require another organism to carry out the functions that would classify it as a living organism, it's considered "dead," that is until it finds a host.
an oxymoron, maybe a virus, something that died