0
Viruses are not an organism at all. They are not alive. They are nonliving. They are like cockle burrs that "grab" hold of your clothing or a dog's coat. They are hijackers. Once they get attached to the cell of a living cell, they can take it over and "make" the living cell produce virus particles instead of cell parts. These particles can assemble into more viruses and then they break out of the cell (killing it) and begin the process again. They cannot make more viruses on their own.
What else can I help you with?
Where are viruses on the tree of life?
Many, if not most biologists do not consider viruses living. So, they are not on any phylogenetic tree that I know of. They may have a phylogeny that I am unaware of, though.
Which is different between bacteria and viruses that shows that bacteria are living organisms and viruses are not?
Viruses require a living organism to do anything - most especially to reproduce.
Why don't most scientist consider viruses to be alive?
Most scientists consider viruses as the link between living an non living organisms. Viruses are considered non-living by some scientists because - 1) They donot perform any metabolic activities. 2) Outside the host cell , viruses are present only in crystalised form. (Even after it is un-crystalised , it does not lose it's capacity for infection) 3) It does not require any sort of "food".
What new evidence is most convincing to you that viruses should be considered living things?
Recent evidence highlighting the complexity of viral replication and their ability to evolve and adapt supports the notion that viruses exhibit characteristics of living organisms. For instance, some viruses possess sophisticated mechanisms for gene regulation and can engage in symbiotic relationships with their hosts, akin to living cells. Additionally, the discovery of giant viruses with complex genomes and features resembling cellular life further blurs the line between living and non-living entities, suggesting that viruses may indeed occupy a unique position in the tree of life.
If you know that the word geologist is someone who studies the history of the earthwhat is the most likely definition of biologist?
A biologist is someone who studies living organisms, their behaviors, and their interactions with their environment.
Where are viruses on the tree of life?
Many, if not most biologists do not consider viruses living. So, they are not on any phylogenetic tree that I know of. They may have a phylogeny that I am unaware of, though.
Complete living unit?
The smallest complete living unit known to science is a single cell. The smallest single celled organisms known, mycoplasma, are not much bigger than the very largest viruses. Viruses are not technically considered to be living organisms by most scientists.
Which is different between bacteria and viruses that shows that bacteria are living organisms and viruses are not?
Viruses require a living organism to do anything - most especially to reproduce.
Which difference between bacteria and viruses shows that bacteria are living organisms and viruses are not?
Viruses require a living organism to do anything - most especially to reproduce.
Which kind of scientist would most likely study living organisms?
A biologist would most likely study living organisms. Biologists focus on the study of life, including the structure, function, growth, evolution, distribution, and taxonomy of living organisms.
Do biologists consider viruses living or nonliving?
Biologists consider dormant virions to be non-living because they must obtain a host to function and replicate themselves. However, active viruses are considered to be living, by most scientists.
Why don't most scientist consider viruses to be alive?
Most scientists consider viruses as the link between living an non living organisms. Viruses are considered non-living by some scientists because - 1) They donot perform any metabolic activities. 2) Outside the host cell , viruses are present only in crystalised form. (Even after it is un-crystalised , it does not lose it's capacity for infection) 3) It does not require any sort of "food".
What new evidence is most convincing to you that viruses should be considered living things?
Recent evidence highlighting the complexity of viral replication and their ability to evolve and adapt supports the notion that viruses exhibit characteristics of living organisms. For instance, some viruses possess sophisticated mechanisms for gene regulation and can engage in symbiotic relationships with their hosts, akin to living cells. Additionally, the discovery of giant viruses with complex genomes and features resembling cellular life further blurs the line between living and non-living entities, suggesting that viruses may indeed occupy a unique position in the tree of life.
What is the most ideal living environment for viruses?
warm, and wet areas.
A person who studies living things?
A biologist studies things that are alive.
What are simialrties of bacteria and virus?
Actually, bacteria and viruses have almost no similarities at all. First of all, viruses are not even considered living by most scientists because they are very simple in structure and cannot reproduce by themselves. Also, the only thing they really have in common with any living thing is that they both have DNA.
Where would viruses most likely grow?
Viruses can only live in living organisms (viruses themselves are not actually living). They might infect cells in our body, such as throat cells (infection of throat cells causes sore throat).
