Because they rely on hosts for a majority of functions, viruses aren’t considered alive. But entities like this one complicate matters.
Because they rely on hosts for a majority of functions, viruses aren’t considered alive. But entities like this one complicate matters.
It seems obvious to me that if our taxonomy fails to describe the natural world, then our definition of life is inadequate. Viruses being “not alive” because semantics has bugged me since the 7th grade.
Would by that logic prions also fall somewhere within that definition?
(Just a hypothetical debate for the fun of it, I understand what you are saying.)
It’s just a molecule, but can spread a “disease” (eg “mad cow”).