Viruses aren't classified as living but they act as a living organism in many ways. They have genetic material and they can reproduce and utilize energy even if it is not on their own. We can't call them "living" but is it really correct to call them non-living?

Opinions?

Sorry, no medals because this is an opinion answer and I can only give one. :(

Question

Viruses aren't classified as living but they act as a living organism in many ways. They have genetic material and they can reproduce and utilize energy even if it is not on their own. We can't call them "living" but is it really correct to call them non-living?

Opinions?

Sorry, no medals because this is an opinion answer and I can only give one. :(

smoore777 · Answer

I think it is correct to call them non-living because even though they show some characteristics of living, they lack the basic definitions that an organism has to have to be considered living.

cecil_the_weasel · Answer

I tend to agree with that statement @smoore777 . Viruses don't react to stimuli, they don't grow, etc. Viruses are strange. Like little aliens. :D

smoore777 · Answer

@Cecil_the_Weasel Exactly! XD

fatir5 · Answer

You can't call them just living or non-living because they exhibit characters of both i.e  they can reproduce in a cell and yet they can be crystallised. Strange, isn't it?
You better call them acellular particles instead.

cecil_the_weasel · Answer

Honestly, @fatir5, I haven't ever heard that term until today! I went straight to Google to look more into it. I think that is a great term to describe viruses. Neato!

fatir5 · Answer

You are welcome :D