ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4330 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
|
Message 23 of 28 (530164)
10-12-2009 3:01 PM
|
|
|
Somebody mentioned viruses. Viruses have their own trees of life, and for that reason some biologists exclude them from being "life." But I would count them as life.
Replies to this message: | | Message 24 by Dr Jack, posted 10-12-2009 5:09 PM | | ApostateAbe has replied |
|
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4330 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
|
Message 25 of 28 (530260)
10-12-2009 7:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Jack 10-12-2009 5:09 PM
|
|
I think you are right, MrJack. At least that is the reason they give, and I don't have much reason to doubt it. There was a discussion about this in my high school biology class. But I still suspect the underlying reason is that viruses don't fit into the patterns that all of the rest of life fits into. And the root cause of the mismatch is that viruses don't belong to the standard phylogenetic tree. The definitions of "life" are made by finding characters that encompass every fringe clade of the standard tree of life, which means that the definitions are likely to exclude viruses and perhaps outerspace alien beings that otherwise seem like life.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 24 by Dr Jack, posted 10-12-2009 5:09 PM | | Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied |
|