• Strange as it might sound, the technical answer is no, or at best on the borderline, as they cannot reproduce autonomously.
  • Yes, they are, if you don`t mean computer virus.
  • actually viruses do not fit into the current definition of living oraganism, however the definition it self is being debated by the scientific community. Viruses and Prions are not concidered to be living organisms at this time
  • im not an expert my memory tells me that anything with more than 1 cell could be classed as a organism viruses if i am correct 'attach' them selves to cells and mutute them to become a different 'infected' cell i hope you get more of an expert answer from another ABer
  • From what I remember from science, yes and no. Viruses show characteristics of both living and non living things, so are not characterised into either. That is why it is so hard to find cures for viral diseases.
  • If to live means that it has the gentic material giving it the capability to reproduce then it is living. depends on your definition of living
  • No they are not
  • since virus' do not contain normal organelles and are basically a transmition device they're not considered living but that could change.
  • A living organism must be able to self replicate. That is the single most important defining feature of a living organism. Viruses cannot self-replicate, they need to use the apparatus in a living organism's cell to replicate. To me the answer is very clear: Viruses are not a living organism.
  • no virus' depend on a host for survival. without a host there is no infection or no a sexual reproduction therefore they are not classed as a livin organism
  • Actually Virus is just like an inactive particle until it gets a proper host to live on. Then depending upon its type it can be as mild as a common cold virus to one if the dangerous ones AIDS virus.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy