Have viruses officially now been declared to be life forms?

"Viruses straddle the definition of life. They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple biological entities. Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others. In general, viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within a protein capsule. Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize 'life', including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction. In order for a virus to replicate it must infect a suitable host cell".

This might help:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a...

One quote from the article:

"...viruses, though not fully alive, may be thought of as being more than inert matter: they verge on life." The prevailing view is that they are "potential" life, that requires the materials in other cells to reach a "living" state. A virus by itself, that hasn't invaded a cell, cannot fulfill all of what we consider "life" to be. A virus that has invaded a cell, *can* fulfill all of what we consider "life" to be. So the question of whether a virus is "alive" or not is contextual, and depends on its location and activity.

The study of viruses shows us how what we do consider "life" could have arisen from "non-life." There is good evidence that the nucleus of all eukaryotic cells (such as the ones that make us up) came from viruses.

Peace.

They're in the ambiguous middle ground between dead and alive. They behave like life when they replicate and invade cells like parasites, but then spend a lot of time being inert and waiting for victims.

They are a vital piece of evidence in our understanding of what life actually is, and that the line between chemical reaction and life is blurred and more complicated than the religious idea of the "vital spark".

But they're still written in RNA, the same language of genetics within cell ribosomes. They still evolve over generations and get wise to cellular defences against them.

One thing is for sure though. Without viruses, we would not likely exist. They've played a major role in evolution.

No, they are not*. However, things with the same amount of complexity or less than viruses are capable of independent "life" and reproduction, and are probably what modern life evolved from. That's why we sometimes call them viruses. We're not scientists - most of us are just as uneducated as you, and most of what we learned about evolutionary biology is hearsay, but if you manage to find a biologist here (they exist, but I'm afraid I'm a physicist), then they'll set the record straight.

If you want to learn biology, I advise you go study it. You can return to college, or attempt to educate yourself. Whatever the case, random people talking about religion are NOT a good source for biological data.

Viruses straddle the line between living and non-living. You know as well as I do that there is still a huge divide within the academic and scientific communities about whether or not they can qualify as being 'alive'.

Personally, I think viruses prove that the line between life and non-living materials is blurrier than many of us would like to believe. I don't believe they're alive in the same way that we're alive, however.

Edit: It's not immature to point out that this question belongs in the biology section, and shouldn't be directed at atheists.

Ambiguity makes some people a little uncomfortable, I guess. A virus displays most of the important properties of life except being autonomous, but then again so do parasite which are decidedly alive.

@bob viruses are not cells in common terms.

When you were in college, did you discuss viruses in biology or in chemistry?

Viruses are organisms, enough like other life that the scientific community is divided on how to classify them. Mostly classification inertia, like what kept Pluto a planet for so long, is why people don't consider viruses "life".

edit: I have to agree with Acid Zebra. There's only twelve answers so far, and nearly all of them are telling you the same thing. You were fishing for conflict, and got mostly sincere answers to your passive aggresive question.

RNA and DNA would suggest that a virus is a lifeform. It recreates itself, but needs another cell to do it. All lifeforms require the support of other forms of life to stay alive.

All I know about viruses is that if a Live one is in your body,

it has the ability to make you miserable and could kill you.

A Virus is not a life form it is a single cell form that atacks oher cells to replicate and spread, it is not a life form, it is however a form of life.

The scientific community is confused and trying to decide what life is.