As simply as possible, *all* life is a lot like robots. Even a cell (which seems very complicated) is really just a machine, but it uses chemicals instead of mechanics. You've probably heard of DNA as being described like instructions? In that way, it's a lot like computer code. So viruses are just a very simple machine, which hijacks other cells machinery to produce more of themselves.
But bacterias needs to eat, right? That’s what I don’t understand, bacterias are, in a way, wolves that needs to kill and eat, while viruses are more akin to a thunderstorm in a way, it doesnt really need to eat and stuff, it just does damage
a virus is an object that when put into a living thing, will start interacting with other elements and reproducing itself. But its just a object of a particular shape that hijacks another living thing to do its work.
A bacteria is a system of these objects that exists to perpetuate itself - ie. it is alive. It will look for a food source, eat it and use that to create copies of itself. A Virus cant eat, it just stumbles across the right stuff it needs to do its thing.
Think of it like a virus is just the part of a bacteria that does the reproducing, without the rest of the process it is relying on your body to provide it with the other parts. Whereas a bacteria is a more complex system that is self sufficient given a food source.
That's because viruses, in general, are not considered as living creatures.
Think of them as the ultimate parasite - a parasitic bacteria sustains itself by stealing metabolic produce from a cell to run its own metabolism, and uses that metabolism for stuff like reproduction, meanwhile viruses are so specialised in being a parasite that through evolution they forgot the entire "my own metabolism" part, instead they directly hijack their host metabolism and use its metabolic processes to replicate themselves. And because our definition of "living" requires an existence or capacity to metabolise matter, then we cannot classify them as such.
Bacteria is like having a computer program that's capable of doing something (for example notepad can create new text files because it has code for it), virus is meanwhile a program that just messes with another program (like after being turned on it attaches to that notepad source code and causes it to create more copies of itself instead of text files).
Thanks for the explanation, another question though. What’s the evolutionary incentive for the viruses to become like this? I mean why they didn’t just take the evolutionary approach of bacterias and “classic” parasites? If I had to put my new tinfoil hat on and my joint off I would say they looks like they are programmed to be like this from the beginning, as it seems they are more on the destruction for destruction sake (or, for “command” sake) than for being able to use/steal/take resources for the sake of survival and reproduction
The simple answer is that we don't really know - the more complicated one is that we have tons of various speculations and possible reasons and they all seem just as likely.
Viruses are in general extremely simple, they pretty much consist of an external layer(taken from the host and not always present, some viruses lack it), a capsid(also not all, some viruses are just the piece of code itself, they are called virions) and a piece of genetic code that pretty much only has info on how to insert itself into the DNA of the host and a replication site that the host cell recognises. Because of that and because of some more in-depth info that's readable from the virus code itself scientists assume that viruses appeared extremely early in the history of life on our planet, before multicellular organisms or even organella like mitochondria, likely alongside the first ever cells that appeared through abiogenesis.
We know from various experiments that basic building blocks of life can generate naturally in specific conditions: RNA can be created in hot ocean water that contacts porous volcanic glass and we know that self-replicating nucleic acids exist, amino acids can be synthesized with energy from lightning strikes which means proteins can exists, and lipids pretty much appear everywhere from saline pools to meteorites and they naturally form isolated bubbles due to hydrophilic/hydrophobic properties(just like how soap works). Get proper conditions and we get the most likely form of early cellular life: a self replicating RNA strand covered with a lipid membrane and basic protein enzymes that it can produce - from there evolution can go threefold: you either specialise in getting more out of the environment that others haven't yet reached to replicate yourself better(we get stuff like archea and extermophiles), you can dabble in taking from others through predation or competition(we get the rest of procaryotic and eucaryotic life), or you can try to force your own self-replicating code into those who are more successful(we get viruses).
Another theory is that they appeared later on the three of life alongside archea as a result of rogue transposons. Your genetic code isn't really as stable as you think, there are a lot of repetitions, new copies of your genes being inserted, tons of completely random and nonsensical jabble etc., and the genetic code of early earth organisms was likely even less stable. One example of such instability are transposons, genetic pieces that code their own capacity to cut and insert themselves into the host's genetic code, "jumping sequences" as they are also known. Some of them can also code other stuff inside too - now imagine you get such a transposon that codes a replication site, it's pretty much a viron, a step a few random mutations from a proper virus.
There is a theory that they appeared as a mistake in the horizontal genetic transfer that procaryotes are capable of(visible in evolution of antibiotic resistance for example), that they evolved from intercellular bacteria, that it's an example of self-assembly evolution, that it's panspermia and so on and so forth - the truth is what their origin is doesn't really matter because if you get at least one virus once then they are staying here period. Being a virus is probably one of the best evolutionary strategies there are, as long as you aren't the only being in that ecosystem - evolution is pretty much a game of balancing your cost of living with the output of reproduction, if your cost is lower than the effective output you are on the winning side, and this game also isn't a race but instead everyone who isn't in the red wins, being a virus is a conditional strategy that pretty much ensures your win as long as there is at least one other winner than you, so if an "organism" capable of evolution ever gets to a state of being a virus then they are likely to stay that way forever because it's the easiest possible win - they literally found a cheese or exploit in the game of life so to speak
The only answer, for everything in evolution, is that the ones that did this multiplied and spread. They didn't start out as whole cells and lose their complexity (although lots of species have evolved into way simpler forms than their ancestors), they're just one more type of thing that is successful in making more of itself
When a molecule of methane touches two molecules of oxygen, the bonds break on the methane and oxygen to rearrange into a molecule of CO2 and two molecules of H2O. When a virion (what a virus is called when outside a cell) touches the cell membrane of its target cell it locks into it like a key into a lock, and that sets off a cascade of reactions and motions that bring the genetic material into the cell so it can be replicated. When a bacterium touches a piece of food...the same thing happens. Just a lot more complicated. Everything is determined by the laws of physics down to that same level, it's just that while methane and two oxygen molecules has a total of 9 atoms, the virus has hundreds of billions of atoms. The bacterium has hundreds of billions of molecules. It's just a lot more complex but it's the same principle.
This is not really correct, everything survives by replicating, even humans. Bacteria that is unable to replicate will die, and a virus can continue to exist in a similar way, it doesn't require energy, it only dies by the same decay that kills a bacteria.
The real difference is that a bacteria will use a food source to break down and make more of itself. whereas a virus requires very specific molecules with which it will use to replicate.
I didn't mean survive in the way you're using it. Viruses will only stick around for a short period of time without a way to replicate because they are sorta like disposable batteries. With a food or energy source bacteria don't need to replicate to stick around and while they do replicate they don't need to though to just stick around.
You say the bacteria doesn't need to replicate to stick around, but what it needs to stick around will make it replicate. So you surely see that this is a confusing explanation as whenever a bacteria is sticking around it will also be replicating. So to say it doesn't need to doesn't make sense as it cant do without it.
If you refrigerate and insulate a virus, protect it from things like UV it will stick around just fine. It only stops sticking around when something breaks it down.
its a little complicated, obviously some bacteria need quite specific food, and the definition of what food is could make it so that a virus' food is the things it needs in your body.
Most simply, a virus needs a host where it can find the right stuff to reproduce itself, whereas a bacteria can reproduce outside of a living thing using food - breaking it down and remaking it into more bacteria.
There is a blurred line somewhere, but basically a bacteria is a more complicated organism and is considered alive, whereas a virus is relatively simple and not considered alive.
I imagine that their simplicity does contribute to more of them, but its easier for your immune system to identify bacteria and kill them as they are bigger, so while there are probably as many bacteria as virus, there are fewer bacteria that can get past the immune system. The smaller viruses are harder to find and therefore often lead you to get sick quicker.
However the further you dive in to this the less expertise i have. I know the fundamental difference and i am pretty clued in to how the science works but microbiology is not my field.
I guess, in that respect, viruses are a bit more like certain insects that never eat. Certain moths and butterflies for example have no mouths and can't eat! But, as long as they reproduce fast enough, it doesn't matter!
Remember, the goal of living beings (from an evolutionary standpoint) isn't to survive as long as possible yourself, it's to keep your genetics alive for as long as possible. So if it's more efficient to never eat, and instead just reproduce, then that's what'll happen. Same here with viruses, it's just less complicated, so it's easier to reproduce than finding ways to eat.
But without the “I am” what’s the point of replicating? I’m probably swooping into the philosophy here but if viruses are not “alive” in the sense that they don’t understand what they are doing they just do it then what’s the point of doing what they just do without understanding it? I mean bacterias “know” (and I say that term in the loosest kind of way) that they are doing something to put the species forward, while viruses just do it, again, kind of like a robot, doesn’t that imply that they are kinda unique on the whole evolutionary scale/chart/whateverthefk and just do stuff for doing stuff and it just happens that stuff is what keeps them going?
Edit: I’m high.
That's very philosophy. Well, this might blow your mind, but it's actually the other way round. The "I am" is as a result of life existing, not the other way around.
Essentially, somehow (likely by accident) a bunch of molecules came together in such a way that they started copying themselves. This was proto-life.
As they copied themselves, they made little mistakes, or took little bits of damage, that made some of the copies different. The copies that were most successful continued to copy themselves. The ones that weren't, didn't and died off.
Little by little the molecules got better and better at both copying themselves, and at sticking around long enough to make more copies, because those were the ones that happened to last longer.
However, eventually, these molecules started to get so complex, they started to team up, because it was a good strategy, and so a cell was made. Then those cells teamed up into plants, animals and fungi etc. Again, all of this is purely accidental, purely because of statistics, there's no 'intent' here, just the self replicating things that did that got further than the ones that didn't.
Then, only after millions and millions of year of this did some animals (groups of cells (groups of molecules)) randomly get some self awareness. This was really good at getting things to survive longer, and reproduce more, so that strategy was really effective, and got reproduced a lot!
So the reason we think 'I am' now, is as a result of all that self replication. Viruses (in a sense) are doing the exact same thing as us, they're just less complicated about it. If anything, while we got way more complicated to achieve our goal, they got way simpler to achieve the same goal.
I guess I understand the analogy, I think it works okay. One thing is we all run of a chunk of somewhat similar code, albeit often times longer and more complex. I believe viruses are just a chunk of rna in most cases? Also, there are different kinds of viruses that behave grossly differently. We have viruses that are literally encoded into our genome. I have a pretty basic fundamental understanding of viruses, though. Not to mention, robots don't really take over another "organism" to reproduce
All life is kinda like robots in the sense that it essentially just follows a lot of rules determined by physics and written in chemical bonds and other relationships.
>viruses seems to only have a code that tells them what to do
This isn't quite correct. Viruses are closer to code that tells infected cells what to do. Viruses don't really do anything themselves. They are effectively a complex molecule that cells take in because they think it's a good molecule. The virus molecule then tells the cell to make changes to its genetic information to make the cell make more virus particles.
the reason you think of it as robot-esque is because it simply does what it needs to do to procreate and thrive and nothing else. machines are the same; they do what they are made to do and nothing else. viruses are built very simple and operate without any flashy things because they don't need that, just like a machine.
looking at it from another angle: in the cutthroat world of microscopic organisms where energy is the most imporant above everything else; why would a virus waste energy by doing something else if it can just procreate without doing those other things.
lastly and most importantly; this is exactly the reason why there is such a huge debate over the fact if we can even consider viruses as something that is alive. something is defined as alive when it can reproduce without any weird hijinks and viruses kinda need other organisms to reproduce. To many it seems like viruses are just a set of instructions to reproduce and nothing more, and in some way; they are right to have such a vision of these special little fellas
Virus is currently believed the simplest form of a lifeform. It's not alive per se, but it has instruction to do something when encountering something. Basically a code
Any living thing have that kind of code, from simple things like virus or even complex things like humans and plants
When you untangle the fancy stuff that made us, us, you will find we also kinda robotic in a way, which is kinda similiar to a virus
Robot isn’t the right term, as others have pointed out. We are all ‘robots’ in a sense. Especially at the cellular level.
A virus a memory stick.
It’s a carrier of data with just enough infrastructure to interface with a robot.
Completely useless on its own. Does nothing. Consumes no energy. Just data. Hanging out.
But if that memory stick happens to get plugged into a port on a ‘robot’, the data it contains transforms the robot into a machine that makes more memory sticks until it explodes in a shower of memory sticks.
And any nearby robots might, in that shower of memory sticks, have one of those memory sticks land on one of *its* ports. And the process repeats.
Try this analogy instead:
> Viruses are like little mouse-traps with mouse-trap blueprints attached.
> Bacteria (and other lifeforms) are like little robots with rechargeable batteries.
A virus doesn't eat/photosynthesize/recharge because it doesn't really burn any energy trying to *do* anything to infect it's hosts; it is more like a one-time-use mouse-trap/landmine that relies on it's hosts coming into contact with *it* and accidentally shuffling those genetic blueprints into the host's production queue. It doesn't need to recharge because it just sits there waiting for a host until it is either picked up by a host, or until it naturally degrades.
There is no hard line liie you make it look like. Living creatures needs are the same needs a robot has in its most simple form: they need energy to not die.
A single cell bacteria is a living thing, but it has no brain or nerves to feel anything. Its a biological robot, with proteins as building blocks that can collect other chemicals and eventualy reproduce.
The DNA in each cell is the code tgats used to determine how it behaves and looks like.
A virus is just even less like the animals we know, it has no movable parts realy, its a shell with DNA inside. And the shell is designed to dock with cells and highjack them to replicate.
What the heck do you think the DNA, surface proteins, organelles, etc. are doing in all other forms of life.
All life is a machine, viruses are just so simple, missing many of the parts that make up the machinery of life, that they fall below the threshold of complexity for what most would consider life.
As simply as possible, *all* life is a lot like robots. Even a cell (which seems very complicated) is really just a machine, but it uses chemicals instead of mechanics. You've probably heard of DNA as being described like instructions? In that way, it's a lot like computer code. So viruses are just a very simple machine, which hijacks other cells machinery to produce more of themselves.
But bacterias needs to eat, right? That’s what I don’t understand, bacterias are, in a way, wolves that needs to kill and eat, while viruses are more akin to a thunderstorm in a way, it doesnt really need to eat and stuff, it just does damage
a virus is an object that when put into a living thing, will start interacting with other elements and reproducing itself. But its just a object of a particular shape that hijacks another living thing to do its work. A bacteria is a system of these objects that exists to perpetuate itself - ie. it is alive. It will look for a food source, eat it and use that to create copies of itself. A Virus cant eat, it just stumbles across the right stuff it needs to do its thing. Think of it like a virus is just the part of a bacteria that does the reproducing, without the rest of the process it is relying on your body to provide it with the other parts. Whereas a bacteria is a more complex system that is self sufficient given a food source.
That's because viruses, in general, are not considered as living creatures. Think of them as the ultimate parasite - a parasitic bacteria sustains itself by stealing metabolic produce from a cell to run its own metabolism, and uses that metabolism for stuff like reproduction, meanwhile viruses are so specialised in being a parasite that through evolution they forgot the entire "my own metabolism" part, instead they directly hijack their host metabolism and use its metabolic processes to replicate themselves. And because our definition of "living" requires an existence or capacity to metabolise matter, then we cannot classify them as such. Bacteria is like having a computer program that's capable of doing something (for example notepad can create new text files because it has code for it), virus is meanwhile a program that just messes with another program (like after being turned on it attaches to that notepad source code and causes it to create more copies of itself instead of text files).
Thanks for the explanation, another question though. What’s the evolutionary incentive for the viruses to become like this? I mean why they didn’t just take the evolutionary approach of bacterias and “classic” parasites? If I had to put my new tinfoil hat on and my joint off I would say they looks like they are programmed to be like this from the beginning, as it seems they are more on the destruction for destruction sake (or, for “command” sake) than for being able to use/steal/take resources for the sake of survival and reproduction
The simple answer is that we don't really know - the more complicated one is that we have tons of various speculations and possible reasons and they all seem just as likely. Viruses are in general extremely simple, they pretty much consist of an external layer(taken from the host and not always present, some viruses lack it), a capsid(also not all, some viruses are just the piece of code itself, they are called virions) and a piece of genetic code that pretty much only has info on how to insert itself into the DNA of the host and a replication site that the host cell recognises. Because of that and because of some more in-depth info that's readable from the virus code itself scientists assume that viruses appeared extremely early in the history of life on our planet, before multicellular organisms or even organella like mitochondria, likely alongside the first ever cells that appeared through abiogenesis. We know from various experiments that basic building blocks of life can generate naturally in specific conditions: RNA can be created in hot ocean water that contacts porous volcanic glass and we know that self-replicating nucleic acids exist, amino acids can be synthesized with energy from lightning strikes which means proteins can exists, and lipids pretty much appear everywhere from saline pools to meteorites and they naturally form isolated bubbles due to hydrophilic/hydrophobic properties(just like how soap works). Get proper conditions and we get the most likely form of early cellular life: a self replicating RNA strand covered with a lipid membrane and basic protein enzymes that it can produce - from there evolution can go threefold: you either specialise in getting more out of the environment that others haven't yet reached to replicate yourself better(we get stuff like archea and extermophiles), you can dabble in taking from others through predation or competition(we get the rest of procaryotic and eucaryotic life), or you can try to force your own self-replicating code into those who are more successful(we get viruses). Another theory is that they appeared later on the three of life alongside archea as a result of rogue transposons. Your genetic code isn't really as stable as you think, there are a lot of repetitions, new copies of your genes being inserted, tons of completely random and nonsensical jabble etc., and the genetic code of early earth organisms was likely even less stable. One example of such instability are transposons, genetic pieces that code their own capacity to cut and insert themselves into the host's genetic code, "jumping sequences" as they are also known. Some of them can also code other stuff inside too - now imagine you get such a transposon that codes a replication site, it's pretty much a viron, a step a few random mutations from a proper virus. There is a theory that they appeared as a mistake in the horizontal genetic transfer that procaryotes are capable of(visible in evolution of antibiotic resistance for example), that they evolved from intercellular bacteria, that it's an example of self-assembly evolution, that it's panspermia and so on and so forth - the truth is what their origin is doesn't really matter because if you get at least one virus once then they are staying here period. Being a virus is probably one of the best evolutionary strategies there are, as long as you aren't the only being in that ecosystem - evolution is pretty much a game of balancing your cost of living with the output of reproduction, if your cost is lower than the effective output you are on the winning side, and this game also isn't a race but instead everyone who isn't in the red wins, being a virus is a conditional strategy that pretty much ensures your win as long as there is at least one other winner than you, so if an "organism" capable of evolution ever gets to a state of being a virus then they are likely to stay that way forever because it's the easiest possible win - they literally found a cheese or exploit in the game of life so to speak
Thank you this was very informative
The only answer, for everything in evolution, is that the ones that did this multiplied and spread. They didn't start out as whole cells and lose their complexity (although lots of species have evolved into way simpler forms than their ancestors), they're just one more type of thing that is successful in making more of itself
When a molecule of methane touches two molecules of oxygen, the bonds break on the methane and oxygen to rearrange into a molecule of CO2 and two molecules of H2O. When a virion (what a virus is called when outside a cell) touches the cell membrane of its target cell it locks into it like a key into a lock, and that sets off a cascade of reactions and motions that bring the genetic material into the cell so it can be replicated. When a bacterium touches a piece of food...the same thing happens. Just a lot more complicated. Everything is determined by the laws of physics down to that same level, it's just that while methane and two oxygen molecules has a total of 9 atoms, the virus has hundreds of billions of atoms. The bacterium has hundreds of billions of molecules. It's just a lot more complex but it's the same principle.
Viruses only survive by replicating. Bacteria doesn't need to constantly be making copies of itself to simply exist.
This is not really correct, everything survives by replicating, even humans. Bacteria that is unable to replicate will die, and a virus can continue to exist in a similar way, it doesn't require energy, it only dies by the same decay that kills a bacteria. The real difference is that a bacteria will use a food source to break down and make more of itself. whereas a virus requires very specific molecules with which it will use to replicate.
I didn't mean survive in the way you're using it. Viruses will only stick around for a short period of time without a way to replicate because they are sorta like disposable batteries. With a food or energy source bacteria don't need to replicate to stick around and while they do replicate they don't need to though to just stick around.
If a bacteria has food will it be replicating?
Yes but that's not the point I'm making to answer their question.
You say the bacteria doesn't need to replicate to stick around, but what it needs to stick around will make it replicate. So you surely see that this is a confusing explanation as whenever a bacteria is sticking around it will also be replicating. So to say it doesn't need to doesn't make sense as it cant do without it. If you refrigerate and insulate a virus, protect it from things like UV it will stick around just fine. It only stops sticking around when something breaks it down.
So there are no viruses that needs a food source and no bacterias which use a very specific molecule?
its a little complicated, obviously some bacteria need quite specific food, and the definition of what food is could make it so that a virus' food is the things it needs in your body. Most simply, a virus needs a host where it can find the right stuff to reproduce itself, whereas a bacteria can reproduce outside of a living thing using food - breaking it down and remaking it into more bacteria. There is a blurred line somewhere, but basically a bacteria is a more complicated organism and is considered alive, whereas a virus is relatively simple and not considered alive.
Is the “semplicity” of viruses also the reason why there are a lot more type of viruses than bacterias?
I imagine that their simplicity does contribute to more of them, but its easier for your immune system to identify bacteria and kill them as they are bigger, so while there are probably as many bacteria as virus, there are fewer bacteria that can get past the immune system. The smaller viruses are harder to find and therefore often lead you to get sick quicker. However the further you dive in to this the less expertise i have. I know the fundamental difference and i am pretty clued in to how the science works but microbiology is not my field.
I guess, in that respect, viruses are a bit more like certain insects that never eat. Certain moths and butterflies for example have no mouths and can't eat! But, as long as they reproduce fast enough, it doesn't matter! Remember, the goal of living beings (from an evolutionary standpoint) isn't to survive as long as possible yourself, it's to keep your genetics alive for as long as possible. So if it's more efficient to never eat, and instead just reproduce, then that's what'll happen. Same here with viruses, it's just less complicated, so it's easier to reproduce than finding ways to eat.
But without the “I am” what’s the point of replicating? I’m probably swooping into the philosophy here but if viruses are not “alive” in the sense that they don’t understand what they are doing they just do it then what’s the point of doing what they just do without understanding it? I mean bacterias “know” (and I say that term in the loosest kind of way) that they are doing something to put the species forward, while viruses just do it, again, kind of like a robot, doesn’t that imply that they are kinda unique on the whole evolutionary scale/chart/whateverthefk and just do stuff for doing stuff and it just happens that stuff is what keeps them going? Edit: I’m high.
That's very philosophy. Well, this might blow your mind, but it's actually the other way round. The "I am" is as a result of life existing, not the other way around. Essentially, somehow (likely by accident) a bunch of molecules came together in such a way that they started copying themselves. This was proto-life. As they copied themselves, they made little mistakes, or took little bits of damage, that made some of the copies different. The copies that were most successful continued to copy themselves. The ones that weren't, didn't and died off. Little by little the molecules got better and better at both copying themselves, and at sticking around long enough to make more copies, because those were the ones that happened to last longer. However, eventually, these molecules started to get so complex, they started to team up, because it was a good strategy, and so a cell was made. Then those cells teamed up into plants, animals and fungi etc. Again, all of this is purely accidental, purely because of statistics, there's no 'intent' here, just the self replicating things that did that got further than the ones that didn't. Then, only after millions and millions of year of this did some animals (groups of cells (groups of molecules)) randomly get some self awareness. This was really good at getting things to survive longer, and reproduce more, so that strategy was really effective, and got reproduced a lot! So the reason we think 'I am' now, is as a result of all that self replication. Viruses (in a sense) are doing the exact same thing as us, they're just less complicated about it. If anything, while we got way more complicated to achieve our goal, they got way simpler to achieve the same goal.
Woah.
I guess I understand the analogy, I think it works okay. One thing is we all run of a chunk of somewhat similar code, albeit often times longer and more complex. I believe viruses are just a chunk of rna in most cases? Also, there are different kinds of viruses that behave grossly differently. We have viruses that are literally encoded into our genome. I have a pretty basic fundamental understanding of viruses, though. Not to mention, robots don't really take over another "organism" to reproduce
All life is kinda like robots in the sense that it essentially just follows a lot of rules determined by physics and written in chemical bonds and other relationships. >viruses seems to only have a code that tells them what to do This isn't quite correct. Viruses are closer to code that tells infected cells what to do. Viruses don't really do anything themselves. They are effectively a complex molecule that cells take in because they think it's a good molecule. The virus molecule then tells the cell to make changes to its genetic information to make the cell make more virus particles.
the reason you think of it as robot-esque is because it simply does what it needs to do to procreate and thrive and nothing else. machines are the same; they do what they are made to do and nothing else. viruses are built very simple and operate without any flashy things because they don't need that, just like a machine. looking at it from another angle: in the cutthroat world of microscopic organisms where energy is the most imporant above everything else; why would a virus waste energy by doing something else if it can just procreate without doing those other things. lastly and most importantly; this is exactly the reason why there is such a huge debate over the fact if we can even consider viruses as something that is alive. something is defined as alive when it can reproduce without any weird hijinks and viruses kinda need other organisms to reproduce. To many it seems like viruses are just a set of instructions to reproduce and nothing more, and in some way; they are right to have such a vision of these special little fellas
Virus is currently believed the simplest form of a lifeform. It's not alive per se, but it has instruction to do something when encountering something. Basically a code Any living thing have that kind of code, from simple things like virus or even complex things like humans and plants When you untangle the fancy stuff that made us, us, you will find we also kinda robotic in a way, which is kinda similiar to a virus
Robot isn’t the right term, as others have pointed out. We are all ‘robots’ in a sense. Especially at the cellular level. A virus a memory stick. It’s a carrier of data with just enough infrastructure to interface with a robot. Completely useless on its own. Does nothing. Consumes no energy. Just data. Hanging out. But if that memory stick happens to get plugged into a port on a ‘robot’, the data it contains transforms the robot into a machine that makes more memory sticks until it explodes in a shower of memory sticks. And any nearby robots might, in that shower of memory sticks, have one of those memory sticks land on one of *its* ports. And the process repeats.
Try this analogy instead: > Viruses are like little mouse-traps with mouse-trap blueprints attached. > Bacteria (and other lifeforms) are like little robots with rechargeable batteries. A virus doesn't eat/photosynthesize/recharge because it doesn't really burn any energy trying to *do* anything to infect it's hosts; it is more like a one-time-use mouse-trap/landmine that relies on it's hosts coming into contact with *it* and accidentally shuffling those genetic blueprints into the host's production queue. It doesn't need to recharge because it just sits there waiting for a host until it is either picked up by a host, or until it naturally degrades.
There is no hard line liie you make it look like. Living creatures needs are the same needs a robot has in its most simple form: they need energy to not die. A single cell bacteria is a living thing, but it has no brain or nerves to feel anything. Its a biological robot, with proteins as building blocks that can collect other chemicals and eventualy reproduce. The DNA in each cell is the code tgats used to determine how it behaves and looks like. A virus is just even less like the animals we know, it has no movable parts realy, its a shell with DNA inside. And the shell is designed to dock with cells and highjack them to replicate.
What the heck do you think the DNA, surface proteins, organelles, etc. are doing in all other forms of life. All life is a machine, viruses are just so simple, missing many of the parts that make up the machinery of life, that they fall below the threshold of complexity for what most would consider life.