Viruses are not microorganisms, and it is erroneous to have this plainly written out like so. Life is defined by seven characteristics something must have in order to be considered alive. Viruses don't metabolize, are not composed of cells, nor do they maintain homeostasis. It would be much better to describe them as a "pathogenic chemical substance that relies either on DNA or RNA for reproduction inside a host cell," except in a simplified manner, since this is an "introduction to viruses."
TheUnixGeek (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I have changed it to "biological agent". This is from Virus:
Opinions differ on whether viruses are a form of life, or organic structures that interact with living organisms. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life",[1] since they resemble organisms in that they possess genes and evolve by natural selection,[2] and reproduce by creating multiple copies of themselves through self-assembly. However, although they have genes, they do not have a cellular structure, which is often seen as the basic unit of life. Additionally, viruses do not have their own metabolism, and require a host cell to make new products. They therefore cannot reproduce outside a host cell (though bacterial species such as rickettsia and chlamydia are considered living organisms despite the same limitation). Accepted forms of life use cell division to reproduce, whereas viruses spontaneously assemble within cells, which is analogous to the autonomous growth of crystals. Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life,[3] as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.[4]
.jpg){kind=small}
