|
"But they are living organisms."
No they aren't. We just covered why they're NOT living. They're just complex formations that resemble life to the layman, but in reality, they're no more alive than a rock.
|
|
|
"No they aren't. We just covered why they're NOT living. They're just complex formations that resemble life to the layman, but in reality, they're no more alive than a rock."
pretty much this
actually
what happened to googling things
it takes you less effort to just look it up in your textbook/google than to go through all of this |
|
|
@Dapper:
Well sorry. But I refuse to trust "facts" from a very unreliable source. |
|
Z007Join Date: 2010-09-14
Post Count: 11729 |
dappernarwhal is an educated pathological something or rather
he's the most reliable source you're gonna get, sonny
- your friendly neighborhood medical nerd |
|
|
I'm not sure who to believe. Both sides are pretty convincing. |
|
|
"Well sorry. But I refuse to trust "facts" from a very unreliable source."
Look up science journals on the subject.
Don't post on OT asking for something, and then just completely disregard scientific facts when they're given to you.
We answered your question, Google it if you don't believe us. You'll feel pretty stupid, I'm telling you already.
|
|
MadSanityJoin Date: 2009-11-13
Post Count: 41506 |
literally so biased against furries he denies facts intentionally
lol |
|
Z007Join Date: 2010-09-14
Post Count: 11729 |
@op
trust the dappernarwhal educated pathology man
- your friendly neighborhood medical nerd |
|
|
@Dapper:
Im not really questioning your response, Im questioning the validness of someone else's response which came from a very unreliable user. |
|
|
dappernarwhal institute of pathology |
|
|
"I'm not sure who to believe. Both sides are pretty convincing."
Just going off of the scientific definition of life.
Viruses, at some point, may be classified as life if the standards change. After all, tomatoes have been classified as vegetables now after a Supreme Court case, so it isn't out of the realm of possibility that the standards of life could change.
|
|
|
Dude you should know this if you actually payed attention in class lol
Well, er- um, hmm... you see, hm- sigh.. um, its because- crap... well... uh- |
|
|
MadSanityJoin Date: 2009-11-13
Post Count: 41506 |
"not a bias"
there he goes again |
|
|
You're just trying to make this worse for us both aren't you? |
|
|
When I google the question I get mixed results |
|
MadSanityJoin Date: 2009-11-13
Post Count: 41506 |
"worse for both"
I'm not the crying "muh ferums r bein attucked"
so I got the bigger end of the stick here as far as I'm concerned |
|
|
I'm not saying that either so I don't see what your making a big deal of |
|
|
"When I google the question I get mixed results"
Go to reputable virology science journals.
Now, there are some recent discoveries that are starting to point towards viruses actually being alive (and not only that, but being the oldest living things on earth), but they still aren't classified as such. Whether or not the classification of life is passed, that's not really up to me, but I think it'd be cool if they did get classified as alive.
|
|
|
Well, if the assignment is "Why aren't viruses considered living beings?" then I'd probably go with things that reaffirm this, rather than things that go against this. You could argue that they are, but I don't think that's where the teacher wants you to go with it. |
|
|
I refuse to believe the furry was right though. |
|
|
"but I don't think that's where the teacher wants you to go with it."
You'd be surprised, some teachers love it when you go the opposite direction.
|
|
|
"Why aren't viruses considered living beings?
Well, first of all, I refuse to believe that the furry was right..." |
|
LatchieJoin Date: 2010-11-21
Post Count: 24558 |
op are you by chance mixing up viruses and bacteria
viruses arent considered living things but bacteria are
kill the pig / cut his throat / bash him in
|
|