Sorry old habit. Many still use this defintion, though viri is total wrong (its latin for men-s). sure enoguh I really don't care how life is defined but strange thing is this is as thread asking just that, so saying that is "really does not matter" does not answer the threads question. As for a virus I am ok with it not being consider alive if you do consider it alive then you allow the possibility of other things even less associated with life begin called "alive"
a thing less associate with life? a virus? a virus is not fully associated with life???? it is anorganic dead material?
Why a cell or virus particle, is that specified in your definition? Because if it is then your committing the same mistake biologist did 50 years ago when they made the standard definition revolve around the cell. oh then what happens if we go to titan and find free floating self replicating DNA?
Obviously titan life is not part of the evolutionary process on earth. Everything goes therefore. flexibility is the key to scientific thinking. learn to live with it.
well then you should learn to live with a virus not being alive, as you said flexibility is the key then one should be learn to live the definition given, it already universally agreed here that the definition of live does not change anything.
The flexibility being that I HAVE to accept what someone else says. dictionary "flex·i·ble Responsive to change; adaptable "
exactly adapt to the things given. The standard definition would have to adapt and so would your definition, what’s the deference? If you present a more adaptable definition then that would be something to discuss.
those don't answer my question. Again free floating replicating DNA under your defintion is alive, do you except that as fact or not? also what is 'in its proper context.'?
