Science says it's not living, but it's not dead either...

[Equiflux]

The 8 characteristics of a living thing/organism:

1.Composed of cells
2.Each of its cells has a universal genetic code, DNA
3.Must be able to retain homeostasis ( Has to be able to maintain safe internal conditions)
4.Obtains and uses Materials and energy
5.Responds to stimuli/enviornment
6.Adapts/evolves over time as a group/species
7.Grows and developes
8.Reproduces sexually or asexually
________________________________________
If a thing, anything, lacks even one of these characteristics, it is not accepted as a living thing amongst the scientific community.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

A species is a group of animals that can produce fertile offspring.

A Liger(mix between a lion and tiger) can not reproduce(with fertile results that is sometimes not even at all) nor can any other hybrids like a mule.
This means that these hybrids lack one of the characteristics of life. Does that make them a non-living thing?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

What's your opinion?


My opinion:
Well being quite blunt, I think that hybrids are alive, they are just as much as alive as a guy that would cut his reproductive organs off with a butcher's knife. He can't reproduce anymore, but he's still alive. right?

[Theotherside]

huh, that is quite interesting. I suppose it is a loopwhole, or the guidlines are for almost all things. There will always be anomalies and such. Still, very good post!
-The Other Side

[Rufio1]

nice point! like you said man, they are deffinately living.

about what you said about the butcher knife and what not, at one point in time, he could reproduce, so when it gets cut off, it doesnt mean that he could reproduce, it just means he cant anymore. see what im saying?

but the whole living non-living brings up another point, where do viruses fall under, living or non-living?

[Livewire]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living#...nal_definition

"It is important to note that life is a definition that applies primarily at the level of species, so even though many individuals of any given species do not reproduce, possibly because they belong to specialized Sterile castes (such as ant workers), these are still considered forms of life. One could say that the property of life is inherited; hence, sterile hybrid species such as the mule are considered life although not themselves capable of reproduction. It is also worth noting that non-reproducing individuals may still help the spread of their genes through such mechanisms as kin selection."

Good point there, it's basically saying that an ant worker is an exception to the definition, as is a mule (and presumably, a Liger).

There's always exceptions to every rule I guess

As for virii though, by that definition they are indeed living (although at the same time I don't recall it being truely defined as living, even the exceptions link above states that science considers them replicators instead of living)...

My highschool biology teacher defined a living creature with the same rules posted here, with one addition: Blood. If it has a definite blood system, it's probably living.

That would still put Liger's as living (which they are), but would 'kill' most virii (you could argue that it's using the blood of it's host as it's own blood, until you look at virii that transfer through the air - no blood there).

Personally I say life is something Science itself can't really define very well. There'll always be some problem to it, as the Liger or an ant worker or a virus show.

[TheJeffsta]

Living organisms are usually defined by MRS C GREN

Movement
Respiration
Sensitivity

Circulation

Growth
Reproduction
Excretion
Nutrition

Dont ask me why, its just the way my Science text books have told me.

Some things such as virus's are arguable, many thing they are not living as they do not move, but others think they are cause they are able to do things, plant their DNA in host cells to produce "virus factories".

Ligers are obviously living organisms, that is unarguable, but I suppose not all guidelines are 100% perfect, many have their flaws, especially with crossbreeding, etc.

[Jake]

well you know there are exceptions, did it actually say they are not living? because its obvious they are.

[Spartan Erik]

No doubt it's living; surely nothing has to follow those definitions of life verbatim

[mcnair]

as you saw with the whole pluto thing, classification has always been difficult. perhaps the qualifications of "being alive" might change as well.

[Equiflux]

Living organisms are usually defined by MRS C GREN

Movement
Respiration
Sensitivity

Circulation

Growth
Reproduction
Excretion
Nutrition

Hmm... plants don't move, but they are living, but just like everyone else said, there are exceptions! Anyways, yeah I've actually seen many variations of the characteristics of life. So... I have nothing else to say.

[ƒorte]

Yeah, it has been well established that animals such as the Liger or a Mule are alive but aren't fertile. And they are considered to be living. This is probably the only exception to the "8" rules above.