• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Sperm a lifeform?

Sperm is not a life form. It is part of a life form.

Vira are life forms. True, they cannot exist independently, but the same is true about much higher life forms that have adapted to a parasitic (or symbiotic) lifestyle.

Computer vira lack metabolism, so per definition, they are not life forms. That is, per our definition; computer vira might use a different definition.

Hans
 
Depends how broad minded you are.

I find the life / non life distinction pretty useless in some contexts .
The closer you look at a boundary, the more it turns out to be a boundary ZONE.

And we need to keep in mind that many boundaries exist only in the human mind.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Computer vira lack metabolism, so per definition, they are not life forms. That is, per our definition; computer vira might use a different definition.
Click to expand...

From dictionary.com:

me·tab·o·lism

1. The chemical processes occurring within a living cell or organism that are necessary for the maintenance of life. In metabolism some substances are broken down to yield energy for vital processes while other substances, necessary for life, are synthesized.

So fair enough, computer viruses don't really have any chemical processes, but it could be argued that some viruses don't either (they nick them from the host). On the other hand computer viruses have non-chemical processes that are necessary for the maintenance of its run-time - a metabolism of sorts, if one expands the definition a bit.

Granted I don't think computer viruses are alive. But there are many lines you could draw, and there are many biologists would not place organic viruses in the "living" category either. If we ever create self aware computers - which while not by any means "on the horizon" are certainly not theoretically impossible - then we will need to at least consider the possibility that they would count as alive despite not having a metabolism. Best to get in early. :)
 
Soapy Sam said:
Depends how broad minded you are.

I find the life / non life distinction pretty useless in some contexts .
The closer you look at a boundary, the more it turns out to be a boundary ZONE.

And we need to keep in mind that many boundaries exist only in the human mind.
Click to expand...
Agreed on all points. But the only definitions we ever have to go by are our own current ones.

Hans
 
I almost feel like arguing that humans are simply the method sperm use to survive and reproduce... :D
 
For something to be called a true "life form" it must possess the ability, on it's own, to replicate. A sperm does not, as a distinct entity, have this ability (i.e., a sperm does not possess the ability reproduce by itself and make more sperm). A virus is in the grey zone because it possesses the instructions to replicate, but requires a host organism's machinery in order to do so. Viruses are definitely interesting little things. But, even more so are plasmids and prions.

-Dr. Imago
 
Nice concise answer Dr. Imago. One problem... according to that definition, mules (donkey and Horse hybrid) and Tygons (lion / tiger hybrid) are not alive?
 
Dr. Imago said:
For something to be called a true "life form" it must possess the ability, on it's own, to replicate. A sperm does not, as a distinct entity, have this ability (i.e., a sperm does not possess the ability reproduce by itself and make more sperm). A virus is in the grey zone because it possesses the instructions to replicate, but requires a host organism's machinery in order to do so. Viruses are definitely interesting little things. But, even more so are plasmids and prions.

-Dr. Imago
Click to expand...

Humans require sperm to replicate, and are therefore not alive? Humans do not possess to reproduce themselves without sperm.
 
Alkatran said:
Humans require sperm to replicate, and are therefore not alive? Humans do not possess to reproduce themselves without sperm.
Click to expand...

Humans replicate themselves, and sperm are part of how they do it. Think of it this way: A gun is a weapon because it shoots bullets, but the bullets themselves are not weapons. The zygotes are a method of delivery, they don't share any qualities with the organism that develops except for a few protein strands. Sperm don't make more of themselves, they don't have systems which can perpetuate themselves, and so they don't intake or excrete anything,whereas human beings do all of that.
 
SixSixSix said:
Why are computer viruses not eligible?

Sounds a bit organicist to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right.

I'd like to see a definition of life that applies to computer viruses without also classifying things like fire or for that matter Walmart inc. as being alive.
 
Dr. Imago said:
For something to be called a true "life form" it must possess the ability, on it's own, to replicate.
Click to expand...
I know very few people who are able to replicate on their own. Most of them need someone else to do it together. Are they not lifeforms?
I also know a few people who could not replicate at all, even if they got help from someone else. How about them?

Methinks your definition needs some work.
 
Well, for simplicity's sake, "on their own" refers to the species level, where sexual differentiation plays a role in reproduction in some species. One also shouldn't confuse being alive with being a species, and we're of course barring the pedantic exceptions (e.g., the mule, a child born without sexual organs, etc.). As a reduced to the absurd example, one could theoretically consider HeLa cells to be both alive and a species. I would not. Echinoderms are also an interesting exception, as are certain bacteria. Each possesses the capability to replicate by both sexual and non-sexual means. But, they can replicate. That's the key. Sperm cannot.

-Dr. Imago
 
I don't think that labeling exceptions as "Pedantic" is a fair way to support a set of criteria.... as good as it is ... this might become more obvious WHEN we find life on another world.

I sometimes get the feeling that there's a wrong assumption that we are making about life. Otherwise, it might be easier to define. Maybe one day someone will point out something obvious that we've all over looked.

But more likely, Soapy Sam has it right ... "life" is a poor fuzzy word, particularly at the boundries.

~~~~~~

Here's what Wikpedia has to say about The Definition of LIFE
 
c4ts said:
Zygotes don't have organelless, neither do viruses.
Click to expand...
A zygote is a fertilized egg cell and most definitely has organelles. Viruses do not have organelles.

Just in case you're interested, prokaryotes do not have organelles (though they may possess interior membranes) and are alive. For more information, here 's a tutorial.
 
Dr. Imago said:
Well, for simplicity's sake, "on their own" refers to the species level, where sexual differentiation plays a role in reproduction in some species. One also shouldn't confuse being alive with being a species, and we're of course barring the pedantic exceptions...But, they can replicate. That's the key. Sperm cannot.
Click to expand...
I may be misreading your statements, but I think this is incorrect. Human sperm cells are just as human as you or I (though obviously most people wouldn't consider them human beings). Unless you want to contend that humans (or any other sexually reproducing animal) aren't alive, then you must consider sperm themselves to be alive.

Of course, while one of my liver cells is alive, I don't think we would consider it a life form on its own. So the question is, are sperm individual organisms on their own (as opposed to parts of a collective)? And I think the answer is yes. That we humans spend so little of our life cycle in haploid form does not detract from this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom