Elladan71
Elladan71 t1_jbrnlfg wrote
Reply to comment by dave-the-scientist in I just learned that the known shortest DNA in an “organism” is about 1700 base pairs in a certain virus. Is there a minimum amount of “code” required for an organism (or virus) to function in any capacity? by mcbergstedt
I think you're on the right track, here. A virus needs a cell to function. A bacterium needs a nutrient-rich environment to function. An animal needs gravity oxygen, water, and food. Plants and animals are *environments for other kinds of life, so it's no wonder that the question is difficult to answer. When asked in the other direction, you're confronted with whether the Earth itself is alive.
Elladan71 t1_jbrmf6j wrote
Reply to comment by TheNorthComesWithMe in I just learned that the known shortest DNA in an “organism” is about 1700 base pairs in a certain virus. Is there a minimum amount of “code” required for an organism (or virus) to function in any capacity? by mcbergstedt
This is undeniable. But when we're talking about definitions, aren't we talking about human constructs, attempts to approximate truth? Isn't it the same impulse that birthed the scientific method? Drawing lines between things is *useful!
Plus, anything that provides conversation like this thread is worth talking about, if you ask me.
Elladan71 t1_jbrpzwp wrote
Reply to comment by stellarfury in I just learned that the known shortest DNA in an “organism” is about 1700 base pairs in a certain virus. Is there a minimum amount of “code” required for an organism (or virus) to function in any capacity? by mcbergstedt
Heck, who's to say that having achieved sapience, those self-replicating machines aren't alive? Racists, that's who!