333
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 33:
Line 33: + + + + + +
no edit summary
Cell is not the basic unit of life. A virus is also a living thing. They have all the process of any other bigger living thing. Maybe we, at this point, don't know enough about it but science is working on it. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:02, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Cell is not the basic unit of life. A virus is also a living thing. They have all the process of any other bigger living thing. Maybe we, at this point, don't know enough about it but science is working on it. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:02, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
:A virus is not defined as a living thing with respect to medicine or biology within Australia, and I am pretty sure that that is the case around the world. They are classified as replicators. Even if a change in definition was to include viruses, it would not likely include ribosomes, as they cannot replicate, do not have any distinct genetic material and come to think of it cannot operate outside of a living cell, and therefore will only ever be complexes which make up a cell. If there is a scientific article which states that ribosomes are living then I would love to see it.
:Regardless this does not really have any bearing on my original argument. The article is about the law of biogenesis, which states that living things only arise from other living things, the picture shows the production of ribosomes by a cell, a completely different concept.
:Might I suggest a picture of a cell dividing to illustrate the law at its most basic. Besides that I'm off to bed, hope this gets sorted out before I wake up. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 09:12, 28 March 2008 (EDT)