Jump to content

Talk:Non-cellular life: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Acather96 (talk | contribs)
32,535 edits
class=start
 
(24 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Biology|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Biology|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Microbiology|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Microbiology|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology|importance=Mid|class=start}}
{{WikiProject Molecular Biology|MCB=yes|MCB-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Viruses|class=start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Viruses|importance=low}}
}}
}}


{{Archive box|[[/Archive1|Archive 1]]
==Mimivirus proteins==
}}
"Mimivirus can make its own proteins" <-- This entire article and specific statements such as this need to be supported by citations to the biomedical literature. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

== syncytial organisms? ==

A quick google book search shows plenty of references where professional zoologists call protozoa either 'noncellular' or more commonly '[[acellular]]'. this in reference no doubt to their [[syncytial]] organization. why is there no mention of this in the article. if this isnt going to be included then at very least 'acellular' should not redirect here. [[User:Em3ryguy|just-emery]] ([[User talk:Em3ryguy|talk]]) 22:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


If you are going to erase my edit then I think I at least deserve a response. [[User:Em3ryguy|just-emery]] ([[User talk:Em3ryguy|talk]]) 23:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

:It does not matter how many nuclei any given [[slime mold]] '''cell''' may have, '''IT IS STILL CELLULAR'''. Regarding your second request, [[ciliate]]s are cellular too; please see: [[Ciliate#Cell structure]]. Cheers. [[User:BatteryIncluded|BatteryIncluded]] ([[User talk:BatteryIncluded|talk]]) 20:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

::Huh? ciliates are multinucleate and lack cell walls between nuclei. thats syncytial. now obviously you are defining 'cellular' as anything that is enclosed within an outer cell wall and that would include syncytial organisms. I dont deny that. But it is a fact that some professional zoologists refer to syncytial organisms as 'acellular' (as a simple google book or google scholar search will show). This is obviously a slightly different way of looking at the definition of 'cellular'. I am not arguing one way or the other. I simply believe that, since 'acellular' redircts here, we owe it to the readers to provide them with a link to the appropriate page. [[User:Lemmiwinks2|Lemmiwinks2]] ([[User talk:Lemmiwinks2|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 20:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=syncytial%20acellular%20-vaccine&lr=&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ps [[User:Lemmiwinks2|Lemmiwinks2]] ([[User talk:Lemmiwinks2|talk]]) 20:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

::http://books.google.com/books?q=syncytial+acellular+-vaccine&btnG=Search+Books [[User:Lemmiwinks2|Lemmiwinks2]] ([[User talk:Lemmiwinks2|talk]]) 10:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

:::>''Huh? ciliates are multinucleate and lack cell walls between nuclei.'' - Lemmiwinks2
:::Again: It does not matter how many nuclei any given cell may have, '''IT IS STILL CELLULAR'''. If some biologists nickname syncytia "acellular", please feel free to add quality references to your entry. Thank you. [[User:BatteryIncluded|BatteryIncluded]] ([[User talk:BatteryIncluded|talk]]) 02:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

::::Up till now you've been quite rational about this. I gave you a link to a google scholar search and to a google book search that shows many many such references. whether they are cellular or not obviously just depends on ones definition of 'cellular' which just depends on how you look at it. English can be quite ambiguous sometimes. it is an established fact that some zoologists use the term 'acellular' when refering to syncytial organisms. since [[acellular]] redirects to this article I believe we owe it to the reader to provide a link to the article [[syncytium]] and a short explanation (at the very least).
also where are you getting 'threadlike'. ciliates are not threadlike. it would not surprise me though if syncytial worms passed, at some point, through such a stage as you describe.

::::I really dont think that we are as far apart on all this as you may be thinking we are. I hope we can work together to make this a better article. [[User:Lemmiwinks2|Lemmiwinks2]] ([[User talk:Lemmiwinks2|talk]]) 09:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

== Virus & Viroid ==

Virus & viroid are the only non-cellular "life" known so far. All other enries should be deleted, as the needed references to support such claim are not --and will not be forthcomming. [[User:BatteryIncluded|BatteryIncluded]] ([[User talk:BatteryIncluded|talk]]) 18:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
:Actually, most biologists wouldn't classify viruses as life either. They're chemical complexes with ''some'' (not all) of the mechanistic character of life, but they're not life forms in their own right.
:Based on self-preserving reactions to one's environment, there is a certain sensory being-ness that even bacteria have (and please don't confuse sensory with abstract), but viruses lack even this.
:Nevertheless, with some chemical characteristics in common with life, viral taxonomy is still useful even though viruses are non-living; Hence why a Domain Aphanobionta and viral orders (and perhaps even orders of [[prions]] and such) within it are useful concepts. So, as far as the Article goes, why not discuss prions and viroids right alongside viruses, when all three are what one might call ''pseudo''-life (together with a few other categories of molecular...entities...that I can't think of right now)? [[User:The Mysterious El Willstro|The Mysterious El Willstro]] ([[User talk:The Mysterious El Willstro|talk]]) 18:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

::Hello, I agree in that most biologists do not consider them living entities (myself included); some biologists though, think they are on the "edge of life" and therefore, the existence of this article. I'd be glad to change the name of this article to something like "organic replicators" if we want include prions, fosmids, cosmids, satellites, phagemids, transposons and such. Cheers, [[User:BatteryIncluded|BatteryIncluded]] ([[User talk:BatteryIncluded|talk]])
:::I'm also a biologist (I got my B.S. this past May). More to the point, all those things you just mentioned are acellular (they are too simple to be called cells by any means) and have pseudo-life character (they replicate, even if they do need a cell as a host). Both those things are in common with viruses, and I don't see why including them would require changing the Article's name. [[User:The Mysterious El Willstro|The Mysterious El Willstro]] ([[User talk:The Mysterious El Willstro|talk]]) 06:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


== Prions are smaller than viroids ==
::::Hello, nice to meet you. I think that using the words 'pseudo-life' to justify the inclusion of nucleic acid chains as entities is stretching the definition of life quite a bit. Unlike viruses, that list of nucleic acid structures are part of the normal cellular components of bacteria/yeast; moreover I have not seen any text/reference describing them as "non-cellular life." Cheers, [[User:BatteryIncluded|BatteryIncluded]] ([[User talk:BatteryIncluded|talk]]) 12:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::So, the qualification for inclusion is not being part of normal cellular machinery. Is that what you meant?
:::::A ''normal'' protein molecule is indeed part of normal cellular machinery, but once it is mutated to become a prion it would be somewhat misleading still to classify it as such. The same is true of other DNA/RNA "non-living parasites," molecules much more damaging than regular transposons; These molecules begin to resemble viruses vaguely although not in gross structure. [[User:The Mysterious El Willstro|The Mysterious El Willstro]] ([[User talk:The Mysterious El Willstro|talk]]) 18:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


"Viroids are the smallest infectious pathogens known to biologists". This statement in the entry is not factually correct. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1009:B164:FC49:E973:18F3:B83D:C21D|2600:1009:B164:FC49:E973:18F3:B83D:C21D]] ([[User talk:2600:1009:B164:FC49:E973:18F3:B83D:C21D|talk]]) 23:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
== Deletions ==
Deletions:
Virus & viroid are the only non-cellular "life" known so far.
Most listed entries were phage vectors (viruses) or nucleic acid fragments. Nucleic acids are not vested with life just because they may code information.[[User:BatteryIncluded|BatteryIncluded]] ([[User talk:BatteryIncluded|talk]]) 20:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


:As I see, this sentence has been remoed meanwhile. Nevertheless prions should be included, details can be found in the table provided at [[Kingdom (biology)#Comparison of top level classification]]. [[User:Ernsts|Ernsts]] ([[User talk:Ernsts|talk]]) 08:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
== Life? ==


== Theoretical/opinion-based article presented as factual - rampant problems and not scientifically grounded ==
Virusses are considered living beings and self replicating machines or self-replicating molecules aren't. This is said in the article and then a link to definition of life is given.


The entire basis of this article, to include the validity of its current title, is not accepted by the majority of the scientific community. This is even stated in one of the page's main sources, which directly states that it is ignoring academic discussion of the matter, runs contrary to commonly-accepted opinion, and is generally the personal opinion of its sole author (Trifonov, 2012).
Definition of life<br />


I have not analyzed the sources in detail, but those I did look at were of '''extremely''' poor quality. Single authors, anthropological preaching about what is fundamentally a scientific subject, etc. One even appears to now redirect to some kind of scam website?
1) homeostasis<br />
- viri don't have homeostasis<br />
- self replicating machines could have homeostasis, e.g. thermostats<br />
2) organisation<br />
-viri are not composed of one or more cells, but ok, this is what this article is about<br />
3) metabolism<br />
-viri don't have a metabolism<br />
-self replicating machines can have a metabolism (for example the use of ATP to get electric energy)<br />
4) growth<br />
-viri cannot grow<br />
-self replicating machines also don't grow<br />
5) adaptation<br />
-viri do change due to environmental effects (their genes mutate), so you could say that it is getting adapted.<br />
-self replicating machines don't adapt<br />
6) response to stimuli<br />
-viri respond to being attached to a host cell<br />
- self replicating machines can also response to stimuli <br />
7)reproduction<br />
-viri can't reproduce themselves. Host cells produce viri<br />
- self replicating machines can self-reproduce<br />


Given that the [[Cell theory|cell theory of life]] is accepted by the large majority of experts, the fundamental nature of this article is rejected by most scientific sources - ergo, most do not agree that there can be ''any'' non-cellular life. In this regard, '''I propose page deletion''' if no credible academic sources can be found to substantiate this page's continued existence (per reason 7 of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|Deletion policy]]). Not opinion articles, not single scientists making statements, an actual credible academic resource or organization that supports this page.
The score is 4 vs 2(or 3) for the self replicating machines. Why are we saying that virusses are living beings while saying that self replicating machines (for example) can't be? Or self replicating molecules? They change due to mutations, they respond to certain stimuli, like the presence of another protein and obviously they can self-reproduce.


If not deletion, massive rewrite will be necessary. [[User:Just-a-can-of-beans|Just-a-can-of-beans]] ([[User talk:Just-a-can-of-beans|talk]]) 04:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Also, (based on reference 5, mimivirus protein involved in translation) the mimivirus can't produce certain proteins that are involved in translation. The virus simply has genes that encode for those certain proteins that are involved in translation. It is still the host that produces the proteins, so it's not a very good argument for the hypothesis that viri have evolved from previous forms that where capable of producing proteins on their own. (because frankly any gene could get into the virus coat, providing it has the appropriate size)


:Agreed [[User:NomzEditingWikis|NomzEditingWikis]] ([[User talk:NomzEditingWikis|talk]]) 22:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
my conclusion is that I think the second line of the first paragraph should be removed. I also think the history section should be modified. I will not change anything for now. --[[User:Zaluzar|Zaluzar]] ([[User talk:Zaluzar|talk]]) 16:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
:I'm not a biologist. I'm a science fiction author, reading about this as background research for a book. But here's the problem with deleting the page.
:At least for non-biologists, when talking about life in total, we need a classification for things like viruses. If one pops up to the page about Domain (biology), there is a clear division between cellular life and "everything else". There absolutely needs to be a page to cover "everything else". We can't ignore viruses when talking about life, even if it's a page that starts out by saying, "biologists do not consider any non-cellular arrangement such as viruses 'life'" and then explain why not.
:If the page needs a rewrite or a replacement, and if you're qualified to start it -- then start it. Find better sources. Add an introductory paragraph talking about how viruses aren't consider life, but acknowledge any conflict. This is wikipedia -- we can all contribute. [[User:Jplflyer|Jplflyer]] ([[User talk:Jplflyer|talk]]) 18:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:Trifonov 2012 is only cited once on this page. This page has existed since 2006, and the Trifonov paper was added in 2017 in [[Special:Diff/762150981|this edit]], and there's a decent amount of text left from before. So, I don't agree that Trifonov's opinion dominates.
:I haven't checked all the other references, but on a cursory view they don't seem outright awful (aside from a couple). Articles from ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' and ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' are in there; not that those journals have never made mistakes, but the articles don't deserve to be summarily dismissed. You may be applying a standard that's impossible to meet. This isn't medicine, this is a fairly niche biology topic that, coming down to the definition of "life", is more philosophical than experimental.
:Are any of the cited articles from [[Wikipedia:Vanity and predatory publishing|predatory journals]] or otherwise unusable sources? [[User:Apocheir|Apocheir]] ([[User talk:Apocheir|talk]]) 23:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:42, 15 September 2024

Prions are smaller than viroids

[edit]

"Viroids are the smallest infectious pathogens known to biologists". This statement in the entry is not factually correct. 2600:1009:B164:FC49:E973:18F3:B83D:C21D (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I see, this sentence has been remoed meanwhile. Nevertheless prions should be included, details can be found in the table provided at Kingdom (biology)#Comparison of top level classification. Ernsts (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretical/opinion-based article presented as factual - rampant problems and not scientifically grounded

[edit]

The entire basis of this article, to include the validity of its current title, is not accepted by the majority of the scientific community. This is even stated in one of the page's main sources, which directly states that it is ignoring academic discussion of the matter, runs contrary to commonly-accepted opinion, and is generally the personal opinion of its sole author (Trifonov, 2012).

I have not analyzed the sources in detail, but those I did look at were of extremely poor quality. Single authors, anthropological preaching about what is fundamentally a scientific subject, etc. One even appears to now redirect to some kind of scam website?

Given that the cell theory of life is accepted by the large majority of experts, the fundamental nature of this article is rejected by most scientific sources - ergo, most do not agree that there can be any non-cellular life. In this regard, I propose page deletion if no credible academic sources can be found to substantiate this page's continued existence (per reason 7 of the Deletion policy). Not opinion articles, not single scientists making statements, an actual credible academic resource or organization that supports this page.

If not deletion, massive rewrite will be necessary. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed NomzEditingWikis (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a biologist. I'm a science fiction author, reading about this as background research for a book. But here's the problem with deleting the page.
At least for non-biologists, when talking about life in total, we need a classification for things like viruses. If one pops up to the page about Domain (biology), there is a clear division between cellular life and "everything else". There absolutely needs to be a page to cover "everything else". We can't ignore viruses when talking about life, even if it's a page that starts out by saying, "biologists do not consider any non-cellular arrangement such as viruses 'life'" and then explain why not.
If the page needs a rewrite or a replacement, and if you're qualified to start it -- then start it. Find better sources. Add an introductory paragraph talking about how viruses aren't consider life, but acknowledge any conflict. This is wikipedia -- we can all contribute. Jplflyer (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trifonov 2012 is only cited once on this page. This page has existed since 2006, and the Trifonov paper was added in 2017 in this edit, and there's a decent amount of text left from before. So, I don't agree that Trifonov's opinion dominates.
I haven't checked all the other references, but on a cursory view they don't seem outright awful (aside from a couple). Articles from Nature and Science are in there; not that those journals have never made mistakes, but the articles don't deserve to be summarily dismissed. You may be applying a standard that's impossible to meet. This isn't medicine, this is a fairly niche biology topic that, coming down to the definition of "life", is more philosophical than experimental.
Are any of the cited articles from predatory journals or otherwise unusable sources? Apocheir (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Non-cellular_life&oldid=1245935223"