If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Real Clear Science)   Jumbo viruses may be new type of life, oxymoron   (realclearscience.com) divider line 18
    More: Interesting, clues, light microscopes, animals and plants, microorganisms, CNRS, eukaryotes, Cell Biology, amoebas  
•       •       •

1355 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Jul 2013 at 12:19 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



18 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-19 12:19:51 PM
Or call them American viruses.
 
2013-07-19 12:21:29 PM
images.vector-images.com

/just quoting GC
 
2013-07-19 12:23:03 PM
Didn't Stephen Hawking already declare this over a decade ago? DNRTFA
 
2013-07-19 12:27:58 PM
Kind of like "jumbo shrimp".

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-07-19 12:51:28 PM
Definition of virus is based on size (diameter in nm)

Article contains only references to size (number of dna base pairs) but says nothing about the physical size.

oxymoron not detected in the currently available article
 
2013-07-19 12:52:41 PM
So I was under the impression that viruses were maybe not alive because they can't reproduce on their own, like prions. So I DRTFA but has that changed?
 
2013-07-19 01:09:30 PM
Cool, I just saw World War Z.
 
2013-07-19 01:49:23 PM

Poopy MacPoop: So I was under the impression that viruses were maybe not alive because they can't reproduce on their own, like prions. So I DRTFA but has that changed?


No, nothing in the article sounded new.  The "tree of life" diagrams I have seen list viruses after the three recognized domains, with a question mark because it is debatable whether they qualify as "alive".  The article contained nothing to change this picture, but called them a "fourth domain of life" anyway.
 
2013-07-19 02:04:05 PM

lordargent: Definition of virus is based on size (diameter in nm)

Article contains only references to size (number of dna base pairs) but says nothing about the physical size.

oxymoron not detected in the currently available article


Well technically, shrimp aren't defined by size either.
 
2013-07-19 02:04:35 PM
images4.wikia.nocookie.net

It's been done already...
 
2013-07-19 04:51:05 PM
Arkanaut: Well technically, shrimp aren't defined by size either.

One of the definitions of "Shrimp" means small.

"2. Informal. a diminutive or insignificant person. "

So jumbo shrimp is an oxymoron, when dealing with that definition.

"Virus" OTOH, is not a synonym for small.

// and technically, even if they did give us the size and the size was larger than the traditional definition, it would still not be an oxymoron since "virus" doesn't have a single size related definition.
 
2013-07-19 05:06:47 PM

Poopy MacPoop: So I was under the impression that viruses were maybe not alive because they can't reproduce on their own, like prions. So I DRTFA but has that changed?


They don't eat anything or use energy, which I think is a qualification of life.
 
2013-07-19 05:41:33 PM

lordargent: Article contains only references to size (number of dna base pairs) but says nothing about the physical size.

-------
Both of the new viruses are so massive that they can be seen using a traditional light microscope. Their genomes are also super-sized: the genome of P. salinus is 1.91 million DNA bases long, while that of P. dulcis is 2.47 million DNA bases. For comparison, the size of the previous viral genome record holder, Megavirus chilensis, is 1.18 million bases.
 
2013-07-19 06:43:50 PM
RaisingKane: Both of the new viruses are so massive that they can be seen using a traditional light microscope.

On, not quite "nothing" but nothing useful.

IE, what's the diameter of one of these.
 
2013-07-19 07:07:23 PM
 

lordargent: Definition of virus is based on size (diameter in nm)

Article contains only references to size (number of dna base pairs) but says nothing about the physical size.

oxymoron not detected in the currently available article



lordargent: On, not quite "nothing" but nothing useful.

IE, what's the diameter of one of these.


They're about 1 micrometer (1000 nanometers), a little more than twice the size of the previous record holder, and about half the size of an E. Coli. bacterium.
 
2013-07-19 07:16:31 PM

Poopy MacPoop: So I was under the impression that viruses were maybe not alive because they can't reproduce on their own, like prions. So I DRTFA but has that changed?


They also don't take in energy, or produce waste.  They just float around until they encounter something which they can chemically bond to.
 
2013-07-19 07:57:31 PM
LrdPhoenix : They're about 1 micrometer (1000 nanometers), a little more than twice the size of the previous record holder, and about half the size of an E. Coli. bacterium.

That's nice, and I'm fully capable of looking that information up myself.

I'm just saying, that's the sort of stuff that should be in the article.

* sigh *

The whole point of my post is that submitter's headline sucks, ok.
 
2013-07-20 08:32:43 PM
So now the fatties have a microbiological excuse?
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report