Cierra C.

asked • 08/21/13

Is Ebola Alive or Not alive? And why?? NEED HELP!

to tell whether the following are alive or not and why

(a)roses

(b)Tasmanian Devil

(c) Necrotizing Fasciitis

(d)Euglena

(e)Mad Cow Disease

(f)Ebola

 

YOUR HELP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WOULD BE GREAT (:

4 Answers By Expert Tutors

By:

Meagan W. answered • 08/21/13

Tutor
5.0 (24)

Biology, Mathematics and Statistics Tutoring

See tutors like this
See tutors like this

Ebola is not alive because it is a virus.  The definition of a living organism is something that is capable of metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli and reproduction. Viruses need host cells to replicate.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Best,

Upvote • 2 Downvote
More
Report

Cierra C.

That did help thank you very much if it's possible I need help to answer these to if they are Alive or Not and Why

 

(a)roses

(b)Tasmanian Devil

(c) Necrotizing Fasciitis

(d)Euglena

(e)Mad Cow Disease

Report

08/21/13

Meagan W.

The goal in this problem is to help you identify what it means to be alive. Try answering these questions for each category: Can it metabolize? Can it grow? Can it reproduce? 

Roses, for instance, are alive because they are capable of all the qualities needed to be considered alive.

The Tasmanian Devil is alive. (Unless, of course, he is struck by an ACME product. hehe, just a joke.)

Necrotizing Fasciitis is a bacterial infection of the skin that causes flesh to decay. Bacteria are considered alive.

NOTE: Bacteria are different from viruses because they are able to reproduce without a host cell.

Now that I've done a few examples, try the other two and I'll help you check your answers.

Report

08/21/13

Erin S. answered • 09/22/13

Tutor
New to Wyzant

Nerd Services, Inc.

See tutors like this
See tutors like this
There are four rules which must be met for something to be considered a living organism:
1. An organism grows by using nutrients through metabolism
2. An organism is able to reproduce
3. An organism responds to stimuli (these can be chemical stimulus in the case of single celled organisms)
4. An organism adapts to its environment through successive generations
 
Ebola is a virus; though a viruses meet three of these requirements, they do not have a metabolism and are therefore not considered alive. 
Upvote • 1 Downvote
More
Report

Eric V. answered • 08/22/13

Tutor
5 (12)

Bilingual English Tutor Specializing in Reading and Test Prep

See tutors like this
See tutors like this

I would agree with some of the other posts, and argue that, if something is capable of growing, and then is capable of reproducing, such as roses, the Tasmanian Devil, and Necrotizing Fascitis then it should be considered alive.  As for the other two, (d) and (e), if you apply my definition to them, I think you will see that they are alive as well. 

Upvote • 1 Downvote
More
Report

Heng X.

tutor

Fascinating discussion!

I was reading The Hot Zone and thinking about Ebola. To define something as alive, to me, it should have the capability to die: maybe stopping metabolism as an individual, or some other standard. The horrible truth of Ebola and other viruses is that they do not die, therefore they should not be considered alive either.

Mad Cow Disease is a condition, not a substance, therefore it should not be described as  alive or dead. 

Report

08/22/13

Meagan W.

Viruses are interesting things. Most viruses can be "killed" (eliminated) from the body through an immune response. The reason Ebola is considered high-risk is because of the rate of infection. Although, there are other viruses such as Herpes which are able to lye dormant in the body without causing an immune response. This allows them to stay in the body indeterminately.

Technically, viruses are able to be removed or deactivated or die, in a manner of speaking, without actually being considered alive.

Pretty crazy =]

Report

08/22/13

Heng X.

tutor

Thank you Meagan! In your sense, the death of a virus is its inactivation. I agree with you that a virus Can be killed that way. It is pretty crazy indeed, leaving it to Biology....

Best,

Report

08/23/13

Kyle L.

As stated by Heng "Mad Cow Disease is a condition, not a substance, therefore it should not be described as alive or dead" for the same reason Necrotizing Fasciitis cannot be categorized as alive or dead.

Mad Cow Disease is caused by an infectious protein (prion) while Necrotizing Fasciitis is caused by an invasive Streptococcus or other bacteria. If the causative agent were given for these conditions the prion would not be living, but the bacteria causing the flesh-eating infection would be alive.
Report

01/19/14

Eugene M. answered • 08/25/13

Tutor
5 (28)

Biology Tutor Available
About this tutor ›
About this tutor ›

Ebola is a virus - it is technically not a living thing since it contains no cells.  A virus is simply a strand of genetic material surrounded by a capsid - a protein coat.  Mad Cow disease is caused by something called a prion - or a mis-folded protein that affects brain and spinal cord tissue.  Again - these contain no cells so it is caused by a non-living thing.  In biology something that is dead or dying is still considered a "living" thing.  One of the first concepts I teach my students each year is the difference between something that is "non-living" and something that is dead. A "non-living" thing is something that biologists don't study such as rocks, metals, etc.

Upvote • 0 Downvote
More
Report

Still looking for help? Get the right answer, fast.

Ask a question for free

Get a free answer to a quick problem.
Most questions answered within 4 hours.

OR

Find an Online Tutor Now

Choose an expert and meet online. No packages or subscriptions, pay only for the time you need.