If were using size as a defining criterion, why are viruses not the building blocks of life?
-
Though viruses contain genetic information and are able to react to certain stimuli, they lack the capacity to reproduce themselves, failing to meet one of the important qualifications of life to begin with.
Furthermore, I'm doubtful that viruses could appropriately be called the "building blocks" of anything, as they do not function cooperatively to form tissues or organs.
If I was to suggest an alternative to the cell as the fundamental unit of life, I might give the honor to protein or DNA. Though neither of these are themselves living, they are far smaller than viruses or living cells and are among the unique components that decisively differentiate the same from inanimate objects.
Regardless, viruses are intensely interesting and will remain an important area of research, due (obviously) to their profound effects on humans and other organisms.
Furthermore, I'm doubtful that viruses could appropriately be called the "building blocks" of anything, as they do not function cooperatively to form tissues or organs.
If I was to suggest an alternative to the cell as the fundamental unit of life, I might give the honor to protein or DNA. Though neither of these are themselves living, they are far smaller than viruses or living cells and are among the unique components that decisively differentiate the same from inanimate objects.
Regardless, viruses are intensely interesting and will remain an important area of research, due (obviously) to their profound effects on humans and other organisms.