Quote from Obcidien

When you think about it in this way, at least in my opinion, it is plausible but not guaranteed.

No it's not.

Reproduction is a process where an organism uses its own genetic material to create a similar (or exact) copy of itself. This is what viruses do -- they're little more than the genetic material required to induce replication, and proteins which help it bind to a host, since it lacks the metabolic structures necessary to replicate itself.

That's not what zombies are doing when they're spreading an external pathogen through contact with other humans. By that logic you're "reproducing" if you have a cold and someone catches it from you. They're very different scenarios and the fact that they're (barely) superficially similar is meaningless.

Quote from Exilement

That's not what zombies are doing when they're spreading an external pathogen through contact with other humans. By that logic you're "reproducing" if you have a cold and someone catches it from you. They're very different scenarios and the fact that they're (barely) superficially similar is meaningless.

The way that I see it, when infected you become a zombie, right? You don't become anything from a cold, when you pass a cold on you're not reproducing, the cold is. When a zombie bites someone, the person bitten becomes another zombie. That is what I mean by the zombie reproducing, it increases it's "population" by forcing a host to mimic it's functions.

I did use a bad example I admit, but I do stand by my theory that zombies exist in the gray area.

I think virus are considered non living entities because of what Exilement said, they are more like an entity that interacts with the living. A virus itself is some kind of zombie

But I think there will never be any zombies in the future. I think the world will end by running out of supplies. Not a zombie apocalypse. And you spelled possible wrong :D.

First of all, how can you prove when a zombie bites a human, that human becomes a zombie?

And why would a scientist want to conquer the world? I see no point in it. And if so that happens surely God would send down someone to protect people. Or all the people would die, even the scientist and why would they obey him?

Quote from Pwner22

why would a scientist want to conquer the world?

Same reason anyone would want to conquer the world. I'm not touching the God comment.

I should also point out that there is an edit button for if you want to add more to your posts.

Quote from Pwner22

First of all, how can you prove when a zombie bites a human, that human becomes a zombie?

There is no proof, everything I've said has been my opinion, note:

Quote from Obcidien

The way that I see it

I did use a bad example I admit, but I do stand by my theory that zombies exist in the gray area.

Also:

Quote from Pwner22

But I think there will never be any zombies in the future. I think the world will end by running out of supplies. Not a zombie apocalypse. And you spelled possible wrong :D.

I wasn't trying to spell possible, I was spelling the word Plausible which means believable and appearing likely to be true, usually in the absence of proof.

Just like Obcidien said. In my theory, zombies don't exactly have to be the kind we see in Resident Evil, no. Sure they will have some mental disability like common sense and the lack of judgement.
Rising the dead sure seems impossible 'now'. But lets not forget that it is a possiblity in the future. Zombie apocalypse is plausible!

Quote from Obcidien

That is what I mean by the zombie reproducing, it increases it's "population" by forcing a host to mimic it's functions.

Right, I get it. Viruses do something vaguely similar through an entirely different process. I'm not really sure how that applies to the potential for zombies to exist.

Quote from Obcidien

I did use a bad example I admit, but I do stand by my theory that zombies exist in the gray area.

-__-

That doesn't even mean anything. What gray area?

Quote from Fusion

That doesn't even mean anything. What gray area?

The gray area is an in-between zone for a living being and a nonliving being. Such as viruses, which are neither living nor non-living.

If you know anything about biology, you would know that your "gray area" is something that you came up based on an assumption. Viruses are non-living.

Why?
.They don't carry out cellular respiration
.They have no proper cell organelles
.Cannot reproduce independently
.Do not respond to stimuli

They go against the criteria for something to be considered living.

Quote from Obcidien

The gray area is an in-between zone for a living being and a nonliving being. Such as viruses, which are neither living nor non-living.

It doesn't exist. Something either fulfills the defined characteristics of life, or it doesn't.

Quote from Envoy

If you know anything about biology, you would know that your "gray area" is something that you came up based on an assumption. Viruses are non-living.

Why?
.They don't carry out cellular respiration
.They have no proper cell organelles
.Cannot reproduce independently
.Do not respond to stimuli

They go against the criteria for something to be considered living.

Ahem, please don't insult my intelligence, I know what a virus is, and I know the requirements to be classified as life. If you knew something about biology you would know that I'm not the only person to believe that they exist in-between living and nonliving, nor am I the most experienced in biology. The theory that they exist in a grey area is not based on an assumption, but years of research by experienced biologists.

Reproduce
Obtain and use energy
Grow, develop, and die
Respond to the environment

These are a few of the requirements of life, now lets see how viruses fit into these.

Viruses are capable of reproducing, individually? no, they need a host cell to inject their genetic material and cause the cell to manufacture virus parts, the parts are then assembled and replicated until the cell can on longer contain them and ruptures.

Obtain and use energy, a virus itself doesn't need food or energy because it is not a cell, instead it provides that energy to the host cell in order to keep that cell capable of reproducing copies of itself.

Grow, develop, and die, when a virus injects its DNA into the host cell, the hosts functions are taken over and begin to replicate that DNA, and the other pieces that ultimately make up the whole virus, and while they do nothing inside of their protein shell, many scientists argue that viruses do their growing inside of the cell.

React to the environment, you are wrong here as well, viruses do react to the environment. Viruses are constantly evolving so that they can better increase their chances of survival (The need for survival also travels back to the last point, proving that viruses do indeed die) and adapt to the environment. This is why it's so hard to "Cure" a virus, because it is constantly changing it's genetic make-up. Like bacteria, they evolve through genetic mutations due to rapid reproduction (There's another one).

If you want to argue with years of research then be my guest.

Quote from Fusion

It doesn't exist. Something either fulfills the defined characteristics of life, or it doesn't.

Not necessarily true