Which characteristic of living things is important to the survival of the species rather than to the organism?
494082
Actually, the entire reproductive system, and all the processes and instincts and drives that go around them are only important to the survival of the species, and not the individual.\n\nAn individual organism can live quite well without using their reproductive system at all, and can even have major portions of it removed, without affecting the overall health of the organism.\n\nHowever, an individual that will not or cannot reproduce does not add anything to the overall survival capability or fitness of a species.\n\nIn many species (including quite a few humans) following the needs and drives of the reproductive system can have a major negative impact on the individual health of the organism, leaving them exhausted, vulnerable, taking up time that could be used obtaining food, or leading to behaviours and displays that can get them killed, but as long as their actions lead to the propagation of the species and successful reproduction, those traits survive to be passed on to the next generation.
459932
Granted "survival of the fittest" is a poor way to characterize natural selection. For one reason it's a bit circular in logic. It is also important to point out that what natural selection maximizes (optimizes really) is numbers of babies, not survival of the individual. Genes that lead to traits in individuals that cause them to have more offspring than individuals without those genes are more common in the next generation (=evolution). The logic of this, as you can see, is unassailable. So while being able to survive means you can live to have more children, it's really about having the children, not survival per se.\n\nAs to your other point (about individuals dying), as I said the individual doesn't matter for evolution, only how many offspring are produced (including their quality and when they are produced). So there is no inherent benefit to living longer unless it allows you to produce more offspring. In fact evolutionary theory has explained why we age and it is something of an inevitable fact of life unfortunately. Different organisms have different average longevities that have evolved based on that particular species' schedule of reproduction and mortality, but all organisms (sexual organisms) will inevitably age and die. The explanation for the evolution of ageing is a very elegant one and not hard to understand, but I won't go into it here. If you search the web using the terms "evolution senescence" you should find it if you are interested.
1174759
No. In order to be deemed "living" it must meet the following criteria:\n\n1) Require energy\n2) Made of cells\n3) Reproduce\n4) Display hereditary\n5) Respond to the environment\n6) Maintain homeostasis\n7) Evolve & Adapt
401290
Though considered nonliving they have some characteristics of living beings. They are composed of either DNA or RNA which is a biology subject. Besides they reproduce (though in living host cells) and also mutate. Also because they cause diseases.
789450
the increased viability might cause the species to be more prolific.  for example, if a mutation occurs that allows the organism to better defend itself against predators, then the mustated organism and its offspring will have a higher chance of survival than the others and thus reproduce more often.  this will cause the trait to spread.  another example that has the same effect is better adaptability to the environment.  if the organism developes a trait that helps attract mates, it will also have a higher chance of having offspring.\ntherefore, an organism with a benefitial mutation is more likely to survive and have offspring, although that does not necessarily mean being more prolific.
87833
Livings things have energy only because they aquire it from food. Using this energy they live, survive and do various tasks. When they die, what ever metabolic energy is left is used by the bacteria which decompose the body.
112604
Natural selection involves mechanisms such as competition or predation to kill off some members of a species, allowing members that have certain genetic traits that make them stronger or better-suited for survival, and those traits will be passed on to future generations of that species.
637632
For short lived creatures, the purpose of life is the propagation of the species. However, as relatively long lived sentient creatures, I believe that there is a deeper purpose to our lives than that of a mayfly. once the basic needs for survival and propagation of a species are satisfied, you're then able to appreciate the other things in life. This is something that humans have that other animals don't. Therefore, things like art, music, and literature which enrich are lives are the things that fill in the empty void in our souls after the needs to survive as been met.
820842
There are obvious cultural differences that exist between peoples, such as language, dress and traditions, there are also significant variations in the way societies organise themselves, in their shared conception of morality, and in the ways they interact with their environment. It is debatable whether these differences are merely incidental artefacts arising from patterns of human migration or whether they represent an evolutionary trait that is key to our success as a species. By analogy with biodiversity, which is thought to be essential to the long-term survival of life on earth, it can be argued that cultural diversity may be vital for the long-term survival of humanity; and that the conservation of indigenous cultures may be as important to humankind as the conservation of species and ecosystems is to life in general.
569475
Yes, because one of the characteristics of life is the ability to replicate, or reproduce, and they definitely do that.  Another is the ability to move freely and independently, and they also do that.  Check the website below for other information.
831468
An existing organism is born with certain genes.  Those genes determine how that organism will develop during its life.  Those genes cannot change ... there is no mechanism in life to alter the genes for the entire organism (individual cells yes ... e.g. cancer, but not the entire organism).\n\nSo even if that single organism lived for centuries (like a redwood tree), it cannot change (evolve) in ways not dictated by its genes.\n\nNew life (offspring) is a brand new set of genes ... a new mixture from each of its parents.  \n\nSo each offspring can be different from either one of its parents ... better or worse in some characteristics, or all characteristics, from either parent.\n\nSo over the entire group of individuals in a species ... you have many individuals with slight improvements over their parents.  Those will produce more offspring than those who have fewer improvements (or are slightly worse adapted) than their parents.\n\nThe result is evolution.  Many many tiny improvements in genes, over many many generations.  You cannot have that evolution, without the opportunity for new genes with every new life.
209985
In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is a living complex adaptive system of organs that influence each other in such a way that they function as a more or less stable whole.
765583
cell-tissue-organ-organ systems-organism (population)\nTissues are a group of specialized cells that perform a function. Organs are groups of specialized tissues that perform an even more complex function. Organ systems are groups of organs that perform a function in a series of complex, yet related steps. An organism is a body with  several organ systems necessary to maintain homeostasis. This can be extended to population which is several organisms existing together to survive (think food webs).\n\nUnicellular organisms do not have specialized cells. They have only one cell to perform all the functions it needs.
676046
The interaction between an organism and its enviroment is dynamic. It is impossible to separate the "nature" from the "nurture" because they are intertwined. Unfortunately, many people including scientists are too caught up in this false dichotomy.
979249
nope i dont think soo cuz non living factors cannot become living organisms.....but its jus a guess ok=)
380045
In animals and plants, cells are the smallest units that can be considered alive. Your body, like all human bodies, is a collection of many many cells. Nearly all cells have the same basic parts - a nucleus, which has DNA, and a cell membrane, which acts as sort of a skin for the cell, keeping insides in, and outsides out. \n\nCells are arranged together to form tissues, which in turn arrange together to form organs, which fit together to form systems (like the digestive system), which in turn all keep you as one functioning living being!\n\nMost cells in a large organism like plants and animals have specialized purposes as well - some are nerve cells, transmitting signals to and from the brain to the rest of the body, some are in your blood, carrying oxygen to the rest of the body, some form your skin, keeping you from getting infected from outside. \n\nCells have their own lifespans, and can reproduce and die.\nSometimes, a mutation happens in cells, and they don't follow their genetic instructions and might grow and reproduce abnormally -- this is what cancer is.
603093
any living thing by its interaction with the environment goes on accumulating toxins that ultimately result in death. Usually the animals with a high metabolic rate are the quicker to die, but they breed fast and can evolve faster, as there are many generations in a small time.\n\nall cells are genetically programmed to die. this time is different for different species