So using visible movement as the defining characterstic of life is not enough. Movements over very small scales will be invisible to the naked eye-movements of molecules, for example. Is this invisible molecular movements necessary for life If we ask this question to professional biologists, they well say yes In fact viruses do not show any molecular movement necessary for life if we ask this question to professional movement in them and that is partly why there is a controversy about whether they are truly alive or not why are molecular movements needed for life we have seen in earlier classes that living organisms are well organised structures they can have tissues tissues have cells cells have smaller components in them and so on Because of the effects of the environment this organised ordered nature of living structures is very likely to keep breaking down over time. If order breaks down, the organism will no longer be alive so living creatures must keep repairing and maintaining their structures Since all these structures are made up of molecules, they must move molecules around all the tome. How so we tell the difference between what is alive and what is not alive If we see a dog running or a cow chewing cud or a man shouting loudly on the street, we know that these are living beings what if the dog or the cow or the man were asleep? We would still think that they were alive But a plant that is not visibly growing is still alive, and some animals can breathe without visible movement. but how did we know that We see them breathing, and we know that they are alive what about plants how do we know that they are alive we see them green some of us well say. But what about plants that have leaves of colour other than green? we see them are alive some will say. In other words we tend to think of some sort of movement, either growth related or not as common evidence for being alive.