[TheRealPomax]

The statement "There are fundamental differences between viruses and vesicles: Viruses can replicate and vesicles cannot" seems either paraphrased or dumbed down. Viruses can be replicated by cells, but they certainly cannot themselves replicate. And it's literally that kind of nitpicking that keeps science on track.

[mannykannot]

The distinction, I think, is the matter of where the genome resides. Viruses have their own genome; they need to hijack the mechanisms of cells to reproduce, but it is their genome that is being replicated and disseminated. For a vesicle, however, it seems that the genetic instructions for creating them are part of the cell's genome, and those instructions do not get copied into the vesicle (at least, not in a form that can get itself replicated) even in the case of vesicles containing some RNA.

I would think that even if there was a form of bacterial sex that involved using vesicles as the medium for exchanging genetic material, that would not necessarily be virus-like unless the genetic material being transferred was capable of promoting the creation of vesicles containing copies of itself by the receiving bacterium. I don't know if that case would be distinguishable from a virus.

[TheRealPomax]

I know, I was pointing out that the phrasing "viruses can replicate" is incorrect in every sense of that active verb "to replicated". They can be replicated, and there is a non-trivial difference between those two descriptions that matter to this scientific explanation.

[random314]

Really? If you don't have anything to contribute to a discussion, please don't drum up noise. Splitting hairs over whether a virus replicates or is replicated is just spamming the forum!

I understand that with a wide enough audience, attention seekers will make some noise about some minutae they know that isn't relevant to the discussion. Don't be THAT guy.

[pishpash]

There is a theory called viral eukaryogenesis and it's very much linked to meiosis.

[random314]

> And it's literally that kind of nitpicking that keeps science on track.

I don't want to be nitpicking, but can you provide citations? How has nitpicking on popular science articles kept science on track?

[daveguy]

Well, nitpicking on journal articles is how we do peer review. I'm not sure that needs a reference.

[random314]

This is a popular science article, not a journal publication. This is also the first time I have heard of the peer review process being described as "nitpicking". Is this a new thing? Kind of hilarious! I want citations!

[daveguy]

Would the word "meticulous" make you feel better?

I expect that is a better term. Nitpick implies unimportant, unnecessary finding of fault for the purpose of finding fault. Meticulous implies attention to detail and precision. They look the same after you submit your document for review.

[random314]

Meticulous review of journal submissions is one thing. What the parent comment is doing is something entirely different. It is nitpicking on a statement in a popular science article that states that viruses replicate. Nitpicking on this is just showboating.

Does this explanation make you think better?

> And it's literally that kind of nitpicking that keeps science on track.

Yeah, no!!

[daveguy]

>> And it's literally that kind of nitpicking that keeps science on track.

> Yeah, no!!

It looks like you are confusing the posts from two different people and repeating yourself. What you quoted was from TheRealPomax. I am a different person, and you already responded to that once.

> Does this explanation make you think better?

My thinking is perfectly fine, but thank you for your concern.

It has been a pleasure.