[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.