I can't comment on only abstracts, but the opinion piece in MY opinion is incredibly weak.
For example, one of the first arguments is that viruses don't evolve. If this were true then it would refute my argument, but it turns out that not evolving somehow equates to needing cells to evolve to this author.
They are of course not equivalent statements. If something needs cells to evolve then it of course evolves. It just evolves differently than organisms made up of cells.
Another argument is that viruses don't fit neatly on a tree of life. This is so weak it really needs no refutation. If it doesn't fit into some tree then it is the kind of life that doesn't fit into a tree of life.
Ultimately this is all these arguments amount to. Viral life is different from life made up of cells.
And all this author does is take every difference and conclude that since it is different from cellular life it isn't really life.
This is no argument. Being a different kind of life does not mean viruses are not living.
They invade. They take over cellular machinery and use it to their ends. They evolve and respond to changing environments.
They are alive.
