Mystery of the Virus

Richard Aberdeen
7 min readMay 27, 2023
Mystery of the Virus
Mystery of the Virus — CDC — Pexels

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica article “Virus”, science knows almost nothing about viruses compared to what there is yet to learn. This is true even though viruses are the majority living entity on earth (a virus is not properly classified as an “organism” and thus, some scientists say it isn’t properly called a living thing, while others disagree).

Viruses are not necessarily harmful to host organisms and may be overall more beneficial than harmful. Based on various information contained in a recent video on the science of viruses, even though the video itself did not conclude this, it may be true that all of life on earth began as something like a virus or pre-virus and adapted and changed over time from that level.

A virus is essentially a little ball or cylinder of DNA, while some containing a single strand of RNA only. Life may have began as something like a virus or pre-virus at a biological root level and, life in such a form may have arrived on earth already living, deposited by space rocks and numbering in the “zillions”. As such, life may well have arisen from all over the earth and, be complexly cross-integrated at root levels, rather than arising from a singular source in the ocean as standard evolutionary models have long assumed.

It is currently generally believed viruses evolved after host cells rather than the other way around, but this is not conclusive because some viruses consist of a single RNA strand and contain no DNA. One current evolutionary theory is that DNA evolved from RNA to allow for more complexity and thus, RNA viruses may have appeared prior to an existing host.

One might contend they appeared at the same time because as far as is known, a virus cannot reproduce without a host, but such a conclusion is irrational if one “evolved” from the other. A scientist can’t fairly have it both ways any more than a conservative religionist can.

Viruses are so prevalent in all living things, it may be impossible to separate the rest of life from viruses at any kind of legitimate scientific physical (non-atomic) root level. Thus, the true origins of life even on earth may always remain an unsolvable mystery. And if it exists elsewhere in the universe, how, when, where and why life first came into being will likely long remain far beyond human science understanding.

If life can arise from a type of virus-like pre-organism or pre-virus, then it may well have arrived already living on “space rocks” as some scientists believe. Thus, the standard evolutionary “tree” model of singular origination at best, remains only one of several plausible scenarios. And the larger truth is that modern scientists plainly do not know, nor does human science today have any way of knowing with any verifiable certainty either how, where, when or why life came into existence.

First, consider that true biological root levels trace far deeper than traditional molecular science into the poorly understood realm of quantum biology. Then consider the overwhelming molecular complexity and much smaller atomic and sub-atomic parts which make up what constitutes a virus and even what constitutes RNA within a virus. And then, consider how or why sub-atomic parts either could or would somehow magically “self-design” into a strand of RNA and/or DNA, something astronomically overwhelmingly completely and entirely, mathematically absurdly irrational (see link at end of article).

Then consider modern science doesn’t really know how RNA, DNA and viruses came to be, if or how an RNA virus could exist without a DNA host or how DNA could exist without first evolving from RNA or, how RNA could exist independently of the existence of DNA. And finally, consider that none of this really matters towards understanding the true origins of life, if life exists beyond earth even within only our own solar system. It also is known, based on modern research, that viruses, archaea and bacteria are spread across “super-kingdoms of life”, making the standard Darwinian model far less-likely to be accurate.

As one can begin to grasp, life arising on earth from “zillions of original similar or identical organisms, possibly arriving in already living form deposited by “space-rocks”, may be irreducibly inter-entwined and complexly overlaid and inter-mixed beyond all hope of legitimate research separation, rather than what would by comparison be, the simplistic Darwinian “tree-model” of evolution. Consider this simplistic model probably in large part, continues to exist solely because certain ‘scientists’ refuse to accept the astronomically overwhelming evidence that their atheistic driven assumptions are fundamentally wrong.

Some hard-core Darwinian biologists today continue to insist, in spite of significant modern 21st Century evidence indicating life is probably abundant in the universe, that life somehow, in some inexplicable random “totally by chance” incredibly rare coincidental mystical fashion, magically “self-designed” from scratch on earth from a singular origination point in the ocean, practicing the worst kind of non-evidence-based junk ‘science’ imaginable.

No small wonder these are some of the same scientists who were so greatly in error regarding so-called “junk” DNA. Many and probably most scientists today refer to this formerly assumed left over evolutionary “junk” as “Non-Coding DNA”, much of which is known to have a legitimate function and purpose, while it is suspected that golly gee whiz, just perhaps ALL of our DNA has a reason for being in our bodies, just as all of our physical organs and other parts have a known reason for being included in our bodies.

Perhaps such ‘scientists’ should be reminded that most humans eventually grow up and cease believing in mysticism and magic or otherwise, cease hiding behind the most irrational “spaghetti monster” apples and oranges comparison known to humanity. Maybe a book editor should have pointed out that while God is primarily defined today as Creator of the universe, very few if any of us believe the spaghetti monster created much of anything. And thus, to compare the two as Richard Dawkins does, represents a total and complete direct violation of basic logic 1-A.

If the emergence of life were truly explainable by modern science, there would only be one single universal general consensus theory of abiogenesis, rather than the huge pile of spontaneous generation trash heap contradiction currently pretending to be a legitimate part of science. Abiogenesis, which is nothing more than an “ivory tower”-cloaked term for spontaneous generation, currently consists of a great many different often contradicting theories in the plural.

Whenever several contradicting theories exist, it is a safe bet that in reality, SCIENCE DOESN’T KNOW. While it remains a very safe bet that much of what is considered “rock solid” science today, will soon be gone with the cruel winds and shifting sands of newly revealed evidence of a generation or two down the road.

As already noted, it is known today (and was completely unknown to Darwin) that both viruses, archaea and bacteria are spread throughout the living world as standard evolutionary models insist they cannot be, cross-integrated across vast superkingdoms of life. Virtually all of science historically moves from simple to more complexity as more evidence is discovered, rather than from complex to simple.

Just as a former comparatively simplistic view of a very large flat earth with a much smaller sun, even smaller moon and tiny stars fixed in a relatively tiny heavens, has gradually given way to the overwhelming complexity of the micro and macro grand design universal reality known to exist here in the 21st Century. And we can at best, only vaguely imagine how quaint and simplistic what is proudly called “cutting edge science” today, may appear to someone with a high school diploma living in the 22nd Century.

Is it really true that all of life might be much more complexly crisscrossed and irreducibly inter-entwined and cross-integrated than either religious fundamentalists or evolutionary biologists dare to consider? Is it true that life came forth in abundance first in the ocean and later on land, rather than from a singular origination point, as the Bible seems to indicate? Is the universal reality created by the Grand Universal Designer logically simple enough in functionality, to be adequately explainable in human language, even in enough thick encyclopedic volumes to fill a trillion libraries? Who among us here on earth knows?

In an interview with G.S.Viereck, Albert Einstein says: “I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”

And Einstein writes in a letter to Guy Raner Jr.,” I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being.” Perhaps it would be in the best interest of modern science, education and reason, if scientists today were a little more honest and humble like Einstein and, a little less like certain militant atheists, who can say for sure?

The reality of how life actually functions, changes and adapts in the real world is so overwhelmingly irreducibly complex, it may be irrational to pretend science can ever have a complete legitimate theory of either life origins or biological functionality. Problems begin at the root sub-atomic (quantum) level, where virtually nothing behaves according to any “macro world” theory. As such, the great mystery of life remains a very great enigma, reaching far beyond the ability of human science to perhaps ever fully resolve.

Probability of a Single Protein Randomly Forming