Viruses: Created, Evolved, or Both?

[Data]

I'm somewhat more conversant on the subject than evolution and I thought this was an interesting question from an atheist vs theist perspective. Did God create viruses or did they evolve. My position is both. God created them and in the microevolutionary sense they evolved.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #58]

So you're claiming that in a market economy, dollars are smart. Are you very sure of that? You keep colliding with the phenomenon of emergent properties.

No. I'm saying that mind is a real substantial thing, not merely an emergent property.

Your evidence for your assertion that mind is a substance is...?

Intelligence and mind are not the same thing. Minds are intelligent but they are other things as well.

So, absent intelligence, you're asserting there is no mind?
I already told you that the brain is inadequate by itself to explain mind.[/quote]

But you are saying mind is dependent on the brain and its abilities.

No. For example, God has no brain. But He has a mind.

You say you believe God.

Do you say you believe in God?

So how did God create matter?

He didn't say.

So, mind precedes matter. It is an independent entity.

You've already asserted that mind is substantial. If so, it can't precede matter.

And yet, God can take dirt and make sentient beings.

Sentience requires mind/spirit. Matter is created by mind, not vise versa.

And as you learned, environment is more important than genes in determining intelligence and behavior in humans.

Minds are already intelligent at birth but the mind must grow into the human pattern before it can express intelligence in human terms.

And yet, environment is a greater determinant of intelligence than genes.

I'm saying mind is substantial.

If so, then it can't precede matter.

Now if you're still convinced that humans are only matter, that's a problem. But not for those of us who see humans as more than matter.

I'm not convinced they are only matter, I'm saying the 'more than' is substantial, not merely emergent.

Perhaps "substantial" is not the word you want. It implies matter. And it's wrong to suppose that some thing that is emergent is "merely emergent."

Occasionally a human is born without a brain. Can you show that they have a mind?

If it is alive it has a mind.

I know you think so. I'm asking you if you can provide evidence for your assumption.

But if there is no brain mind cannot enter the human theatre and become evident to the senses.

And your evidence for this is...?

But a key requires an agent to physically employ it, while genes don't require someone to use genes to make intelligence. I would have thought that this would be obvious.

But genes do require a living mind to help in creating a brain.

Show us your evidence for that.

The brain, nervous system, body are a physical analogue of mind.

Is a neuron a physical analogue of mind? How about a ganglion? How about the nervous system of a planarian? Which of these, and why?

[mgb]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #61]

Your evidence for your assertion that mind is a substance is...?

By 'substance' I mean mind is a positive existence, not just a process or abstract property of matter.
Well, it began with God's Mind. Surely that is a positive existence - a non physical substance?
My evidence is in the form of arguments I'm putting forward here.

So, absent intelligence, you're asserting there is no mind?
I already told you that the brain is inadequate by itself to explain mind.

No. I am saying that mind is not simply intelligence. It is being, life, emotion.
The traditional word is 'spirit'. Spirit has a mind. Or is a mind. Minds create art,
but art is about emotion as well as intelligence so mind is also concerned with emotion.

Do you say you believe in God?

Yes.

You've already asserted that mind is substantial. If so, it can't precede matter.

Matter is not the only substance. By substance I mean a reality that is not merely an abstraction.
God is substantial, right?

And yet, environment is a greater determinant of intelligence than genes.

Meh...you are saying environment 'determines' intelligence. That is too vague.
The environment nourishes the mind and brings its intelligence into human focus.
The mind is already intelligent but it must learn how to be human once it is born into human life.

Now if you're still convinced that humans are only matter, that's a problem. But not for those of us who see humans as more than matter.

Humans are more than matter. They are living minds that are attached to the physical world through the body. The body is the mind's interface with the physical world.

I know you think so. I'm asking you if you can provide evidence for your assumption. [that life requires mind]

Soul, spirit, mind, being, life are different words for the same thing. They don't need to be physical to be what they are.

In the beginning there is existence. This existence is indentical with God. It is not that God exists; God is existence. They are the same thing.
Existence is that which is and always has been. Through creation existence becomes being (here I am equating being with life and sentience.). So existence evolves into being and God becomes the living God. The essential question in the religious debate about God's existence is this: Is existence deliberately evolving into being? Is it a conscious process? If it is existence is what we normally mean when we say 'God'.

Show us your evidence for that.[that genes require a mind to take part in creating a brain]

Well, the process is obviously intelligent.

Is a neuron a physical analogue of mind? How about a ganglion? How about the nervous system of a planarian? Which of these, and why?

If you can tell me if these things are sentient, conscious, I will be able to tell you.

[marke]

I'm somewhat more conversant on the subject than evolution and I thought this was an interesting question from an atheist vs theist perspective. Did God create viruses or did they evolve. My position is both. God created them and in the microevolutionary sense they evolved.

Marke: I assume sicknesses entered the world as a by-product of sin when Adam sinned in the garden. I hardly think evolutionists would believe sicknesses and death were introduced to life by natural selection or some other atheistic process.

[Clownboat]

Humans are more than matter.

My experience tells me that humans are only matter. Therefore I must ask, what have we detected in humans beyond matter for you to make such a claim?

If your claim is true, I want to know more. If you are simply stating a religious belief you happen to hold, you should frame it as such.

[mgb]

Humans are more than matter.

My experience tells me that humans are only matter. Therefore I must ask, what have we detected in humans beyond matter for you to make such a claim?
If your claim is true, I want to know more. If you are simply stating a religious belief you happen to hold, you should frame it as such.

First off, I believe in evolution, but I don't think scientists really understand it. They have a theory and the theory points in the right direction in some ways but they are a long long way off from substantially understanding evolution. Why? Lots of reasons. Mainly because, for me, the scientific consensus asks for far too much suspension of disbelief. We are being asked (by some scientists) to believe that a collection of molecules can be a person (Barbarian's observations re. environmental factors notwithstanding). Think about what you are being asked to believe; A person is a molecular construction. And this construction of molecules can produce works of art: the Sistine chapel frescoes, Mozart's music, great literature etc. Do you seriously believe that collections of molecules can do these things? Did you ever really think deeply about it? And what is involved in great human affairs?

I mentioned literature, a subject that deals with very deep aspects of human reality (Nietzsche for example). First of all there is depth in human affairs. That fact alone is asking how molecules could create such depth in the first place - how they can constitute the sublime. How?
And not only that. Your theory would have us believe that molecules know profound things. We know the profound depth of human affairs. We know the sublime - whatever you consider it to be. To my mind these things are not an accidental combination of molecules + emergent properties etc. An explanation of the depth and richness of human affairs requires a more spiritual explanation. For me it does.

[A Freeman]

The following excerpt is from:

The Misconception called Virus
Measles as an example

by Stefan Lanka
(boldfaced emphasis added)

Contrary to what most people believe, there are no pathogenic viruses. The claims about the existence of viruses and viral diseases are based on historic misinterpretations and not as I thought in the past - on fraud or deliberate deception. We now have new better, in the positive meaning “scientific” discoveries and explanations for the origin, therapy and prevention not just of “viral” diseases.

The phenomenon of simultaneous or subsequent appearance of symptoms in different persons, which has been until now interpreted as contagion and was believed to be caused by the transmission of pathogens, is now also easy to understand through new discoveries. Thus, we now have a new view of life (which in reality is an old view) and of the cosmological integration of biological processes.

The “new”, rather re-discovered perspective could only originate outside of the official “science”; one of the reasons for this is that the people involved in scientific institutions do not fulfil their first and most important scientific duty - to permanently doubt and double-check every theory. Otherwise, they would have already discovered that the misinterpretation had been taking place for a long time already and had become a dogma only by extremely unscientific activities in the years 1858, 1953 and 1954.

The transition to a new explanation of health, disease and healing will only succeed because all the concerned therapists and scientists can save face with it. From history and the new perspective on biology and life, we now also have explanations for the emotions, the ignorance and all kinds of human behaviour. This is the second optimistic message. Coming out of a dead end and forgiving the errors of the past can take place even more effectively, the more one understands what happened and learns for the future.

I know that for all the people directly involved, such as doctors, virologists, health care professionals, and above all for the people affected by the system, who suffer under misdiagnoses or who have even lost relatives on account of it, it may be difficult to intellectually accept the explanation of reality that I will offer in this article. In order that the germ theory doesn’t develop into a dangerous momentum, as was the case with AIDS, BSE, SARS, MERS, Corona and various other animal flu cases, or even lead to a public order breakdown, I am politely asking all the people who are discovering just now the facts about the “non-existence” of the alleged viruses to discuss the topic in an objective and unemotional manner.

The current situation

All claims about viruses as pathogens are wrong and are based on easily recognisable, understandable and verifiable misinterpretations. The real causes of diseases and phenonema which are ascribed to viruses have already been discovered and researched; this knowledge is now available. All scientists who think they are working with viruses in laboratories are actually working with typical particles of specific dying tissues or cells which were prepared in a special way. They believe that those tissues and cells are dying because they were infected by a virus. In reality, those prepared tissues and cells are dying because they were starved and poisoned as a consequence of the experiments in the lab.

Virologists believe in viruses, because they add to the tissue and cell culture allegedly infected blood, saliva or other body fluids-after having withdrawn the nutrients from the respective cell culture and after having started poisoning it with toxic antibiotics. They believe that the cell culture is then killed by viruses. However, the death of the tissue and cells takes place in the exact same manner when no “infected” genetic material is added at all. The virologists have apparently not noticed this fact. According to the scientific logic and the rules of scientific conduct, control experiments should have been carried out. In order to confirm the newly discovered method of so-called “virus propagation", in order to see whether it was not the method itself causing or falsifying the result, the scientists would have had to perform additional experiments, called negative control experiments, in which they would add sterile substances or substances from healthy people and animals to the cell culture.

These control experiments have never been carried out by the official “science" to this day. During the measles virus trial, I commissioned an independent laboratory to perform this control experiment and the result was that the tissues and cells die due to the laboratory conditions in the exact same way as when they come into contact with allegedly “infected" material.

The purpose of control experiments is to exclude the possibility that it is the applied method or technique which may cause the result. Control experiments are the highest duty in science and also the exclusive basis of claiming that one's conclusion is scientific. During the measles virus trial it was the legally appointed expert who stated that the papers which are crucial for the entire virology contain no control experiments. We learn from this that the respective scientists work extremely unscientifically, without noticing it.

This completely unscientific approach originated in June 1954, when an unscientific and refutable speculative article was published, according to which the death of tissue in a test tube was considered a possible evidence for the presence of a virus. Six months later, on 10 December 1954, the main author of this opinion was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine for another equally speculative theory. The speculation from June
1954 was then raised to a scientific fact and became a dogma which has never been challenged to this date. Since June 1954, the death of tissue and cells in a test tube has been regarded as proof for the existence of a virus.

The so-called evidence for the existence of viruses

The death of tissues/cells is also regarded as the isolation of a virus, because they claim that something from the outside, from another organism, was brought into the laboratory, although a virus has never been isolated according to the meaning of the word isolation, and it has never been photographed and biochemically characterised as a whole unique structure. The electron micrographs of the alleged viruses show in reality quite normal cellular particles from dying tissue and ceils, and most photos show only a computer model (CGI - computer generated images). Because the involved parties also BELIEVE that the dying tissue and cells become viruses themselves, their death is also regarded as propagation of the virus.

The involved parties still believe this because the discoverer of this method was awarded the Nobel Prize and his papers remain the reference papers on "viruses". More about this below.

[A Freeman]

Without having purified this concoction consisting of dying tissue and cells from monkeys, bovine foetuses and toxic antibiotics, this mixture is being used as a “live” vaccine, because it is supposed to consist of so-called “attenuated" viruses. The death of tissue and cells - on account of starvation and poisoning and not because of an alleged infection - has continuously been misinterpreted as evidence for the existence of viruses, as evidence for their isolation and as evidence of their propagation.

Thus, the resulting toxic mixture full of foreign proteins, foreign nucleic acids (DNA/RNA), cytotoxic antibiotics, microbes and spores of all types is being labelled a “live vaccine”. It is implanted in children through vaccination mainly into the muscles, in a quantity which if it were injected into the veins would immediately lead to certain death. Only ignorant people who blindly trust in the state authorities who are “testing”and approving the vaccines can regard vaccination as a “small harmless prick". The verifiable facts demonstrate the danger and negligence of these scientists and politicians, who claim that vaccines are safe, have little or no side-effects and would protect from a disease. None of these claims is true and scientific, on the contrary: upon precise scientific analysis, one finds that vaccines are useless and the respective literature admits to the
lack of any evidence in their favour.

Individual molecules are extracted from the particles of dead tissue and cells, they are misinterpreted to be parts of a virus and are theoretically put together into a virus model. A real and complete virus does not appear anywhere in the entire “scientific” literature. The consensus-finding process for the measles “virus", in which the participants debated in order to determine what belonged to the virus and what didn’t, lasted for decades.

[A Freeman]

With the apparently new China Coronavirus 2019 (2019-nCoV, meanwhile re-named), this consensus-finding process lasts only a few mouse clicks.

With only a few mouse clicks as well, a program can create any virus by putting together molecules of short parts of nucleic acids from dead tissue and cells with a determined biochemical composition, thus arranging them as desired into a longer genotype which is then declared to be the complete genome of the new virus. In reality, not even this manipulation, called “alignment", can result in the “complete” genetic material of
a virus which could then be called its genome.

In this process of theoretical construction of the “viral DNA", those sequences that don't fit are “smoothed out" and missing ones are added. Thus, a DNA sequence is invented which doesn’t exist in reality and which was never discovered and scientifically demonstrated as a whole. In a nutshell: From short fragments, theoretically and according to a model of a virus DNA, a bigger piece is also theoretically fabricated, which in reality doesn’t exist. For example, the “theoretical” construction of the measles virus DNA with its short fragments of cellular particles is missing more than half of the molecule sequences which would represent a complete virus. These are in part artificially created by biochemical methods and the rest are simply invented.*

The Chinese scientists who now claim that the nucleic acids from which the genome of the new Corona-virus2019 was theoretically constructed probably originate from poisonous snakes are also the victims of this current global misconception regarding “viruses", as we all are. The more viral “DNA sequences” are invented, the more they “discover” similarities with everything. These errors happen methodically. A large part of our academic science works like this: A theory is invented, it is always argued inside the theory, they call it science and claim that this represents the reality. In reality it just represents the postulated theory. *

[A Freeman]

The Virus Tests

Due to the lack of negative control experiments, it hasn’t yet occurred to the involved scientists that all tests for "viruses” will result in a certain number of “positives", depending on the sensitivity of the calibration of the testing equipment. The “templates” that they use in the tests in order to find the alleged “viruses” don't come from “viruses", but rather from the tissue, cells and foetal serum (blood without specific components) coming from animals, mainly monkeys and calves. Because these animals are biochemically very similar to us humans, it is clear that such particles, which are misinterpreted as viral particles, can be found in all humans by means of “virus tests". Some “viruses” and their “vaccines" - not the measles “virus” - actually originate from aborted human foetuses. It is especially eye-opening here that all the tests detect molecules which exist in every human being and that vaccines can cause particularly dangerous allergic reactions, which have been named "auto-immune diseases”.

One of the most contaminated und impure components of vaccines is the bovine foetal serum, without which the tissue and cells in the laboratory don’t grow at all or don’t grow quickly enough, and which is extracted in the most gruesome manner from foetuses without anaesthesia. It contains all kinds of known and unknown microbes, their spores and a huge number of unknown proteins. Besides the particles from monkey kidney
tissue, it is also particles of this foetal serum that scientists are extracting and analysing when they believe that they are putting together a “virus”, which does not exist and was never proven in the entire “scientific” literature as a whole ’’virus’’.

Because the vaccines are exclusively manufactured on the basis of these substances, this explains why it is especially the vaccinated people who test "positive” to all these imaginary "viruses” from which vaccines are manufactured. The tests only react to animal particles of the alleged viruses, animal proteins or nucleic acids which are often identical or very similar to human proteins and nucleic acids. The virus tests do not find anything specific, certainly nothing “viral” and on account of this they are worthless. The consequences, however, as we have seen with Ebola, HIV, Influenza etc., are that people become paralyzed with fear and they often die due to the very dangerous treatment.

It is noteworthy that no so-called “virus test” has a “yes" or "no” result, rather they are calibrated in a way that they can be interpreted as “positive” only after a particular concentration level has been reached. Thus, one can arbitrarily test “positive” just a few people, many people, none or all people and animals, according to the calibration ofthe test kit. The dimension of this entire scientific illusion becomes clear as soon as we understand that otherwise quite “normal" symptoms are only diagnosed as AIDS, BSE, flu, measles etc. if there is a "positive” test for it.


Crucial Details

Up to 1952, the virologists believed that a virus was a toxic protein or enzyme directly poisoning the body, and that it was somehow multiplied by the body itself and would spread in the body as well as between people and between animals.

Medicine and science gave up on this idea in 1951, because the suspected virus had never been seen in an electron microscope and, above all, no control experiments had ever been carried out. It was acknowledged that even healthy animals, organs and tissue would release during the decomposing process the same decay products that had been previously misinterpreted as "viruses”. Virology had refuted itself6.

However, when the wife of the later Nobel prize winner Crick drew a double helix and this drawing was published in the famous scientific magazine Nature as an alleged scientifically developed model of the supposed DNA, a new and very successful hype began, the so-called molecular genetics. From that moment on, the causes of disease were thought to be in the genes. The idea of a virus changed and over night a virus was no longer a toxin, but rather a dangerous genetic sequence, a dangerous DNA, a dangerous viral strand etc. This new genetic virology was founded by young chemists who had no idea about biology and medicine, but they had unlimited research money. And they didn’t know that the old virology had already refuted itself.

For over 2000 years we have the saying: forgive them, for they know not what they do. Since 1995, since we asked the questions about the evidence and published the answers, we can add: for they can't admit that what they have learned and practiced isn’t true and, more than that, it is dangerous or even lethal. Because nobody until now understood the entire context and had the courage to say the truth, we now have even more subsidiary hypotheses, such as the “immune system” or “epigenetics”, in order to maintain the fictitious theories.

The idea of a virus arose from the forced logic of the dogma of cellular theory. Then came the idea of the pathogenic bacteria, the bacterial toxins, then the viral toxins, until this idea was finally given up in 1952. Starting with 1953, Virchow’s idea of a disease poison (Latin = virus) became the genetic virus, which in turn gave birth to the idea of the cancer genes, then we had the “war against cancer” founded in the Nixon era, and later the idea of genes for everything appeared. In the year 2000, however, the entire genetic theory was refuted as well, after the contradictory data of the so-called human genome project was published together with the embarrassing claim that the entire human genome had been mapped, even though more than half of it was completely invented7.

People are not aware that it is very difficult for the respective academics to admit that they were involved in such misconceptions.

[A Freeman]

The so-called bacteria-eaters

The model for the idea of a genetic virus in humans, animals and plants, which started to develop from 1953 onwards, were the so-called bacteria-eaters, called (bacterio)phages, which had drawn the attention of scientists since 1915. From 1938, when commercially available electron microscopes were applied in research, these phages could be photographed, isolated as whole particles and all their components could be biochemically determined and characterised. To isolate them, i.e. concentrate the particles and separate them from all other components (isolation), to photograph them immediately in the isolated state and to biochemically characterise them all in one go-this, however, has never happened with the alleged viruses of humans, animals and plants because these do not exist.

The scientists researching bacteria and phages, who worked with actual existing structures, provided a model as to what human, animal and plant viruses could look like. However, the “phage experts” have overlooked by their misinterpretation of phages as bacteria eaters that the phenomenon of the formation of these particles is caused by the extreme inbreeding of bacteria. This effect, i.e. the formation and release of phages (bacteria eaters, aka bacteria viruses), doesn’t exist with pure bacteria freshly extracted from an organism or from the environment. When their nutrients are withdrawn slowly or their living conditions become impossible, normal bacteria, i.e. bacteria which are not grown in the lab, create the known survival forms, the spores, which can survive for a longtime or even “eternally". From spores, new bacteria appear as soon as the living conditions improve.

However, isolated bacteria, when grown in the lab, lose all characteristics and abilities. Many of them do not perish automatically through this in-breeding, but rather turn suddenly and completely into small particles, which in the “good versus evil" theory perspective have been misinterpreted as bacteria-eaters. In reality, bacteria originate from these exact "phages” and they turn back again into these life forms when the living conditions are no longer available. Gunther Enderlein (1872-1968) described exactly these processes: how bacteria appear from invisible structures, their development into more complex forms and back again. That is why Enderlein did not agree with the cell theory, according to which life appears from cells and is organised at cellular level.8 As a young student, I myself isolated such a “phage” structure from a sea algae and believed at that time to have discovered the first harmless virus, the first stable “virus host system’’9.

The idea that bacteria exist as single viable organisms, which can exist alone without any other life forms, is incorrect. In an isolated form, they automatically die off after some time. This never occurred to the scientists, because after a successful “isolation” of a bacterium, a part of it is frozen and can be worked with in the lab decades later. The idea of bacteria being living independent structures which can survive by themselves is a laboratory artefact, a misinterpretation.

Thus, the claim that bacteria are immortal is therefore wrong. Bacteria are immortal only in symbiosis with a huge number of other bacteria, fungi and probably many more unknown life forms which are difficult to characterise, such as for example the amoeba. Amoebae, bacteria and fungi form spores as soon as their living environment disappears and re-emerge once the living conditions return. If one compares that with humans, we have the same perspective: Without a living environment, from and with which we live, nothing can exist.

However, these discoveries go much deeper. Not only the entire species concept is dissolving, but also the idea and the claim about the alleged existence of dead matter. Observations and conclusions about a living “active matter” (as physicists call it) are dismissed as unscientific vitalism. However, there is considerable evidence that all those elements that the “dominant opinion” in “science” does not consider as being alive actually originate and develop from the membrane of water, i.e. the "Ursubstanz”10, the primordial source of life. These elements then create the nucleic acids, and around the nucleic acids they create the biological life in the form of amoebae, bacteria, tardigrades and more complex life forms. We have two distinct confirmations on this perspective. One of them can be observed by every person for himself as well as for other people, i.e. that biological life in the form of our body is actually a materialisation of the elements of an existing conscience. We can name them and we know the exact way in which our organs and psyche interact and influence each other through information (e.g. a single word which can either do damage or solve a conflict), we can verify all these aspects because they are predictible. Thus, the three criteria of scientific research are fulfilled11. These findings and the knowledge on how they relate to each other free us from fear as well as from the fear-inducing “good versus evil” mentality and the behavioural patterns deriving from it. These revealing scientific discoveries clarify as well the processes of disease, healing, the “healing crisis", the suspended healing and the phenomenon of subsequent diseases (aka the old concept of “contagion”). Virus, it’s time to go12.

The nightmare of the materialistic science seems to come true: even the apparently dead matter is alive, it is vital. The vitalism, according to which there is a life force in all things, was contested by the Greek philosophers Demokrit and Epikur and the followers of their doctrine. Their main argument was that they wanted to castigate any abuse of faith and prevent its repetition. Their intention was apparently good, however, they ignored that by denying the concepts of conscience and spirit and all the levels of manifestation of these forces, they turned involuntarily into destroyers of life and enemies of the people.

These “good versus evil” interpretations, which were discovered and described by Silvio Gesell13 (in general) and Ivan IIlichu14 (in medicine), are constantly increasing15 due to the thirst for profit and its fatal consequences. The consequences of our money system’s inherent compulsion to even more growth, to permanent growth, which generates cyclical catastrophes and brings about even more powerful winners and simultaneously a constantly increasing impoverishment and suffering, is being interpreted by all the people involved as proof for an independent principle of evil, because these people don’t know the mathematically determined, tenacious inherent mechanisms of the money system. It appears that the people on the winning side, who are ethically correct, regard the mathematically obligatory generated profit as evidence of their godliness and exceptionality. This was not just the basis for Manichaeism (Mani was the Babylonian founder of this religion, whose followers are called Manichaens), but has always been the driving force of the dangerous aspects and effects of industrialisation, as Max Weber and others discovered.