I stumbled across a report of evolution sceptics, in which the theory of evolution was to be disproved by the fact that bacteria under laboratory conditions haven’t altered in any way in years (which is equivalent to several million generations). This experiment was done scientifically in every aspect.

The question that came to my mind was: What makes the difference of laboratory conditions to a normal environment. What makes the difference from taking place and not taking place evolution. At this point I want to make clear that I do not assume that a divine power intervenes in nature but ignores the laboratory. A thought on my part: Within a laboratory, there are (ideally) no viruses. What are viruses? A virus is basically pure genetic material in a shell and the programmed target to dock to cells and then install its own genome into the existing.

Could a significant part of taking place evolution be using viruses? Even Darwin had the problem of being unable to explain how evolution takes place and even modern science has yet to clarify this. Meanwhile, scientists have found remains of ancient viruses in human genome. The experiment of evolution sceptics shows that spontaneous mutation is apparently not in the position to be responsible for the evolution of life that took place on this planet. I do not want to argue in any way that it is part of the process, but it is obviously not the whole thing.

Only about 1-3% of the virus strains (that we know) is harmful at all, the rest exists without interfering life’s health. So, could it be that viruses are a significant part of evolution? Their way of life defines it is inevitably that they change DNA and transfer it from one organism to another. This theory seems logical. It invalidates the experiment of evolution sceptics and explains the occurrence of evolution. What do you think about this theory?

— PowerZ