this would be like denying photons exist because they don't fit newton's laws of motion. we have
newer methods that
do work for viruses.
what hypothesis? the germ theory of disease? it's not a hypothesis, it's a theory.
your inability to understand it is not a good support of your conjecture. in fact, it is a fallacy known as a '
personal incredulity fallacy'
evolutionary theory struggles
really? how so? please elaborate with as much detail as possible, as evolution is a very fun subject for me. the longer your explanation (in your own words), the better.
How is it that a species of bacteria or fungi hasn't evolved to eat/clean up viruses
you should have googled it first
Lab experiments show that Halteria ciliates can chow down solely on viruses. Whether these “virovores” do the same in the wild is unclear.
www.sciencenews.org
absolutely no 'motivation' at all, unlike all other living organisms.
u sure? u absolutely sure you're not an automaton? u sure paramecia have motivation? they don't have brains, afterall
trying to explain the origins of life/living organisms
the absolute origin of life is not needed for the theory of evolution to be water tight.
with that said, chemical evolution is a pretty compelling hypotheses, wouldn't you say? especially since amino acids apparently have quite the "motivation" to begin to exist, given the right conditions... demonstrated with plenty of experimental data.
____
what evidence can you provide that viruses don't exist and/ or don't cause disease?.
