Jump to content


Photo

Viruses As Life


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#1 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 24 November 2008 - 07:50 PM

This video came up as a popular view on googlevideo today. It looked interesting so I gave it a look:

The Story of Darwin & his Evolution Theory

Towards the end it starts talking about viruses as being a great example of evolution. Bacteria and Viruses are very different as I understand. Isn't it true that there is debate as to whether viruses can even be considered life?

Even if they were wouldn't evolution be more effectively propped up if a virus evolved into bacteria or something? Aren’t variations in viruses turning into variations in viruses about as compelling as short haired dogs turning into long haired dogs as evidence for origin of species?

Who has some knowledge or link for putting the differences between viruses and bacteria into common language?

#2 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 25 November 2008 - 09:18 AM

Did I ask a stupid question or something? :rolleyes:

#3 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 25 November 2008 - 10:43 AM

No you didn't ask a stupid question, you could get a good debate about how Viruses changing has nothing to do with evolution. Technically the variations in viruses is about as compelling long hair/ short hair dogs. Unless someone on here knows more about virus reproduction.

#4 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 25 November 2008 - 05:35 PM

No you didn't ask a stupid question, you could get a good debate about how Viruses changing has nothing to do with evolution.  Technically the variations in viruses is about as compelling long hair/ short hair dogs.  Unless someone on here knows more about virus reproduction.

View Post


I kind of thought I left it open for that. I just first wanted to confirm that viruses and bacteria are fundamentally different because of the way they reproduce and then transition into a discussion how impossible it would be for viruses to morph into bacteria or to see if there is even agreement on this.

#5 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 25 November 2008 - 06:50 PM

Posted Image

Okay, so if viruses are evolving, is it reasonable to expect viruses to mutate the capacity towards self replication? Why isn't this concept on the table? Why is it easier to imagine proteins joyriding on crystals as a more plausible means of the first replicating life forms than a virus adopting the “knowledge” to do for itself what it does when it infiltrates and destroys a cell?

…or am I wrong and this is on the table for evolutionists.

#6 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 25 November 2008 - 09:20 PM

I'm surprised nobody is biting on this. Maybe it would be worth my while to post this on a forum hostile to creationism. If life originated from a single form, is it more likely that the bacteria mutated from a virus? Well, without bacteria virus can’t exist. So that doesn’t work. If a virus is a byproduct of bacteria than the transition should be a synch, right? If fruit flies are great examples of evolution because of their short gestation period then bacteria and viruses should make the proof for evolution easier or at least a little bit believable. Their transitional track should be easy to duplicate in the lab.

When I think of abiogenesis I have a question that’s been bugging me. Wouldn’t it make more sense to presume that the first replicating life form was plant like? How come evolutionists always assume that the first life form was some kind of bacteria like creature? What did it eat… the other bacteria that self-generated beside it? If so, spontaneous generation should also be easy to duplicate. So what’s the deal with Chlorophyll? Are there any single cellular critters that possess Chlorophyll? How come a single celled plant isn’t the obvious first self-replicator?

Posted Image
Chlorophyll

Back to the virus issue… why and how would bacteria forfeit its self-replication to become a dependant leech with no capacity to reproduce internally? It sounds to me that the origin of viruses is more perplexing then the origin of the more intricate bacteria for Darwinian Evolutionists.

#7 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 November 2008 - 10:26 PM

I'm surprised nobody is biting on this. Maybe it would be worth my while to post this on a forum hostile to creationism. If life originated from a single form, is it more likely that the bacteria mutated from a virus?


I don't know much about viruses or their evolution, but I'd wager it's the other way around.

Are there any single cellular critters that possess Chlorophyll? How come a single celled plant isn’t the obvious first self-replicator?


Cyanobacteria do and they are the oldest known type of organism on Earth (~3 billion years old). That said, they probably aren't the first living organism, per say, but then again, we may never know what the true first "life" really was.

#8 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 November 2008 - 06:32 AM

I don't know much about viruses or their evolution, but I'd wager it's the other way around.


Hi shpongle,

How much would you wager? The reason I ask is because viruses and bacteria seem so fundamentally different to me. How many transitional forms would be needed? What would they look like? How would they function?

David Berlinski rolls out an interesting dilemma from a secular perspective…
L-UCo7JQm-A

With all that said, virus evolution from bacteria should be a much simpler transition, shouldn’t it? However, when I look at how they function I see the potential transition about the same as converting a nuclear power plant into a hometown diner. The real estate manager that would suggest that to Donald Trump would be fired on the spot, I’m sure. Would Donald Trump be closed-minded for doing this?

Cyanobacteria do and they are the oldest known type of organism on Earth (~3 billion years old).  That said, they probably aren't the first living organism, per say, but then again, we may never know what the true first "life" really was.

View Post


Posted Image
Cyanobacteria

Thanks I just learned something I should have known. ;) Why would you say they probably weren’t the first living organism? What’s so special about them?

If life even has a remote possibility to generate from inanimate materials spontaneously, shouldn’t lab tests of this be easy? The reason I say this is because when we’re taught about the first living organism, it’s always presented as if that first little virus/bacteria/mutating crystal just took off like a herd of zebras. From my estimation, life should be easy to generate because there had to have been millions of false starts considering how delicate life is.

Let’s just say a colony of primordial bacteria lived for a year. How likely would it be in that year that their “ideal” environment would change enough (too much rain, a slight drought, seismic activity) to undo what was done, forcing the process back to square one?

It seems to me that evolutionists are looking for a free lunch and they get hostile when they are asked to pay up to be taken seriously. Darwin questioned the establishment and now the shoe is on the other foot. Are evolutionists going to return the same religious zeal for their ideas as when Darwin’s ideas were rejected by nervous religious onlookers?

I think the world of microbiology would have kept Darwin at bay, but by the time microbiology was coming into its own, evolution had a religious stature of its own not to be questioned.

#9 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 26 November 2008 - 07:05 AM

Why did God create viruses and bacteria? Bacteria can be beneficial or benign, but not always. They can be very nastly little things, sometimes very nasty. Meningitis, for example can be caused by either a viral or bacterial infection. It is most common in children, and can result in deafness, eplipsy, brain damage and sometimes death.

Why did God create a condition that devastates both the sufferer and their family, and specifically targets children?

#10 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 November 2008 - 07:40 AM

Why did God create viruses and bacteria? Bacteria can be beneficial or benign, but not always. They can be very nastly little things, sometimes very nasty. Meningitis, for example can be caused by either a viral or bacterial infection. It is most common in children, and can result in deafness, eplipsy, brain damage and sometimes death.

Why did God create a condition that devastates both the sufferer and their family, and specifically targets children?

View Post


This is off topic.

However, a biblical Christian knows that God is allowing us to experience life without His sustaining light. So God didn’t create malicious microbes. They are a result of unbridled entropy. Were there microbes and virus like creatures before the fall? I believe there could have been but their function wouldn’t have been malicious in nature before the fall.

The problem of evil and suffering is not a rational problem for the Bible believing Christian. However death, being a "bad" thing, doesn’t make a lot of sense for the evolutionist and to call it suffering and evil, has great metaphysical ramifications.

So my question to you from an evolutionary stance is this; is death a good thing or a bad thing?

If viruses are natural and death is natural and suffering is natural then who cares if kids are getting brain damaged and dying from infections? It will just get them out of the way for the next advancement in evolution, right?

As a Christian I don’t think for a moment that this is a responsible attitude but Jacques Yves Cousteau seemed to think that man is the true disease:

"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day."

Posted Image
Jacques Yves Cousteau, the humanitarian? ;)

So anyway, back to the topic. Why doesn't the problem of microbes and microbial structures faze the evolutionist? Is the religion of evolution that important?

#11 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 26 November 2008 - 09:20 AM

This video came up as a popular view on googlevideo today. It looked interesting so I gave it a look:

The Story of Darwin & his Evolution Theory

Towards the end it starts talking about viruses as being a great example of evolution. Bacteria and Viruses are very different as I understand. Isn't it true that there is debate as to whether viruses can even be considered life?

Even if they were wouldn't evolution be more effectively propped up if a virus evolved into bacteria or something? Aren’t variations in viruses turning into variations in viruses about as compelling as short haired dogs turning into long haired dogs as evidence for origin of species?

Who has some knowledge or link for putting the differences between viruses and bacteria into common language?

View Post


Hi Adam,
I am by no means an expert, so I can not say I will represent this area well, but here goes...

First, bacteria are single cell organisms that lack a differentiated nucleus. These cells are called prokaryotes. Multicellular plants and animals are made from Eukaryotic cells that do have a nucleus and organelles (mitochandria etc).

For most of the history of life, the earth was dominated by these single cell prokaryotes (~3.5 billion to 1 billion years). The early fossil prokaryotes appear as algae mats or stromatolites (cyanobacteria or blue green algae). They are even found in the lowest layers of the Grand Canyon. They appear clearly in the fossil record by 3.5 billion years ago but are believed to have evolved from simple forms of life (see below). Underneath the Cambrian, all one will typically find are single cell life forms.

Eukaryotes appear in the fossil record by 1 billion years (but probably earlier than 1.5 billion years), and also remained primarily single cell until the Ediacaran period (about 600 million years ago). We have fossil cells that show a nucleus by 1 billion years.

Unfortunately, viruses do not leave a fossil record, but our current viruses require a prokaryotic or eukaryotic cell as a host. They use the cells machinary to self-replicate. The DNA of viruses and some cells have some interesting similarities, so there is some speculation that they have a common ancestor.
http://www.sciam.com...viruses-come-fr

Our current theories of the origin of life begin with the above evidence from the fossil record. From there, the studies in this field go in many directions. Some studies are exploring the simplest forms of self-replicating molecules. Some are exploring the chemical signatures in the rocks where we find the earliest fossils. Many labs are exploring the different forms of catalysts that exist in natural materials (like clays) and how lipid layers can form without genetic instructions.

The general belief (but actively debated) is that life began with simple self replicating molecules and these led to simple RNA like molecules. This general approach is called the RNA world hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia....orld_hypothesis

There is a surprising amount of experimental work in this field, and I can't really do justice to all that here. If you want to read about this, there is a great survey book called

Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins by Robert Hazen

Hope that helps
James

p.s. That video you posted was excellent. And yes, viruses and bacteria both show Darwinian evolution. Any system that self-replicates with some error in the replication process will usually show some degree of Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution basically just implies that those organisms that replicate more effectively will produce more offspring and will come to dominate the population. Not much more to it than that.

#12 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2008 - 11:20 AM

Thanks I just learned something I should have known.  ;)  Why would you say they probably weren’t the first living organism? What’s so special about them?


Just that there were simpler precursors that would have evolved into cyanobacteria.

If life even has a remote possibility to generate from inanimate materials spontaneously, shouldn’t lab tests of this be easy?


Not necessarily, at least not with respect to creating the first life on Earth. The problem is there are so many permutations of elements, molecules, catalysts, environments, etc, that it's a very difficult problem. In fact, I've heard it described that it's more challenging a problem to solve going from non-life to life than going from the first life to everything we have now. And life had millions of years to show up. Scientists have been seriously at this for what, a half dozen decades now?

The wiki article on the origin of life lists a lot of the competing hypotheses about how life started and might shed some insight on how challenging a problem it really is: http://en.wikipedia..../Origin_of_life

Let’s just say a colony of primordial bacteria lived for a year. How likely would it be in that year that their “ideal” environment would change enough (too much rain, a slight drought, seismic activity) to undo what was done, forcing the process back to square one?


No idea.

It seems to me that evolutionists are looking for a free lunch and they get hostile when they are asked to pay up to be taken seriously.


I don't see anyone getting hostile. Just that's it's a very difficult problem and one that scientists continue to work on.

The field of abiogenesis is also a relatively "young" field scientifically speaking; one that's only received a decent amount of attention in the last 50 years or so. So it's presumtuous to assume that scientists should have figured it out by now. They're working on it, have patience.

#13 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2008 - 11:30 AM

So anyway, back to the topic. Why doesn't the problem of microbes and microbial structures faze the evolutionist? Is the religion of evolution that important?

View Post


Why should it? It's just stuff we don't know. There's plenty of that in science; it just means we have more to learn.

Plus, gaps in knowledge does not invalidate what we do know about evolution and biology. I mean, contemporary evolutionary biology even has real world application in various fields including agriculture, medicine, conservation biology, etc. None of that changes just because we don't know how the first life formed.

#14 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 27 November 2008 - 01:41 PM

Hi Adam,
    I am by no means an expert, so I can not say I will represent this area well, but here goes...

First, bacteria are single cell organisms that lack a differentiated nucleus. These  cells are called prokaryotes. Multicellular plants and animals are made from Eukaryotic cells that do have a nucleus and organelles (mitochandria etc).


Hi James,
What is a White Blood Cell? Those little critters have a mind of their own. Should they be classified as useful parasites? They’re almost like the reverse equivalent to bacteria and viruses. If viruses are okay to consider as mutations from bacteria, maybe white blood cells are mutations that should be considered life forms of their own as well.

Posted Image
White Blood Cell on the Prowl

For most of the history of life, the earth was dominated by these single cell prokaryotes (~3.5 billion to 1 billion years). The early fossil prokaryotes appear as algae mats or stromatolites (cyanobacteria or blue green algae). They are even found in the lowest layers of the Grand Canyon. They appear clearly in the fossil record by 3.5 billion years ago but are believed to have evolved from simple forms of life (see below). Underneath the Cambrian, all one will typically find are single cell life forms.


This to me is a poor interpretation of the supposed “geologic column”. As a theist would you be concerned that you are limiting God based on your limitations? Wouldn’t this be idolatry? Would you personally be concerned that you may have received a philosophy of science that is incompatible with reality but elegant enough and seductive enough to be alluring? As a theist you do believe in the power of deception in a corrupt world with both, good and evil in it, right?

Unfortunately, viruses do not leave a fossil record, but our current viruses require a prokaryotic or eukaryotic cell as a host. They use the cells machinary to self-replicate. The DNA of viruses and some cells have some interesting similarities, so there is some speculation that they have a common ancestor.


We are all made of atoms and molecules too. This to me is proof of a consistent designer who made a logical order to His creation. Common ancestry is a theory used to mask the power of God.

Speculation is the key word here. What if the evolution picture is completely wrong? What if you’ve been given a worldview that distorts the evidence to paint a false story, would you reconsider? Could evolutionary scientists be conducting “experiments” in a field equivalent to old world Alchemy?

Our current theories of the origin of life begin with the above evidence from the fossil record. From there, the studies in this field go in many directions. Some studies are exploring the simplest forms of self-replicating molecules. Some are exploring the chemical signatures in the rocks where we find the earliest fossils. Many labs are exploring the different forms of catalysts that exist in natural materials (like clays) and how lipid layers can form without genetic instructions.


Don’t hold your breath. It looks to me like throwing paint against a canvas in the hopes of getting a Rembrandt.

Posted Image
A Product of Paint Thrown at a Canvas?



Posted Image
A Product of Clay Zapped With Energy?



The general belief (but actively debated) is that life began with simple self replicating molecules and these led to simple RNA like molecules. This general approach is called the RNA world hypothesis.


This hypothesis is currently in a state of complete lack of evidence. Would you agree? People dreaming and making fancy computer models that look clever have no bearing on reality, again would you agree?

Y6rgoeoaNfM

I just added this because it looks really cool.

There is a surprising amount of experimental work in this field, and I can't really do justice to all that here. If you want to read about this, there is a great survey book called


Why waste time? If it looks designed, acts like it’s designed, then maybe it’s designed. Get rid of the evolutionary Alchemists and bring in the design engineers so we can look at things the way we always should have, from a design perspective not a chance mutation perspective.

p.s. That video you posted was excellent. And yes, viruses and bacteria both show Darwinian evolution. Any system that self-replicates with some error in the replication process will usually show some degree of Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution basically just implies that those organisms that replicate more effectively will produce more offspring and will come to dominate the population. Not much more to it than that.

View Post



You’re asking me to swallow tons of assumptions. First of which is that evolution happened in the first place. A handful of freaks that nature seems to get rid of on its own don’t come close to explaining the diversity of life we see on this planet. You can have 400 trillion years and it’s still far-fetched.

If you ever get a chance look up other stuff that David Berlinski has to say. There is an interview on YouTube that’s broken into 20 short segments that have awesome ideas offered by him from a strictly observational perspective. Search his name and I’m sure you’ll find them.

#15 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 November 2008 - 07:02 PM

Speculation is the key word here. What if the evolution picture is completely wrong? What if you’ve been given a worldview that distorts the evidence to paint a false story, would you reconsider? Could evolutionary scientists be conducting “experiments” in a field equivalent to old world Alchemy?


If evolution (inc. common descent) is "completely wrong" that would be quite a conundrum, considering evolution (inc. common descent) has real world application.

And this is something which I think far too many people ignore. Science isn't just academics. There's this whole other side of applied science that goes on. And this is also where the real money is. Do you think a venture capitalist is going to give a biotech firm millions of dollars so they can do evolutionary-based science simply to prop up a worldview? Or are they going to do it because they can leverage that knowledge to solve some sort of real world issue (i.e. in medicine, agriculture, etc) and potentially develop a commerical product as a result?

Granted, not every single avenue of research may result in application, but at the end of the day, people don't do all this stuff just for fun. It takes funding, which means investment, which means they has to be some sort of eventual payoff.

#16 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 27 November 2008 - 07:52 PM

Just that there were simpler precursors that would have evolved into cyanobacteria.


Can you show me? Would you be willing to admit that this is a faith claim completely devoid of evidence?

Not necessarily, at least not with respect to creating the first life on Earth.  The problem is there are so many permutations of elements, molecules, catalysts, environments, etc, that it's a very difficult problem.  In fact, I've heard it described that it's more challenging a problem to solve going from non-life to life than going from the first life to everything we have now.  And life had millions of years to show up.  Scientists have been seriously at this for what, a half dozen decades now?


Could it be difficult enough to consider abandoning a faulty theory? Look at the quote included with the following image:

Posted Image

Haven’t we moved the goalposts far enough? It’s time for people to get converted from a bad theory and a bad worldview.

The wiki article on the origin of life lists a lot of the competing hypotheses about how life started and might shed some insight on how challenging a problem it really is: http://en.wikipedia..../Origin_of_life


Shpongle, are you faithful enough to hold your breath for a promise that looks worse and worse with every discovery? Darwin and Huxley thought Protoplasm was the key basis (not to mention “simple” basis) for life. When a nano-factory. Let me expound on that… When a nano-lights-out, nano-self-healing, nano-self-correcting, nano-super-computing machine is discovered at work several trillions of times in every human body, isn’t time to hang up the whole “descent with modification from a common ancestor” gobbledygook?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I said "Let’s just say a colony of primordial bacteria lived for a year. How likely would it be in that year that their “ideal” environment would change enough (too much rain, a slight drought, seismic activity) to undo what was done, forcing the process back to square one?" Then you said...

No idea.


Isn’t this an interesting problem to consider before putting faith in Darwin? Does anybody even talk about this little dilemma? Let’s face it; an assumption of life that could start from random natural occurrences is swaying the faith of many superficial onlookers. Maybe it’s time to dump the facade.

I don't see anyone getting hostile.  Just that's it's a very difficult problem and one that scientists continue to work on.


Well, respected scholars like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Peter Atkins, and others like Sam Harris are well into the process of canonizing evolution and convincing the world that God is a substantially marginalized entity. Many people are being kept stupid to these problems so that they believe evolution is some proven fact. Well, it isn’t. Where do you stand?

Even if you continue to believe in evolution, you should be forthright with people when answering the question; is evolution proven? What would you say?

The field of abiogenesis is also a relatively "young" field scientifically speaking; one that's only received a decent amount of attention in the last 50 years or so.  So it's presumtuous to assume that scientists should have figured it out by now.  They're working on it, have patience.

View Post


My patience is running thin while I watch a public get convinced that Darwinian Evolution is a buttoned up proven concept, when there’s nothing further from the truth. My faith is not in science. It is interesting and functional but it is limited. My faith is in God because He continues to reveal Himself as He always has, steadfast and faithful. Life is short and the most important things aren’t scientific. Do you agree?

#17 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 27 November 2008 - 08:02 PM

If evolution (inc. common descent) is "completely wrong" that would be quite a conundrum, considering evolution (inc. common descent) has real world application.


What does the religion of evolution add to understanding the designed flexibility of plants and animals?

And this is something which I think far too many people ignore.  Science isn't just academics.  There's this whole other side of applied science that goes on.  And this is also where the real money is.  Do you think a venture capitalist is going to give a biotech firm millions of dollars so they can do evolutionary-based science simply to prop up a worldview?  Or are they going to do it because they can leverage that knowledge to solve some sort of real world issue (i.e. in medicine, agriculture, etc) and potentially develop a commerical product as a result?


Who said we have a problem with science?

Granted, not every single avenue of research may result in application, but at the end of the day, people don't do all this stuff just for fun.  It takes funding, which means investment, which means they has to be some sort of eventual payoff.

View Post


…which means sticking to orthodoxy when it supplies funding no matter how far-fetched it is.

fcMs4rOCWjI

Wsj2pV55QyE

Fj-6u4gsM2s

David Berlinski is an interesting guy. He is not a YEC like me and others but his approach and understanding are commendable.

So back to viruses... Could the problems in the arena of microbiology unhinge Darwin? If they can't, is Darwinian Evolution science or is it more likely that it has become a philosophy and worldview regardless of the evidence?

#18 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 November 2008 - 08:15 PM

Well, respected scholars like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Peter Atkins, and others like Sam Harris are well into the process of canonizing evolution and convincing the world that God is a substantially marginalized entity. Many people are being kept stupid to these problems so that they believe evolution is some proven fact. Well, it isn’t. Where do you stand?


Well, I think it's very dangerous to mix science and religion, or rather to create a dichotomy between the two. Religion has not done historically well in situations like those.

Even if you continue to believe in evolution, you should be forthright with people when answering the question; is evolution proven? What would you say?


First, I think you need to define "evolution". It's a very broad topic. I think that, in general, common ancestry of organisms is evidenced very well. It gets fuzzier obviously, the further back in time you go and things like horizontal gene transfer among simpler organisms (i.e. bacteria) tend to really muddy the waters. But at the higher level, the evidence is imho compelling (mainly genetic evidence).

And like I said in my previous posts, evolutionary science has moved past theory and into the realm of application. It's one thing to simply talk about say, human and chimps sharing common ancestry. But when you can leverage that into real application in areas like medical research, that's powerful stuff. And it means that evolutionary biology ain't going away any time soon.

My patience is running thin while I watch a public get convinced that Darwinian Evolution is a buttoned up proven concept, when there’s nothing further from the truth. My faith is not in science. It is interesting and functional but it is limited. My faith is in God because He continues to reveal Himself as He always has, steadfast and faithful. Life is short and the most important things aren’t scientific. Do you agree?

View Post


I agree. Which is why I don't lose sleep over wondering where the first life came from and when that problem will be solved.

#19 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 November 2008 - 08:40 PM

What does the religion of evolution add to understanding the designed flexibility of plants and animals?


How up-to-date are you on your modern genomics research? Evolutionary approaches in genomics (i.e. comparative genomics, phylogenomics) are being used for everything from combating crop pests to drug discovery to researching sleep disorders.

For example, there's a company called Evolutionary Genomics Inc. They're a small biotech firm that's been around for the better part of a decade. They do research into areas like medince, crop plants, and most recently biofuels.

One of the areas of their research is into combating AIDS and HIV. They have a published paper on some of their research in which they apply comparative genomics to various primate genomes based on a phylogenetic (i.e. evolutionary relationship) approach and discover a gene in chimps which they believed conveys immunity or supression of the SIV virus in chimps*.

They have since continued the work and discovered that that protein from that gene in chimps in fact acts as an HIV suppressant. They are now hoping to leverage this into an HIV treatment.

The bottom line is that this is a very clear application of evolutionary biology; a direct application of the evolutionary relationships of humans and other primates in fact. Nobody forced them to do this. This wasn't about preserving any "orthodoxy" or just to secure funding. It's about tackling a very real world problem and applying the knowledge and data available to try to solve it. And that's what scientists do, every day.

* SIV is the chimp equivilant of HIV in humans

…which means sticking to orthodoxy when it supplies funding no matter how far-fetched it is.


You missed the point.

If you're a venture capitalist firm investing in biotech, you don't care about preserving the "orthodoxy". You care about getting a return on investment. Likewise, if you are the firm on the receiving end, you also don't preserving the "orthodoxy". You care about leveraging whatever resources you have to solve an issue; whether it's developing a new medical treatment, drug, whatever.

This is where I think the idea that evolutionary biology can be so utterly wrong is a curious one. If this were true, a) nobody would be applying it. And b ) it opens up a whole arena for competitive advantage by exploiting other avenues of research.

When you get into applied science, the issue of "sticking to orthodoxy" makes zero sense.

So back to viruses... Could the problems in the arena of microbiology unhinge Darwin? If they can't, is Darwinian Evolution science or is it more likely that it has become a philosophy and worldview regardless of the evidence?

View Post


Again, it gets back to the issue of what we don't know doesn't change what we do know.

#20 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 27 November 2008 - 09:10 PM

shpongle,

I think evolution must be defined, just like you said. When "evolution" is applied in science it is something you and I and any scientist, creationist or atheist, can agree on. Everyone agrees that living organisms, and anything for that matter, change over time.

The problem is the idea that this proves Darwin’s theory about the origin of species or Charles Lyell's theory of vast geological time.

I think Evolution can be split into six fundamental concepts that may or may not be liked by evolutionists but I believe the following is descriptive of the problem that the public swallows:

1. Cosmic evolution (Big Bang)
2. Chemical evolution (Origin of higher elements)
3. Stellar evolution (Formation of heavenly bodies)
4. Biological evolution (Life from non-life)
5. Macro-Evolution (Unique forms of life forming from other unique forms of life accumulating in the origin of all life)
6. Micro-Evolution (Variations within certain types of organisms)

I know that this break down is often mocked by evolutionists but I have never heard anyone refute the accuracy of these basic descriptions on an intellectual level, just rhetoric.

Any rational person must accept 1 – 5 as hypothetical speculation only. The ramifications of # 6 are interpretation driven. Do you agree? This would also answer the idea that people who attribute their work to evolution aren’t necessarily successful because of evolution. They succeed because of the scientific method. Their belief in evolution is an unfortunate and counterproductive byproduct, in my opinion.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users