Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Access Research Network: Art Battson on keeping evolution in context

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

For example, in the Cambrian:

Charles Darwin acknowledged that the geologic record was the most obvious and serious objection which could be raised against his theory. Unlike his gradually branching tree, however, natural history reveals a pervasive pattern much better illustrated by a forest. With regard to the sudden explosion of new body plans in the Cambrian, even Richard Dawkins admitted, “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.”

Indeed, the pervasive patterns of natural history are analogous to the historical patterns found in modern technologies: new designs appear suddenly followed by variations on the pre-existing themes. Consider the evolution of simpler technologies: the automobile or computer. As Bill Gates put it, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” Both cars and computers are examples of progressive creation: the sudden appearance of major innovations followed by variations on pre-existing themes. It is only logical that the far, far more advanced nanotechnologies found in biology are also examples of progressive creation.

Art Battson, “Keep Evolution in Context” at Access Research Network
Comments
Martin_r: And how the existing ones came to be ? :))) Everyone admits that the origin of life is still a mystery. obviously he does not, perhaps he will one day… Nice person your designer. But i would like to drop the debate about any punishment. It is too philosophical. It was a mistake to mention this, but i do understand, that you Darwinists like to debate this. Okay. Again, I am an engineer, so i would like to stick to technical things: 1. population regulators (e.g. bacteriophages) 2. genome update (retro-viruses) Any discussion of technical things and their effects bring up the point of why and therefore who and when. Lets assume, that humans were created by an engineer. Would it be so surprising, if the engineer also created some tools how to control / regulate / advance / update/ change or even kill humans? Would that be so surprising ? Please short answer: YES / NO Not like those though. a virus killed its host. In what way was it beneficial for the virus ? First it reproduced, a lot. Then, before it dies, the host spreads it around. Clearly the strategy works.JVL
January 12, 2021
January
01
Jan
12
12
2021
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
JVL, and, one more question, i never understood the following: a virus killed its host. In what way was it beneficial for the virus ?martin_r
January 12, 2021
January
01
Jan
12
12
2021
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT
JVL, i said i would like to drop the debate about any punishment, but i can't resist to ask you the following: Lets assume, that humans were created by an engineer. Would it be so surprising, if the engineer also created some tools how to control / regulate / advance / update/ change or even kill humans? Would that be so surprising ? Please short answer: YES / NOmartin_r
January 12, 2021
January
01
Jan
12
12
2021
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT
JVL " How does the designer direct who gets ill and who doesn’t?" i was thinking of punishing humans as a whole. It is clear, that most humans misbehave (just look at the human history), so the punishment is pretty targeted anyway. But i would like to drop the debate about any punishment. It is too philosophical. It was a mistake to mention this, but i do understand, that you Darwinists like to debate this. Again, I am an engineer, so i would like to stick to technical things: 1. population regulators (e.g. bacteriophages) 2. genome update (retro-viruses)martin_r
January 12, 2021
January
01
Jan
12
12
2021
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT
JVL "How species ‘originate’ from existing ones. " WHAT? from existing ones? And how the existing ones came to be ? :))) JVL "So, the designer doesn’t care that they now attack humans?" obviously he does not, perhaps he will one day...martin_r
January 12, 2021
January
01
Jan
12
12
2021
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT
Natural selection is nonrandom in the most trivial way- that being not all variations have the same odds of being eliminated. It is still nothing more than contingent serendipity. NS has NEVER been observed to be the designer mimic Darwin posited. Darwin's ideas have been a total bust. And yet evos cling to them because their faith requires it.ET
January 11, 2021
January
01
Jan
11
11
2021
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
Again, for the learning impaired: How life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. An intelligently design OoL means that living organisms were so designed with the information and ability to evolve and adapt. It is only if blind and mindless processes produced the OoL can we say the subsequent evolution occurred via blind and mindless processes. Evos ALWAYS ignore that fact as if their willful ignorance is an argument. Pathetic, really.ET
January 11, 2021
January
01
Jan
11
11
2021
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
Earth to JVL- There isn't any theory of unguided evolution. The concept is incoherent and untestable.ET
January 11, 2021
January
01
Jan
11
11
2021
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
Earth to seversky- without Intelligent Design all you have is sheer dumb luck.ET
January 11, 2021
January
01
Jan
11
11
2021
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
Martin_r: are you saying, that Darwin’s theory of evolution is not supposed to explain ‘the origin of species’ How species 'originate' from existing ones. Perhaps he should have said the origin of new species. Anyway, his intent is clear in his writing. first, ‘the deadliest pathogens know to man’ werent supposed to attack / kill humans. In time these pathogens devolved to also kill humans. So, the designer doesn't care that they now attack humans? Second, ‘the deadliest pathogens know to man’ could be Creator’s demonstration of his power over humans and other species, this also can’t be ruled out. If i created you, Seversky, and you misbehave, i am pretty sure i will have a tool to show you whats right. Morever, i know you will misbehave, because i created you. So the designer sometimes spanks us for being naughty by infecting us with a virus? How does the designer direct who gets ill and who doesn't? Third, ‘the deadliest pathogens know to man’ could be population regulators, we see that when you look at bacteria ecology, bacteria are regulated/killed by bacteriophages. Tell me Seversky, why should a non-living biological entity (a virus), kill bacteria ? What is the reason ? A virus has no metabolism (it does not eat), he does not live, he does not compete, because it does not live and does not eat, so why does a virus kill bacteria ? A bacteriophage is a population regulator, no doubt. Non-living nano-machine, to regulate bacteria population. A killing machine. Why should some viruses kill bacteria? For the same reason they kill humans, it's how they reproduce and propagate. The ones who are good at it leave more offspring than those who aren't so good. Finally, not all humans get killed, obviously, our immune system was designed with foresight, to fight pathogens. Of course, you atheists BELIEVE, that immune system evolved in time, but this is just another Darwinian just-so story. You atheists BELIEVE something, and then, in time, it always turns out to be wrong… always …. :))))) So, we have an immune system to fight off infections but the ever observant designer sometimes bypasses that to inflict directed punishment? Let me get this right . . . we have an immune system which we would only need to fight off infections we weren't meant to get so the designer is not in complete control of our environmental pathogens. BUT they can still sometimes design a particular infection to punish some of us for being naughty? Is that about right? If i would be a skilled designer, skilled enough to create humans, i would definitely have a tool how to ‘update’ my engineering masterpiece. (The tool = e.g. retro-viruses ). So i can update you whenever i want to, even remotely. I don’t need to be on Earth, also, no abduction needed :))) All what i have to do is to deliver a retro-virus near to you, wait till you get infected, the retro-virus will add new data-set to your DNA, wait for your kids, and then i will have a new ‘updated’ generation of Seversky … Perhaps this is exactly what happened in the past, perhaps that is why 5-8% of human genome is made of retro-viruses. So, when the designer is not sitting back letting our immune systems handle a bunch of degraded pathogens OR punishing some of us by bypassing our gifted immune system 'cause we were bad they might later decide to upgrade our software by the hideously unpredictable method of sending around retro-viruses to move those of us lucky enough to get infected to version 2.1? Wow.JVL
January 11, 2021
January
01
Jan
11
11
2021
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
and Seversky, one more thing in regards to viruses. I am mechanical engineer with strong IT background. There are so called endogenous retro-viruses, perhaps you heard this term before. These types of viruses can change /add new data to your DNA, update your DNA. If i would be a skilled designer, skilled enough to create humans, i would definitely have a tool how to 'update' my engineering masterpiece. (The tool = e.g. retro-viruses ). So i can update you whenever i want to, even remotely. I don't need to be on Earth, also, no abduction needed :))) All what i have to do is to deliver a retro-virus near to you, wait till you get infected, the retro-virus will add new data-set to your DNA, wait for your kids, and then i will have a new 'updated' generation of Seversky ... Perhaps this is exactly what happened in the past, perhaps that is why 5-8% of human genome is made of retro-viruses. PS: one more note. Seversky, did you know, that according to Darwinists, 'blind unguided natural process' solved the incompatibility issue ? Retroviruses are RNA based. So, in order to infect humans, first, RNA needs to be converted to DNA :))))) So, this blind unguided natural process invented a molecular machine, so called reverse-transcriptase. Yes, the retro-virus somehow figured it out, to convert RNA to DNA was a piece of cake :))))martin_r
January 10, 2021
January
01
Jan
10
10
2021
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT
Seversky "If that is true then all of the deadliest pathogens known to Man were designed by the God in which you believe. So how do you square that with a wise and benign Creator" there could be at least 3 explanations: first, 'the deadliest pathogens know to man' werent supposed to attack / kill humans. In time these pathogens devolved to also kill humans. Second, 'the deadliest pathogens know to man' could be Creator's demonstration of his power over humans and other species, this also can't be ruled out. If i created you, Seversky, and you misbehave, i am pretty sure i will have a tool to show you whats right. Morever, i know you will misbehave, because i created you. Third, 'the deadliest pathogens know to man' could be population regulators, we see that when you look at bacteria ecology, bacteria are regulated/killed by bacteriophages. Tell me Seversky, why should a non-living biological entity (a virus), kill bacteria ? What is the reason ? A virus has no metabolism (it does not eat), he does not live, he does not compete, because it does not live and does not eat, so why does a virus kill bacteria ? A bacteriophage is a population regulator, no doubt. Non-living nano-machine, to regulate bacteria population. A killing machine. Finally, not all humans get killed, obviously, our immune system was designed with foresight, to fight pathogens. Of course, you atheists BELIEVE, that immune system evolved in time, but this is just another Darwinian just-so story. You atheists BELIEVE something, and then, in time, it always turns out to be wrong... always .... :)))))martin_r
January 10, 2021
January
01
Jan
10
10
2021
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT
JVL "You wouldn’t expect the theory of gravity to explain the origination of life forms so why do you expect the theory of evolution to do so since it’s not about that?" why do i expect the theory of evolution to explain the origination of life forms ? :))))) WHAT ??? WHAT ??????? are you saying, that Darwin's theory of evolution is not supposed to explain 'the origin of species' ??? :)))) i debated lots of evolutionists, i heard lots of very ridiculous things from evolutionists, but what you just said beats everything :)))))martin_r
January 10, 2021
January
01
Jan
10
10
2021
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT
Serversky states, "If that is true then all of the deadliest pathogens known to Man were designed by the God in which you believe. So how do you square that with a wise and benign Creator who supposedly loves humanity as the pinnacle of His creation?" Actually viruses, in their original state, and as I referenced in my post, serve essential and beneficial purposes. It is only in rare instances where bacteria and/or viruses deviate from the original state and/or purpose, via degradative mutations, or via what have you, where they wind up being pathogenic in their character. This 'observation' is perfectly consistent with the Judeo-Christian belief that we live in a fallen world where death and disease are present.bornagain77
January 10, 2021
January
01
Jan
10
10
2021
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
Seversky states,"So it’s lucky we don’t believe that everything arose from chaos or randomness." Really? And what exactly, other than chaos and/or randomness, is generating those infinitude of multiverses that atheists have postulated to explain away the fine tuning of the universe?
Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory Excerpt: On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator-the-multiverse-theory The Fine-Tuning of the Universe - Dr. Craig video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE76nwimuT0
Sev goes on " We observe the Universe in which we exist to display order and regularities. That order and those regularities demand explanation. " Shoot, even prior to the discovery of the fine tuning of the universe, Eddington himself said that purpose or design is equivalent to believing in 'anti-chance', and that 'anti-chance', i.e. design, comes screaming back at us at the beginning of time,
,,, "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me. I am simply stating the dilemma to which our present fundamental conception of physical law leads us. I see no way round it; but whether future developments of science will find an escape I cannot predict. The dilemma is this: Surveying our surroundings, we find them to be far from a “fortuitous concourse of atoms”. The picture of the world, as drawn in existing physical theories shows arrangements of the individual elements for which the odds are multillions to 1 against an origin by chance.,,, ,,, Some people would like to call this non-random feature of the world purpose or design; but I will call it non-committally anti-chance. We are unwilling in physics that anti-chance plays any part in the reactions between the systems of billions of atoms and quanta that we study; and indeed all our experimental evidence goes to show that these are governed by the laws of chance. Accordingly, we sweep anti-chance out of the laws of physics–out of the differential equations. Naturally, therefore, it reappears in the boundary conditions, for it must be got into the scheme somewhere. By sweeping it far enough away from the sphere of our current physical problems, we fancy we have got rid of it. It is only when some of us are so misguided as to try to get back billions of years into the past that we find the sweepings all piled up like a high wall and forming a boundary–a beginning of time–which we cannot climb over." - Eddington https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/arthur-stanley-eddington-darwinists-and-repugnant-notions/
Sev: then states: "Science starts, as has been noted many times before, from observation." Well actually, we are talking about the Atheist's philosophical presupposition of chance, chaos, and/or randomness as the ultimate creator of all things, not what the scientific method itself starts with, but anyways, even if science starts from 'observation' (and I would argue that science 'starts' from asking the right questions), but anyways even if science starts from 'observation' and if Darwinian evolution were true, then, as Donald Hoffman and others have pointed out, we could not trust our observations of the world.,,, In other words, our 'observations of the world would be unreliable and therefore, since 'reliable' observation is indeed a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method, then, if Darwinian evolution were actually true, that would undermine science itself. Luckily, science itself could care less what Darwinists are forced to believe because of their theory, and quantum mechanics has now proven, (via Leggett's Inequality and Wheeler's Deleayed choice experiment), that our observations play a integral part in bringing physical reality into existence and therefore our 'observations' are far more reliable of physical reality than Darwinists are forced to believe because of their theory. Sev than states, " We have constructed various “languages”, such as logic and mathematics, with which to both model that observed reality and to try and explain it." And yet both Einstein and Wigner are on record as to regarding as a miracle that we can model the universe with mathematics. Last time I checked, miracles are the sole province of God. Therefore, argue with Einstein and Wigner, not me. Sev goes on to ask "The question is how can we determine which, if any, of them (explanations for the universe) is the right one?" Well, I would stick with the only one that does not wind up in catastrophic epistemological failure, i.e. God!
Multiverse Mania vs Reality - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQJV4fH6kMo
bornagain77
January 10, 2021
January
01
Jan
10
10
2021
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
Bornagain77/20
Viruses, in spite of pathogenic viruses, give us abundant evidence of having being designed from the outset,
If that is true then all of the deadliest pathogens known to Man were designed by the God in which you believe. So how do you square that with a wise and benign Creator who supposedly loves humanity as the pinnacle of His creation?Seversky
January 10, 2021
January
01
Jan
10
10
2021
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
Martin_r/15
Darwin’s theory of evolution is the biggest fail in the history of science. The only reason why it lasted for so long (150 years), it is because the subject is politically very sensitive.
So your alternative is just another conspiracy theory?
Anyway, it is very disturbing, that so many smart people (after all the discoveries made in 21st century) still support it.
Or maybe it's indicative that the theory has merit if so any smart people believe it?
The whole theory is absurd to the highest possible degree. Viruses – the MOST ABUNDANT biological entity on Earth, and your theory can’t explain where viruses come from :)))) Especially in COVID-19 era. So absurd it is :))))
When Darwin published his theory in 1859 viruses were unknown, so it's hardly surprising he didn't mention them. The evolutionary origins of viruses is still unclear but that doesn't make the theory absurd, just incomplete.Seversky
January 10, 2021
January
01
Jan
10
10
2021
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
Bornagain77/5
Seversky, in order to even argue in a rationally coherent manner in the first place you are forced to adopt a Theological worldview. i.e. If you believe that the universe, and therefore your thoughts, are ultimately the result of chaos and/or randomness, then all rationality is lost
So it's lucky we don't believe that everything arose from chaos or randomness. Science starts, as has been noted many times before, from observation. We observe the Universe in which we exist to display order and regularities. That order and those regularities demand explanation. We have constructed various "languages", such as logic and mathematics, with which to both model that observed reality and to try and explain it. One option is some sort of supremely knowledgeable and powerful intelligent agency or Creator but it is not necessarily the only one. So we do not need a theological worldview to explain it all. Science is necessarily "grounded" in what we can observe not what we can imagine. We can imagine any number of creator explanations not just the Christian one. The question is how can we determine which, if any, of them is the right one?Seversky
January 10, 2021
January
01
Jan
10
10
2021
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
Martin_r: ONCE AGAIN, THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION CAN’T EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE MOST ABUNDANT LIFE FORM ON EARTH. SO MY QUESTION AGAIN, HOW ABSURD IS THIS THEORY ? Sorry you're disappointed. You wouldn't expect the theory of gravity to explain the origination of life forms so why do you expect the theory of evolution to do so since it's not about that? Anyway, if you've got an explanation for the origination of viruses I'd be very interested to hear it.JVL
January 10, 2021
January
01
Jan
10
10
2021
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
JVL: "... and the origination of some particular life forms. " some particular life forms ???? :))) A typical Darwinist. Trying to downplay the fact, that Darwinian theory of evolution can't explain the origin of the MOST ABUNDANT!!!! biological entity on Earth. some particular life forms ???? :))) ONCE AGAIN, THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION CAN'T EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE MOST ABUNDANT LIFE FORM ON EARTH. SO MY QUESTION AGAIN, HOW ABSURD IS THIS THEORY ? PS: what you did read about the origin of viruses, it is only a hypothesis, there are several hypothesis on viruses' origin. Hypothesis = JUST-SO STORY, but the fact is, Darwinists are very talented story tellers... Why don't they shows us in the lab, how bacteria degenerate into a virus :)))))))martin_r
January 10, 2021
January
01
Jan
10
10
2021
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
Martin_r: nevermind… So, you can't or won't tell us where you think viruses came from. Why not? You Darwinists developed a theory on how Earth’s species came to be, but, the theory has a pretty huge problem – it can’t explain the existence of the MOST ABUNDANT biological entity on Earth (viruses). The theory of unguided evolution applies to the arrival of new species on the backs of existing ones. Clearly there are some vast unknown areas having to do with the origin of life in general and the origination of some particular life forms. No one is denying that. I did read somewhere that there is some notion that viruses arose from degenerated bacteria but I haven't looked into that.JVL
January 10, 2021
January
01
Jan
10
10
2021
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT
JVL, nevermind... The theory is absurd and ridiculous, don't matter whether JVL agree or not :))) You Darwinists developed a theory on how Earth's species came to be, but, the theory has a pretty huge problem - it can't explain the existence of the MOST ABUNDANT biological entity on Earth (viruses). If this is not absurd in the highest possible degree, then i don't know. (don't matter whether you agree to)martin_r
January 10, 2021
January
01
Jan
10
10
2021
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT
Martin_r: i will explain where the viruses come from, before i continue, you have to agree with my claim, that it is really absurd, that the Darwinian theory of evolution can’t explain (using scientific evidence) where the MOST ABUNDANT biological entity on Earth (viruses) come from. Why do I have to agree to that first?JVL
January 9, 2021
January
01
Jan
9
09
2021
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
JVL, i will explain where the viruses come from, before i continue, you have to agree with my claim, that it is really absurd, that the Darwinian theory of evolution can't explain (using scientific evidence) where the MOST ABUNDANT biological entity on Earth (viruses) come from.martin_r
January 9, 2021
January
01
Jan
9
09
2021
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: (Lots of football to enjoy today if you are a fan!) ? I bet. Not in the UK though. I followed the Sea Hawks during the Dave Krieg and Steve Largent years. Chuck Knox was the coach during part of that time; Ground Chuck. Their special teams were fabulous then.JVL
January 9, 2021
January
01
Jan
9
09
2021
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
In fact, we would not exist were it not for the beneficial effects of viruses
What if all viruses disappeared? - June 17 2020 The vast majority of viruses are not pathogenic to humans, and many play integral roles in propping up ecosystems. Others maintain the health of individual organisms – everything from fungi and plants to insects and humans. “We live in a balance, in a perfect equilibrium”, and viruses are a part of that, says Susana Lopez Charretón, a virologist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. “I think we’d be done without viruses.”,,, What scientists know for sure is that without viruses, life and the planet as we know it would cease to exist. And even if we wanted to, it would probably be impossible to annihilate every virus on Earth. But by imagining what the world would be like without viruses, we can better understand not only how integral they are to our survival, but also how much we still have to learn about them.,,, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200617-what-if-all-viruses-disappeared Trillions Upon Trillions of Viruses Fall From the Sky Each Day - Jim Robbins - April 13, 2018 Excerpt: Whatever the case, viruses are the most abundant entities on the planet by far. While Dr. Suttle’s team found hundreds of millions of viruses in a square meter, they counted tens of millions of bacteria in the same space. Mostly thought of as infectious agents, viruses are much more than that. It’s hard to overstate the central role that viruses play in the world: They’re essential to everything from our immune system to our gut microbiome, to the ecosystems on land and sea, to climate regulation,,,. Viruses contain a vast diverse array of unknown genes — and spread them to other species.,,, In laboratory experiments, he has filtered viruses out of seawater but left their prey, bacteria. When that happens, plankton in the water stop growing. That’s because when preying viruses infect and take out one species of microbe — they are very specific predators — they liberate nutrients in them, such as nitrogen, that feed other species of bacteria.,,, Viruses help keep ecosystems in balance by changing the composition of microbial communities. As toxic algae blooms spread in the ocean, for example, they are brought to heel by a virus that attacks the algae and causes it to explode and die, ending the outbreak in as little as a day.,,, The beneficial effects of viruses are much less known, especially among plants. “There are huge questions in wild systems about what viruses are doing there,” said Marilyn Roossinck, who studies viral ecology in plants at Pennsylvania State University. “We have never found deleterious effects from a virus in the wild.” A grass found in the high-temperature soils of Yellowstone’s geothermal areas, for example, needs a fungus to grow in the extreme environment. In turn, the fungus needs a virus.,,, Tiny spots of virus on the plant that yields quinoa is also important for the plant’s survival. “Little spots of virus confer drought tolerance but don’t cause disease,” she said. “It changes the whole plant physiology.” “Viruses aren’t our enemies,” Dr. Suttle said. “Certain nasty viruses can make you sick, but it’s important to recognize that viruses and other microbes out there are absolutely integral for the ecosystem.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/science/virosphere-evolution.html Viruses: You've heard the bad; here's the good - April 30, 2015 Excerpt: "The word, virus, connotes morbidity and mortality, but that bad reputation is not universally deserved," said Marilyn Roossinck, PhD, Professor of Plant Pathology and Environmental Microbiology and Biology at the Pennsylvania State University, University Park. "Viruses, like bacteria, can be important beneficial microbes in human health and in agriculture," she said. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150430170750.htm
As well, the genetic sequences of Viruses do not conform to what Darwinists had predicted for them,,
Viruses and the tree of life Excerpt: Viruses cannot be included in the tree of life because they do not share characteristics with cells, and no single gene is shared by all viruses or viral lineages.,,, No single gene has been identified that is shared by all viruses.,,, It cannot be proven that early viruses appeared along with the first cells.,,, Viral genomes encode many genes that have no homologues in cells.,,, https://www.virology.ws/2009/03/19/viruses-and-the-tree-of-life/
bornagain77
January 9, 2021
January
01
Jan
9
09
2021
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
Viruses, in spite of pathogenic viruses, give us abundant evidence of having being designed from the outset, All you have to do is look at them to know for a fact that they were designed
Michael Behe - 2020 - Bacteriophage - 11:45 minute mark https://youtu.be/6Pi5UoZkn4g?t=700 Bacteriophage T4 - landing - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdz9VGH8dwY
The first thought I had when I first saw the bacteriophage virus is that it looks very similar to the lunar lander of the Apollo program. The comparison is not without merit considering some of the relative distances to be traveled and the virus must somehow possess, as of yet unelucidated, orientation, guidance, docking, unloading, loading, etc... mechanisms. And please remember this level of complexity exists in a world that is far too small to be seen with the naked eye. And although most people think of viruses as being very harmful to humans, the fact is that the Bacteriophage (Bacteria Eater) virus, in the preceding video, is actually a very beneficial virus to man.
Bacteriophage Excerpt: Bacteriophages are among the most common biological entities on Earth,,,They have been used for over 60 years as an alternative to antibiotics in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.[5] They are seen as a possible therapy against multi drug resistant strains of many bacteria.,,,development of phage therapy was largely abandoned in the West, but continued throughout 1940s in the former Soviet Union for treating bacterial infections, with widespread use including the soldiers in the Red Army—much of the literature was published in Russian or Georgian, and unavailable for many years in the West. Their use has continued since the end of the Cold War in Georgia and elsewhere in Eastern Europe.,,,In August, 2006 the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved using bacteriophages on cheese to kill the Listeria monocytogenes bacteria, giving them GRAS status (Generally Recognized As Safe).[10] In July 2007, the same bacteriophages were approved for use on all food products.[11] Government agencies in the West have for several years been looking to Georgia and the Former Soviet Union for help with exploiting phages for counteracting bioweapons and toxins, e.g., Anthrax, Botulism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage (Bacteriophage) Viruses in the gut protect from infection - 20 May 2013 Excerpt: Barr and his colleagues,, show that animal mucus — whether from humans, fish or corals — is loaded with bacteria-killing viruses called phages. These protect their hosts from infection by destroying incoming bacteria. In return, the phages are exposed to a steady torrent of microbes in which to reproduce. “It’s a unique form of symbiosis, between animals and viruses,” says Rotem Sorek, a microbial geneticist ,, “It’s groundbreaking,” adds Frederic Bushman, a microbiologist ,, “The idea that phage can be viewed as part of the innate immune system is original and exciting. http://www.nature.com/news/viruses-in-the-gut-protect-from-infection-1.13023 Not All Viruses Are Bad For You. Here Are Some That Can Have a Protective Effect - CYNTHIA MATHEW - AUGUST 2019 Excerpt: Some viruses can actually kill bacteria, while others can fight against more dangerous viruses. So like protective bacteria (probiotics), we have several protective viruses in our body. Protective 'phages' Bacteriophages (or "phages") are viruses that infect and destroy specific bacteria. They're found in the mucus membrane lining in the digestive, respiratory and reproductive tracts.,,, Recent research suggests the phages present in the mucus are part of our natural immune system, protecting the human body from invading bacteria. Phages have actually been used to treat dysentery, sepsis caused by Staphylococcus aureus, salmonella infections and skin infections for nearly a century. Early sources of phages for therapy included local water bodies, dirt, air, sewage and even body fluids from infected patients. The viruses were isolated from these sources, purified, and then used for treatment. https://www.sciencealert.com/not-all-viruses-are-bad-for-you-here-are-some-that-can-have-a-protective-effect
bornagain77
January 9, 2021
January
01
Jan
9
09
2021
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Whatever JVL, you are just throwing stuff at the wall now to see if anything will stick. Since I am quite comfortable that unbiased readers can see that I have made my case, and that you are blowing smoke, I am done. I have other things to do today. Enjoy your afternoon. (Lots of football to enjoy today if you are a fan!) :)bornagain77
January 9, 2021
January
01
Jan
9
09
2021
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: And yet, “But that assumption is now known to be false.” But the mutation rate is NOT the same thing as the mutations themselves. Just speeding up the rate doesn't make them more predictable. Just more common. Obviously duplicated chunks of DNA have less selective pressure and are more likely to survive infancy and get passed on if they change. I have read about certain segments being pushed to mutate faster but, again, that's just increasing the rate; it's not specifying which mutations occur. If I flip a coin once every second I get a lot more heads in a couple of minutes than if I flip it once every 5 seconds. That's the difference between the rate and randomness. The coin flip is random in both cases.JVL
January 9, 2021
January
01
Jan
9
09
2021
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Martin_r: Darwin’s theory of evolution is the biggest fail in the history of science. The only reason why it lasted for so long (150 years), it is because the whole thing is politically very sensitive. Obviously I disagree but I don't think we're likely to find much common ground so I won't push the point. The whole theory is absurd to the highest possible degree. Viruses – the MOST ABUNDANT biological entity on Earth, and your theory can’t explain where viruses come from :)))) Especially in COVID-19 era. So absurd it is :)))) Can you explain where viruses come from? I'd be very interested to hear your thinking on that.JVL
January 9, 2021
January
01
Jan
9
09
2021
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply