Free Webinar: ID and COVID-19 with Michael Behe

Seversky at 18, you are, as usual, short on facts and long on hogwash. Among other shaky claims, you also claimed,

"If we began unearthing lots fossils of animals in strata where they did not belong according to evolutionary theory – such as leporids in the Ediacaran period – then that could lead to some revision."

Seversky, first I note that you said that it would lead simply to a 'some revision' of evolutionary theory and did not say that it would falsify Darwin's theory. That you would say that it would lead to 'some revision' and not falsify Darwin's theory is an interesting claim for you to make since J. B. S. Haldane, one of the founders of population genetics, when he was asked what would falsify Darwinism, (not what would 'revise' it, but what would, straight out, falsify it,) did not refer to any laboratory testing to perform, but instead claimed that “Precambrian rabbits” would falsify Darwinian evolution,,,

“Precambrian rabbits” or “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian” are reported to have been among responses given by the biologist J.B.S. Haldane when asked what evidence could destroy his confidence in the theory of evolution and the field of study. . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit

Likewise, Richard Dawkins, of ‘selfish gene’ fame, has also claimed that a rabbit in the Precambrian would ‘completely blow evolution out of the water.’

“However, if there was a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found.”4 The evolution wars, Time, 7 August 2005 http://creation.com/precambrian-rabbits-death-knell-for-evolution

These were interesting claims for Haldane and Dawkins to make , since, number 1, fossils are found in the wrong place all the time, either too early or too late (Casey Luskin), and number two, and more importantly, the Cambrian explosion, in and of itself, is extremely problematic for Darwinists.

What Types of Evolution Does the Cambrian Explosion Challenge? – Stephen Meyer – video – (The Cambrian Explosion challenges Universal Common Descent and the Mechanism of Random Variation/Natural Selection) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaF7t5wRFtA&list=UUUMhP2x7_7psVO-H4MJFpAQ Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, PhD talks about the Case for Intelligent Design – video (excellent lecture on the Cambrian Explosion – Oct. 2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl802lHAk5Y

Besides the fact that the Cambrian Explosion by itself strongly challenges claims for 'gradual' Darwinian evolution, the fact of the matter is that a pre-Cambrian rabbit simply would not falsify Darwinian evolution.

Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge 5. Testability What evidence would convince you that evolution is false? If no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory?,,, The evolutionist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what would convince him that evolution was false, replied that finding a rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian rocks would do quite nicely. Such a fossil would, by standard geological dating, be out of sequence by several hundreds of millions of years. Certainly such a finding, if rigorously confirmed, would overturn the current understanding of the history of life. But it would not overturn evolution. Haldane’s rabbit is easily enough explained as an evolutionary convergence, in which essentially the same structure or life form evolves twice. In place of a common underlying intelligent design, evolutionists invoke evolutionary convergence whenever confronted with similar biological structures that cannot reasonably be traced back to a common evolutionary ancestor. So long as some unknown or unexplored evolutionary pathway might have led to the formation of some biological structure or organism, evolutionists prefer it over alternative explanations such as intelligent design. And since the unknown and unexplored allow for an infinity of loopholes, the committed evolutionist regards Darwinian and other materialist explanations of life’s origin and subsequent development as always trumping alternative explanations, regardless of the evidence. – By William A. Dembski - per .brianauten DOT com

Even a Darwinist admitted that a ‘pre-Cambrian rabbit’ would never falsify Darwinian evolution:

“In 2009, Steve Meyer and I spoke at the Sam Noble Museum of Natural History at the University of Oklahoma. The day before, the museum’s curator of invertebrate paleontology, Dr. Stephen Westrop, made a pre-emptive strike by giving his own talk about why the Cambrian explosion poses no challenge to Darwinian theory. He concluded by taking exception to J.B.S. Haldane’s claim that finding a fossil rabbit in the pre-Cambrian would prove Darwin’s theory wrong. If such a fossil were found, Westrop said, paleontologists would simply revise their reconstruction of the history of life. During the Q&A, one student asked him whether any fossil find could falsify Darwin’s theory, and Professor Westrop said “No,” since Darwin’s theory is really about natural selection, which operates on a much shorter time scale than the fossil record.” – Jonathan Wells per uncommon descent

Moreover, J. B. S. Haldane’s, (and Dawkins’), pre-Cambrian rabbit criteria for falsification of evolution is interesting. Haldane was one of the founders of population genetics. If anyone should have been able to point to a defining empirical test that could potentially falsify Darwinian evolution, it should have been him, (or even should have been Richard Dawkins since Dawkins is the one wrote ‘The Selfish Gene’). But they did not do that, both Haldane and Dawkins pointed to a hypothetical precambrian rabbit. It seems as if they knew that their own areas of expertise did not support Darwinian evolution and could not stand up to scrutiny. It is good that Haldane and Dawkins did not point to their own areas of expertise since both those areas are now turning out to be extremely damning for Darwinists. (i.e. Waiting time problem and Gene Pleiotropy respectfully). In short, the truth of the matter is that Darwinian evolution simply does not have a rigid falsification criteria to test against and it is primarily for that reason that it does not even qualify as a rigorous and testable scientific theory in the first place,

In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality. - Karl Popper

Here are a few falsifications, out of many, of Darwinian evolution that Darwinian atheists ignore and simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory,

Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

Verse:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Besides Darwinists refusing to adhere to the criteria of falsification for their supposedly scientific theory, by any other reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science or not, as is shown in the following video, Darwinian evolution fails to meet those criteria as well:

“There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.” – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17 Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

Simply put, Darwinian evolution simply fails to qualify as a rigorous and testable science by any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke to see if it is, and it is therefore more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a real and testable science. As Berlinski noted,

“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003

Moreover, contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. In fact, although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists, with their insistence on methodological naturalism as a 'ground rule' for doing science, are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:

Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM

Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Thus in conclusion Seversky, you directly implied that I was the one who was holding onto 'religious preconceptions' in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. That could not be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that it is you yourself, as well as your Darwinian cohorts, who are desperately holding onto your 'atheistic preconceptions' “in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs”.

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." – Lewontin

bornagain77

Bornagain77 @ 8

Seversky, you accuse me of dishonestly quoting out of context, i.e. ‘copying and pasting’, so as to dishonesty ‘spin’ evidence against Darwinian evolution.

The vast majority of your posts are comprised of copied and pasted quotes and passages which are clearly intended to buttress your religious preconceptions. If that is what you intend then that is not dishonest. If you really believe that they are a fair and accurate representation of the state of the science in those fields or the real views of the researchers you are quoting then that may not be dishonest either even though you may be wrong.

Yet, if you would have clicked on the link on that quote from News that you yourself ‘copy and pasted’, and if you would have actually read for comprehension, instead of just trying to score cheap rhetorical points, you would have found that News’s headline was derived from a outrageous claim from Darwinists.

This only reinforces my belief that you read these passages in the light of your religious beliefs, which include an anti-evolution agenda. The researchers speculate that "most of these viruses’ genes may originate spontaneously and randomly in intergenic regions". There is nothing outrageous or problematical for evolution about that. There is certainly no suggestion that the viruses are consciously designing their own functional genes other than a little hyperbole about them being "craftsmen of genetic creativity".

In other words, is there any evidence that would ever falsify Darwinism in your mind? Or are you, like Lewontin, willing to accept Darwinism “in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs”.

If we began unearthing lots fossils of animals in strata where they did not belong according to evolutionary theory - such as leporids in the Ediacaran period - then that could lead to some revision. When that happens, let us know. As for the Lewontin quote you continue to copy and paste, I flat out disagree with it and I don't remember you or kf ever posting this quote from him:

No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

Seversky

How something originated dictates how it evolved. And even if viruses were intelligently designed it still could be that random changes made them lethal to us. However, if this is really a universe designed for scientific discovery, imperfections drive inquiry. We were granted the ability to adapt by changing our behavior based on knowledge of past experiences. It would be a dull world with little to experience is all was perfect. ET

Martin_r @ 6

i have a simple question: where are the viruses (the most abundant biological entity on Earth) come from? Because Darwinian clowns and the evolutionary theory can’t explain the origin and existence of viruses.

I have no idea where viruses came from and the theory of evolution is no help either because, in case you weren't aware, it is not a theory of origins. And in case you were also not aware, the first evidence of pathogens much smaller than bacteria did not emerge until the very end of the nineteenth century. Darwin knew nothing about them so it is hardly surprising his theory did not address them. As for the origins of viruses, either they arose through natural processes or they were created by some intelligent agency. But, if you are proposing that they were created, then you have to explain why these aliens - or your God - chose to dump millions of species of viruses into our environment, many of which are harmful and even lethal to us. It might even lead us to suspect that He/they didn't care much for us after all. Seversky

Officials in Texas and Arizona have requested refrigerated trucks to hold the dead as hospitals and morgues become overwhelmed by victims of the raging COVID-19 pandemic.

They were doing that in NYC a couple months ago when they had their big die-off. ET

Folks, virus D/RNA is a significant issue, given that they hijack cells to reproduce and have unique codes in many cases. KF kairosfocus

JVL, this is unintended (but predictable) consequences in action. A funeral is a big event in families, as well I know from experience, one often full of debates, negotiations and disagreements, with the money clock ticking all along. A lot of people have vetoes and may be willing to use them. In the end, if there is a serious problem, a warning and deadline backed up by threat of state intervention on public health concerns may resolve the matter; similar to what happens with an earthquake or war. But that will leave a lot of ruffled feathers. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus: I simply pointed out something brought to my attention yet again over the past few days: postponement of funerals because people do not want very restricted attendance. Okay. Just out of curiosity how would you recommend that situation be handled? I've got no ideas but it sounds like you do. JVL

JVL, this is a side topic, I simply pointed out something brought to my attention yet again over the past few days: postponement of funerals because people do not want very restricted attendance. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus: JVL, what do you think you get when you sharply restrict lawful assemblies including for funerals? (as opposed to, riots) Hey, I just published a story about refrigerator trucks being used as morgues. I wasn't advocating anything. JVL

JVL, what do you think you get when you sharply restrict lawful assemblies including for funerals? (as opposed to, riots) KF kairosfocus

Seversky, you accuse me of dishonestly quoting out of context, i.e. 'copying and pasting', so as to dishonesty 'spin' evidence against Darwinian evolution.

Sev: Not my claim. I just followed your example and copy and pasted from News: News: "Viruses invent their own genes? Then what is left of Darwinism?"

Yet, if you would have clicked on the link on that quote from News that you yourself 'copy and pasted', and if you would have actually read for comprehension, instead of just trying to score cheap rhetorical points, you would have found that News's headline was derived from a outrageous claim from Darwinists. A claim that Darwinists themselves had made in order to avoid falsification from the finding of pervasive orphan genes in viruses, i.e. "this groundbreaking hypothesis would make these giant viruses craftsmen of genetic creativity,,,"

Viruses Invent Their Own Genes? Then What Is Left Of Darwinism? Excerpt: the only possible explanation for the gigantic size of pandoravirus genomes, their diversity and the large proportion of orphan genes they contain: most of these viruses’ genes may originate spontaneously and randomly in intergenic regions. In this scenario, genes “appear” in different locations from one strain to another, thus explaining their unique nature. If confirmed, this groundbreaking hypothesis would make these giant viruses craftsmen of genetic creativity — a central, but still poorly explained component of any understanding of the source of life and its evolution. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/evolution/viruses-invent-their-own-genes-then-what-is-left-of-darwinism/

That claim, as you yourself alluded to, is preposterous, i.e. Sev: "Will Behe be arguing that they (viruses) are irreducibly complex zombies?" Thus, apparently, even you find their 'just so story' of viruses inventing their own genes to be ludicrous. So now that you know the entire context of News's headline, and even agree with her that the notion of viruses inventing their own genes is ludicrous, then what is your answer to her question, "(If) Viruses invent their own genes, then what is left of Darwinism?" In other words, is there any evidence that would ever falsify Darwinism in your mind? Or are you, like Lewontin, willing to accept Darwinism "in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs".

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. - Lewontin http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/lewontin.html

Of supplemental note, and as Martin_r alluded to in post 6, viruses are far more problematic for Darwinian claims than Darwinists are apparently willing to admit in public:

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

Officials in Texas and Arizona have requested refrigerated trucks to hold the dead as hospitals and morgues become overwhelmed by victims of the raging COVID-19 pandemic. “In the hospital, there are only so many places to put bodies,” Ken Davis, chief medical officer of Christus Santa Rosa Health System in the San Antonio area, said in a briefing this week. “We're out of space, and our funeral homes are out of space, and we need those beds. So, when someone dies, we need to quickly turn that bed over. “It’s a hard thing to talk about,” Davis added. “People's loved ones are dying."

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/07/with-morgues-brimming-texas-and-arizona-turn-to-refrigerator-trucks/ JVL

Seversky i have a simple question: where are the viruses (the most abundant biological entity on Earth) come from? Because Darwinian clowns and the evolutionary theory can't explain the origin and existence of viruses. Therefore, another question: What is the Darwinian theory of evolution and its common descent idea good for, when it can't explain the origin and existence of the most abundant biological entity on Earth ? Let me repeat the following - Darwin's idea of common descent does not work with viruses, because viruses do not share characteristic with cells, viruses are a completely different 'system'. Some quotes from a mainstream website (Virology.ws): "In a phylogenetic tree, the characteristics of members of taxa are inherited from previous ancestors. 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. While cellular life has a single, common origin, viruses are polyphyletic – they have many evolutionary origins." Seversky, do you understand, what the above means? Do you understand these words "POLYPHYLETIC - they have many evolutionary origins" ? It means, that each virus is unique ... DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS ? It is like to explain the origin of life hundred-thousands times .... "Almost 200,000 Never-Before-Seen Viruses Were Just Discovered Hidden in Our Oceans " https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-just-discovered-nearly-200-000-new-viruses-lurking-in-our-oceans martin_r

Bornagain77 @ 3

And other than your imagination, your evidence for this claim is where exactly?

Not my claim. I just followed your example and copy and pasted from News:

Viruses invent their own genes? Then what is left of Darwinism?

See above. Seversky

Querius @ 2

The anthropomorphism aside, what’s your definition of “alive”?

Difficult question but you should ask News, she's been discussing it:

Why viruses are not considered to be alive

Seversky

Seversky?

Viruses invent their own genes,,,

And other than your imagination, your evidence for this claim is where exactly? bornagain77

Seversky, The anthropomorphism aside, what's your definition of "alive"? -Q Querius

Viruses invent their own genes but they are not considered to be alive? Will Behe be arguing that they are irreducibly complex zombies? Seversky