Jonathan McLatchie writes to say,
The UK Centre for Intelligent Design (C4ID) is hosting a series of webinars, beginning this Friday evening, on the current Coronavirus pandemic. The speakers are Dr. Michael Behe (Friday July 17th), myself (Thursday July 23rd), and Dr. Hugo van Woerden (Thursday July 30th). The theme is “Design in Virology?” All times are 3pm Eastern (8pm British time).
You can find full details, including the YouTube URLs for the live-streams, here.
Here. is the link for Michael Behe’s webinar this coming Friday.
Webinars: hat tip to social distancing.
Michael Behe’s latest book, of course, is Darwin Devolves, in which he argues that much “evolution” is actually breaking or blunting sophisticated equipment for a current advantage. Should suit the discussion of viruses pretty well. Stay safe.
Viruses invent their own genes? Then what is left of Darwinism?
Why viruses are not considered to be alive
Another stab at whether viruses are alive
Phil Sci journal: Special section on understanding viruses
Should NASA look for viruses in space? Actually, it’s not clear that RNA came first. Nor is it clear that viruses precede life. A good case can doubtless be made for viruses being part of the scrap heap of existing life. But no matter. If you think you can find viruses in space, boldly go.
Why “evolution” is changing? Consider viruses
The Scientist asks, Should giant viruses be the fourth domain of life? Eukaryotes, prokaryotes, archaea… and viruses?
and
Are viruses nature’s perfect machine? Or alive?
Viruses invent their own genes but they are not considered to be alive? Will Behe be arguing that they are irreducibly complex zombies?
Seversky,
The anthropomorphism aside, what’s your definition of “alive”?
-Q
Seversky?
And other than your imagination, your evidence for this claim is where exactly?
Querius @ 2
Difficult question but you should ask News, she’s been discussing it:
Bornagain77 @ 3
Not my claim. I just followed your example and copy and pasted from News:
See above.
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
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/07/with-morgues-brimming-texas-and-arizona-turn-to-refrigerator-trucks/
Seversky, you accuse me of dishonestly quoting out of context, i.e. ‘copying and pasting’, so as to dishonesty ‘spin’ evidence against Darwinian evolution.
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,,,”
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”.
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:
JVL, what do you think you get when you sharply restrict lawful assemblies including for funerals? (as opposed to, riots) KF
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, 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: 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, 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
Folks, virus D/RNA is a significant issue, given that they hijack cells to reproduce and have unique codes in many cases. KF
They were doing that in NYC a couple months ago when they had their big die-off.
Martin_r @ 6
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.
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.
Bornagain77 @ 8
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.
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”.
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:
Seversky at 18, you are, as usual, short on facts and long on hogwash. Among other shaky claims, you also claimed,
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,,,
Likewise, Richard Dawkins, of ‘selfish gene’ fame, has also claimed that a rabbit in the Precambrian would ‘completely blow evolution out of the water.’
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.
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.
Even a Darwinist admitted that a ‘pre-Cambrian rabbit’ would never falsify Darwinian evolution:
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,
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,
Verse:
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:
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,
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:
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.
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”.