Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

[Jose Fly]

As someone who spent a lot of time on the evolution v creationism battles over the last 20 years, I've noticed that in the last 5 years or so the issue seems to have largely gone off the radar. In the message boards that are still around (both Christian and secular) it's barely debated, if at all. Websites specifically dedicated to countering creationist talking points such as talkorigins and pandasthumb have gone silent, seemingly because there just isn't much to talk about.

Surveys have shown that younger Americans accept the reality of evolution at pretty much the same rate as the rest of the developed world. Thanks to national focus on science education by organizations like the NCSE, evolution is more widely taught than ever, even in the deep south. The Discovery Institute (the main "intelligent design" organization) stopped advocating for ID creationism to be taught in schools years ago, and they closed their alleged "research arm" last year.

On the science front, creationism remains as it has for over a century....100% scientifically irrelevant.

So for all practical intents and purposes, this debate is over. There isn't any sort of public debate over teaching creationism, nor is there any real debate about whether evolution should be taught. For sure there's still work to do in some parts of the country (mostly the south and interior west) where even though evolution is officially required, teachers don't teach it either because it's "too controversial" or they don't believe it themselves, but big picture-wise, "evolution v creationism" is in about the same state as "spherical v flat earth"....nothing more than something a handful of people argue about on the internet, but outside of that has little to no significance. And even on that front it's kinda dead....most forums where it's openly debated have a very skewed ratio where there's like 10 "evolutionists" for every 1 creationist.

Glad to see it!

[Sherlock Holmes]

Exactly. They were placed there when the Universe was created last Thursday.

There is no naturalistic theory of where viruses came from

It's funny to me how you are able to squeeze so much wrong into only ten words.

There are no consesus views, but there are a number of competing hypotheses for the origin of viruses, each with evidence in its favor. You have instead implied that the patterns that match ancient viral infection are no more than supernatural caprice. "Maybe Jesus did it" is neither more evidence-driven, nor is it more falsifiable in principle than "everything popped into existence last Thursday."

The icing on the cake, though, is that the presence of ERVs only relates to the origin of viruses in the sense that viruses must have existed for ERVs to actually be ERVs. Since I doubt that your argument is that viruses don't exist, I must assume that you just didn't think through your line of reasoning very carefully before making it.

The tendency to resort to strawman arguments seems uncontrollable in some, I do not think EarthScienceGuy every posited "Maybe Jesus did it". This is the way of the atheist, if anyone dissents from the official line then don't hear them out, don't consider how they might see things, just resort to ridicule, dismissal (this is the atheists idea of a "scientific argument").

So tell me where did anyone posit "Maybe Jesus did it"? you can't show us can you? because it didn't happen did it?

How about I respond to your claims with "Maybe it happened all by itself" because arguably that is exactly what your belief boils down to, yes?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Gene's equate to function, genes are building blocks, proteins are building blocks, design is all about creating things from building blocks, from standard already designed parts, that's one possible explanation.

1. The mechanism by which a retrovirus inserts a copy of its RNA genome into the DNA of a host germ cell that it invades which later is transmitted to descendants is well known.
Q: What stops this mechanism from happening? What stops these accumulations to pile on and be transmitted on the descendants line? To be used as record of common descent?

2. Scientists have made revival experiments:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1665638/
3. Reactivation from non-function to function
“Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), viral-associated sequences, are normal components of the human genome and account for 8-9% of our genome. These original provirus sequences can be transactivated to produce functional products. Several reactivated HERVs have been implicated in cancers and autoimmune diseases.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30643113/
4. Do you understand you are basically saying God placed these sequences from pathogens in exact locations in the genome of chimps and humas and across Vertebrae in different configurations which fooled scientists thinking evolution happened and common descent. He did this with all the genetic evidence that show common descent.
This line of reasoning completely ignores point 1.

Let me spell it out for you, here's what I wrote:

"Gene's equate to function, genes are building blocks, proteins are building blocks, design is all about creating things from building blocks, from standard already designed parts, that's one possible explanation."

Let's break it down shall we:

1. Gene's equate to function - they do.
2. Genes are building blocks - they are.
3. Proteins are building blocks - they are.
4. Design is all about creating things from building blocks - it is.
5. From standard already designed parts - it is.
6. That's one possible explanation - it is.

Let me know if you need further clarification, I'd be delighted to help you.

[Difflugia]

The tendency to resort to strawman arguments seems uncontrollable in some,

QFT

I do not think EarthScienceGuy every posited "Maybe Jesus did it". This is the way of the atheist, if anyone dissents from the official line then don't hear them out, don't consider how they might see things, just resort to ridicule, dismissal (this is the atheists idea of a "scientific argument").

So tell me where did anyone posit "Maybe Jesus did it"?

Professional shills for Intelligent Design are generally pretty good at maintaining the fiction that they're talking about some nebulous intelligence independent of Christianity. Amateurs aren't quite as practiced at it, though, and generally forget that the whole point of Intelligent Design is an attempt to maintain a sort of intellectual distance from Christian creationism.

Earthscienceguy has clarified multiple times and in multiple contexts that the "creator God" as designer refers to God as interpreted out of the Bible by Protestant Christians.

Since the orthodox interpretation of John 1:3 holds that Jesus is the creative force behind the "in the beginning" of Genesis, the "designer" and "creator God" of Christian creationists is Jesus. That "designer" was then invoked in this comment, which is the one to which I was responding:

a. If they are functional then how do you know the sections came from a virus. Similar sequencing simply means similar functions and just because they look like ERV's does not mean they were placed there by ERV's. They can simply be a design feature.

Emphasis mine.

I think it's funny to replace "God" as the creator with "Jesus" because it sounds jarring, but considering that it's literally canon, it's hardly a straw man. Even if Earthscienceguy intended the kind of equivocation that you're projecting onto the argument, pointing it out still wouldn't be a straw man on my part, whether you'd like it pointed out or not.

you can't show us can you? because it didn't happen did it?

I love your combination of optimism and hubris. It's endearing in a peculiar way.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The tendency to resort to strawman arguments seems uncontrollable in some,

QFT

I do not think EarthScienceGuy every posited "Maybe Jesus did it". This is the way of the atheist, if anyone dissents from the official line then don't hear them out, don't consider how they might see things, just resort to ridicule, dismissal (this is the atheists idea of a "scientific argument").

So tell me where did anyone posit "Maybe Jesus did it"?

Professional shills for Intelligent Design are generally pretty good at maintaining the fiction that they're talking about some nebulous intelligence independent of Christianity. Amateurs aren't quite as practiced at it, though, and generally forget that the whole point of Intelligent Design is an attempt to maintain a sort of intellectual distance from Christian creationism.

Earthscienceguy has clarified multiple times and in multiple contexts that the "creator God" as designer refers to God as interpreted out of the Bible by Protestant Christians.

Since the orthodox interpretation of John 1:3 holds that Jesus is the creative force behind the "in the beginning" of Genesis, the "designer" and "creator God" of Christian creationists is Jesus. That "designer" was then invoked in this comment, which is the one to which I was responding:

a. If they are functional then how do you know the sections came from a virus. Similar sequencing simply means similar functions and just because they look like ERV's does not mean they were placed there by ERV's. They can simply be a design feature.

Emphasis mine.

I think it's funny to replace "God" as the creator with "Jesus" because it sounds jarring, but considering that it's literally canon, it's hardly a straw man. Even if Earthscienceguy intended the kind of equivocation that you're projecting onto the argument, pointing it out still wouldn't be a straw man on my part, whether you'd like it pointed out or not.

you can't show us can you? because it didn't happen did it?

I love your combination of optimism and hubris. It's endearing in a peculiar way.

Yes, you paraphrased his position, so lets paraphrase your shall we?

"Everything happened for no reason all by itself, because if there was a reason there's no reason for that reason" - this is where all your "science" gets you? what's the point?

How is "it looks designed" intellectually inferior to "it happened all by itself for no reason"? seriously? is the self deception so bad that you actually believe this is a better position to take?

[alexxcJRO]

Gene's equate to function, genes are building blocks, proteins are building blocks, design is all about creating things from building blocks, from standard already designed parts, that's one possible explanation.

1. The mechanism by which a retrovirus inserts a copy of its RNA genome into the DNA of a host germ cell that it invades which later is transmitted to descendants is well known.
Q: What stops this mechanism from happening? What stops these accumulations to pile on and be transmitted on the descendants line? To be used as record of common descent?

2. Scientists have made revival experiments:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1665638/
3. Reactivation from non-function to function
“Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), viral-associated sequences, are normal components of the human genome and account for 8-9% of our genome. These original provirus sequences can be transactivated to produce functional products. Several reactivated HERVs have been implicated in cancers and autoimmune diseases.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30643113/
4. Do you understand you are basically saying God placed these sequences from pathogens in exact locations in the genome of chimps and humas and across Vertebrae in different configurations which fooled scientists thinking evolution happened and common descent. He did this with all the genetic evidence that show common descent.
This line of reasoning completely ignores point 1.

Let me spell it out for you, here's what I wrote:

"Gene's equate to function, genes are building blocks, proteins are building blocks, design is all about creating things from building blocks, from standard already designed parts, that's one possible explanation."

Let's break it down shall we:

1. Gene's equate to function - they do.
2. Genes are building blocks - they are.
3. Proteins are building blocks - they are.
4. Design is all about creating things from building blocks - it is.
5. From standard already designed parts - it is.
6. That's one possible explanation - it is.

Let me know if you need further clarification, I'd be delighted to help you.

Q: What has protein coding genes to do with with retroviruses (HERVs) and the insertion of their RNA genome into the DNA of a host germ cell that it invades which later is transmitted to descendants?
LOL.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Gene's equate to function, genes are building blocks, proteins are building blocks, design is all about creating things from building blocks, from standard already designed parts, that's one possible explanation.

1. The mechanism by which a retrovirus inserts a copy of its RNA genome into the DNA of a host germ cell that it invades which later is transmitted to descendants is well known.
Q: What stops this mechanism from happening? What stops these accumulations to pile on and be transmitted on the descendants line? To be used as record of common descent?

2. Scientists have made revival experiments:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1665638/
3. Reactivation from non-function to function
“Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), viral-associated sequences, are normal components of the human genome and account for 8-9% of our genome. These original provirus sequences can be transactivated to produce functional products. Several reactivated HERVs have been implicated in cancers and autoimmune diseases.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30643113/
4. Do you understand you are basically saying God placed these sequences from pathogens in exact locations in the genome of chimps and humas and across Vertebrae in different configurations which fooled scientists thinking evolution happened and common descent. He did this with all the genetic evidence that show common descent.
This line of reasoning completely ignores point 1.

Let me spell it out for you, here's what I wrote:

"Gene's equate to function, genes are building blocks, proteins are building blocks, design is all about creating things from building blocks, from standard already designed parts, that's one possible explanation."

Let's break it down shall we:

1. Gene's equate to function - they do.
2. Genes are building blocks - they are.
3. Proteins are building blocks - they are.
4. Design is all about creating things from building blocks - it is.
5. From standard already designed parts - it is.
6. That's one possible explanation - it is.

Let me know if you need further clarification, I'd be delighted to help you.

Q: What has protein coding genes to do with with retroviruses (HERVs) and the insertion of their RNA genome into the DNA of a host germ cell that it invades which later is transmitted to descendants?
LOL.

Retroviruses carry two envelope proteins on their surface, the surface and transmembrane envelope proteins, which are responsible for binding to the cellular receptor and fusion of the viral membrane with the cellular membrane.

From here.

[alexxcJRO]

Gene's equate to function, genes are building blocks, proteins are building blocks, design is all about creating things from building blocks, from standard already designed parts, that's one possible explanation.

1. The mechanism by which a retrovirus inserts a copy of its RNA genome into the DNA of a host germ cell that it invades which later is transmitted to descendants is well known.
Q: What stops this mechanism from happening? What stops these accumulations to pile on and be transmitted on the descendants line? To be used as record of common descent?

2. Scientists have made revival experiments:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1665638/
3. Reactivation from non-function to function
“Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), viral-associated sequences, are normal components of the human genome and account for 8-9% of our genome. These original provirus sequences can be transactivated to produce functional products. Several reactivated HERVs have been implicated in cancers and autoimmune diseases.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30643113/
4. Do you understand you are basically saying God placed these sequences from pathogens in exact locations in the genome of chimps and humas and across Vertebrae in different configurations which fooled scientists thinking evolution happened and common descent. He did this with all the genetic evidence that show common descent.
This line of reasoning completely ignores point 1.

Let me spell it out for you, here's what I wrote:

"Gene's equate to function, genes are building blocks, proteins are building blocks, design is all about creating things from building blocks, from standard already designed parts, that's one possible explanation."

Let's break it down shall we:

1. Gene's equate to function - they do.
2. Genes are building blocks - they are.
3. Proteins are building blocks - they are.
4. Design is all about creating things from building blocks - it is.
5. From standard already designed parts - it is.
6. That's one possible explanation - it is.

Let me know if you need further clarification, I'd be delighted to help you.

Q: What has protein coding genes to do with with retroviruses (HERVs) and the insertion of their RNA genome into the DNA of a host germ cell that it invades which later is transmitted to descendants?
LOL.

Retroviruses carry two envelope proteins on their surface, the surface and transmembrane envelope proteins, which are responsible for binding to the cellular receptor and fusion of the viral membrane with the cellular membrane.

From here.

Q: How does that negate: "retroviruses (HERVs) insert their RNA genome into the DNA of a host germ cell that it invades which later is transmitted to descendants"?
Q: What stops this mechanism from happening? What stops these accumulations to pile on and be transmitted on the descendants line? To be used as record of common descent?

Please explain.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #118]

It's funny to me how you are able to squeeze so much wrong into only ten words.

It is a talent that is based on different world views.

There are no consensus views, but there are a number of competing hypotheses for the origin of viruses, each with evidence in its favor. You have instead implied that the patterns that match ancient viral infection are no more than supernatural caprice. "Maybe Jesus did it" is neither more evidence-driven nor is it more falsifiable in principle than "everything popped into existence last Thursday."

So why are you saying that there are competing theories what is the problem? Viruses are not as complex as cells. I would think that viruses would be easier to explain.

But like I said and thank you for backing me up on it. If there is no consensus view then it is unknown where viruses came from.

The icing on the cake, though, is that the presence of ERVs only relates to the origin of viruses in the sense that viruses must have existed for ERVs to actually be ERVs. Since I doubt that your argument is that viruses don't exist, I must assume that you just didn't think through your line of reasoning very carefully before making it.

No, I that is not what I am saying. I am saying that creation cosmology has the only answers to the question of where viruses came from. 8-10 percent of the human genome is from ERV's. Creation cosmology says that ERV's were created to move within the genome to produce genetic diversity and then at the flood probably because of an increase in radiation.

[Jose Fly]

Gene's equate to function, genes are building blocks, proteins are building blocks, design is all about creating things from building blocks, from standard already designed parts, that's one possible explanation.

1. The mechanism by which a retrovirus inserts a copy of its RNA genome into the DNA of a host germ cell that it invades which later is transmitted to descendants is well known.
Q: What stops this mechanism from happening? What stops these accumulations to pile on and be transmitted on the descendants line? To be used as record of common descent?

2. Scientists have made revival experiments:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1665638/
3. Reactivation from non-function to function
“Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), viral-associated sequences, are normal components of the human genome and account for 8-9% of our genome. These original provirus sequences can be transactivated to produce functional products. Several reactivated HERVs have been implicated in cancers and autoimmune diseases.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30643113/
4. Do you understand you are basically saying God placed these sequences from pathogens in exact locations in the genome of chimps and humas and across Vertebrae in different configurations which fooled scientists thinking evolution happened and common descent. He did this with all the genetic evidence that show common descent.
This line of reasoning completely ignores point 1.

Let me spell it out for you, here's what I wrote:

"Gene's equate to function, genes are building blocks, proteins are building blocks, design is all about creating things from building blocks, from standard already designed parts, that's one possible explanation."

Let's break it down shall we:

1. Gene's equate to function - they do.
2. Genes are building blocks - they are.
3. Proteins are building blocks - they are.
4. Design is all about creating things from building blocks - it is.
5. From standard already designed parts - it is.
6. That's one possible explanation - it is.

Let me know if you need further clarification, I'd be delighted to help you.

LOL...once again you demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about. Yet for whatever reason, you think yourself an expert in this subject. Unbelievable.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Gene's equate to function, genes are building blocks, proteins are building blocks, design is all about creating things from building blocks, from standard already designed parts, that's one possible explanation.

1. The mechanism by which a retrovirus inserts a copy of its RNA genome into the DNA of a host germ cell that it invades which later is transmitted to descendants is well known.
Q: What stops this mechanism from happening? What stops these accumulations to pile on and be transmitted on the descendants line? To be used as record of common descent?

2. Scientists have made revival experiments:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1665638/
3. Reactivation from non-function to function
“Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), viral-associated sequences, are normal components of the human genome and account for 8-9% of our genome. These original provirus sequences can be transactivated to produce functional products. Several reactivated HERVs have been implicated in cancers and autoimmune diseases.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30643113/
4. Do you understand you are basically saying God placed these sequences from pathogens in exact locations in the genome of chimps and humas and across Vertebrae in different configurations which fooled scientists thinking evolution happened and common descent. He did this with all the genetic evidence that show common descent.
This line of reasoning completely ignores point 1.

Let me spell it out for you, here's what I wrote:

"Gene's equate to function, genes are building blocks, proteins are building blocks, design is all about creating things from building blocks, from standard already designed parts, that's one possible explanation."

Let's break it down shall we:

1. Gene's equate to function - they do.
2. Genes are building blocks - they are.
3. Proteins are building blocks - they are.
4. Design is all about creating things from building blocks - it is.
5. From standard already designed parts - it is.
6. That's one possible explanation - it is.

Let me know if you need further clarification, I'd be delighted to help you.

LOL...once again you demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about. Yet for whatever reason, you think yourself an expert in this subject. Unbelievable.

I thought you'd run away, didn't want to discuss anything with me anymore? make your mind up.