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!

[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.

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

That's correct, I have no interest in "discussing" science with you. However, I remain fascinated (from a human behavior standpoint) by how a person can be so fundamentally ignorant of a subject yet still think themselves not only an expert in it, but think themselves such an expert that their empty assertions should be taken as unquestioned gospel by everyone else. It's commonly referred to as the Dunning-Kruger effect.

It's such a bizarre phenomenon to observe....I'm rather baffled by it and how a person can be so lacking in humility and self-awareness.

[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.

That's correct, I have no interest in "discussing" science with you. However, I remain fascinated (from a human behavior standpoint) by how a person can be so fundamentally ignorant of a subject yet still think themselves not only an expert in it, but think themselves such an expert that their empty assertions should be taken as unquestioned gospel by everyone else.

This is an error, at no point have I claimed to be an expert, you are imagining things, I disagree with what some people say about some topics, its usually what happens in a debate.

This is all about how you react to being challenged, being disagreed with.

It's commonly referred to as the Dunning-Kruger effect.

It's such a bizarre phenomenon to observe....I'm rather baffled by it and how a person can be so lacking in humility and self-awareness.

No, its actually called an ad-hominem; that something someone says leads you to attack the person, their beliefs etc. You seem to habitually complain about my disagreeing, challenging, you seem to regard it as effrontery when I post sometimes, always going on and on about me. Look at the above, all you need do - should do - is say "X is untrue Holmes, here's why" but you don't you complain about the fact that I said something you don't like, I shouldn't say this but it suggest you feel some kind of entitlement; It's such a bizarre phenomenon to observe....

[Difflugia]

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?

My position in this particular exchange is that ancient viruses were responsible for what are called ERV sequences. How you got from there to "no reason" is beyond me. Are you trying to change the subject or are you just abysmally bad at paraphrasing?

How is "it looks designed" intellectually inferior to "it happened all by itself for no reason"? seriously?

At a high level, "it looks designed" is fine and is a wonderful, intellectually honest starting position. The intellectually lazy part is jumping from there to "Jesus did it" (or "an unknown intelligent designer did it," depending on how good your poker face is). A more rigorous followup is with a second question: "Why does it look designed when we only have evidence for natural and undirected processes?" The evidence, which includes both exogenous virus counterparts to endogenous sequences and the ability to create heritable germline viral events via viral infection in the laboratory leads to the conclusion that shared interspecific endogenous viral sequences are due to infections in a common ancestor prior to speciation. That's why nobody actually argues that it "happened all by itself," even in paraphrase.

is the self deception so bad that you actually believe this is a better position to take?

Are you familiar with the phrase, "own goal?"

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?

My position in this particular exchange is that ancient viruses were responsible for what are called ERV sequences. How you got from there to "no reason" is beyond me. Are you trying to change the subject or are you just abysmally bad at paraphrasing?

I just told you, I paraphrased you; recall this is what you did too:

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."

Notably you also said that "Maybe Jesus did it" is no better than "everything popped into existence last Thursday" which is more or less what your own position is, +/- a day or two.

How is "it looks designed" intellectually inferior to "it happened all by itself for no reason"? seriously?

At a high level, "it looks designed" is fine and is a wonderful, intellectually honest starting position.

So ID - in principle - is intellectually sound? is that your opinion?

The intellectually lazy part is jumping from there to "Jesus did it" (or "an unknown intelligent designer did it," depending on how good your poker face is).

Well that all depends on the specifics of what you refer to as "jumping", there are many detailed, well argued theses that reach the conclusion that Christ created the world, so you can't dismiss the conclusion without dismissing the explanation and I know of no serious ID advocate that "jumps" as you put it.

A more rigorous followup is with a second question: "Why does it look designed when we only have evidence for natural and undirected processes?"

Well right there is where you err - clearly if it looks designed then we might well be looking at evidence it was designed, if something looks like evidence why not regard it as evidence for what it looks like? Darwin did this, to him it looked like species had adapted to a huge array of environments and now we take that appearance of adaptation as being evidence of adaptation.

See? see how the very way you think prevents you from really thinking sometimes?

The evidence, which includes both exogenous virus counterparts to endogenous sequences and the ability to create heritable germline viral events via viral infection in the laboratory leads to the conclusion that shared interspecific endogenous viral sequences are due to infections in a common ancestor prior to speciation. That's why nobody actually argues that it "happened all by itself," even in paraphrase.

is the self deception so bad that you actually believe this is a better position to take?

Are you familiar with the phrase, "own goal?"

Well unless you can explain the cause of a chain of causality, you are like it or not saying it happened all by itself are you not?

[Difflugia]

There are no consensus views, but there are a number of competing hypotheses for the origin of viruses, each with evidence in its favor.

So why are you saying that there are competing theories what is the problem?

"Multiple theories" and "no theories" aren't the same thing.

Viruses are not as complex as cells. I would think that viruses would be easier to explain.

Not that I expect that your comment is more than rhetorical, but it depends on what you mean by "explain." Scientists know a great deal about how viruses operate, are transmitted, and evolve. There's evidence that at least some viral lines predate the division between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Two billion years of evolution is a lot of data to sift through and the sixty-four-dollar question is whether viruses are remnants of extracellular replicators, arose from within a cell as a rough analog to modern cancers, or both.

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.

If what I wrote "backs you up," then what you wrote is a non sequitur. Viral origins have nothing to do with whether or not ERVs are remnants of ancient viral infection.

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.

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.

Then you're equivocating on what "answer" means. If there are multiple (I linked three) different interpretations supported by evidence, then any one of them is more of an "answer" than creation cosmology with its utter lack of evidence. You're comparing apples to oranges, or rather comparing scientific consensus constrained by a viable mechanism and evidence to unbridled speculation in the form of religious creationism.

Creationism offers the same quality of answer as a drunk guy with a lampshade on his head claiming that time-travelling wombats from the future took some viruses back in time with them to create a paradoxical time loop. Except I wasn't that drunk and it wasn't a lampshade, but my underwear.

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.

That's nice. It's funny how you use the word "probably" in the absence of any evidence. When you do have evidence of anything you've speculated, let me know. In the meantime, I'm claiming that even though the wombats will crack the secrets of time travel, they probably won't be too careful about clean room techniques. They probably won't even wipe their feet, for that matter, because they're wombats.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Creationism offers the same quality of answer as a drunk guy with a lampshade on his head claiming that time-travelling wombats from the future took some viruses back in time with them to create a paradoxical time loop. Except I wasn't that drunk and it wasn't a lampshade, but my underwear.

Sorry to butt in, but you're doing it again, you know, paraphrasing and then attacking the paraphrased argument (aka "strawman" fallacy).

This is just too common here as well, what a strategy though!

An original argument gets presented, you then paraphrase that argument and replace it with a different often ridiculous argument, then refute the ridiculous argument and hey-presto - you think you've refuted the original argument!

Now, can you tell me what's wrong with that approach? can you see any pitfalls?

[Difflugia]

Creationism offers the same quality of answer as a drunk guy with a lampshade on his head claiming that time-travelling wombats from the future took some viruses back in time with them to create a paradoxical time loop. Except I wasn't that drunk and it wasn't a lampshade, but my underwear.

Sorry to butt in,

I doubt it.

but you're doing it again, you know, paraphrasing and then attacking the paraphrased argument (aka "strawman" fallacy).

I'm sure everyone else is as shocked as I am, but you apparently don't completely understand the straw man fallacy. I haven't paraphrased anybody else's argument here. To help you out and deconstruct both arguments a bit, Earthscienceguy's two-pronged argument was:

• If there is no consensus view then it is unknown where viruses came from.
• I am saying that creation cosmology has the only answers to the question of where viruses came from.

I haven't paraphrased or changed the argument in any way. Part of my counterargument is that creationism is speculative and lacks evidence. I offered an unflattering analogy that I still think is apt, but the analogy is an illustration of my argument, not restating Earthscienceguy's, correctly or otherwise. You may claim that my argument is wrong or that my analogy doesn't apply, but it's still my argument.

This is just too common here as well, what a strategy though!

I'm sorry you find the analogy unflattering.

An original argument gets presented, you then paraphrase that argument and replace it with a different often ridiculous argument, then refute the ridiculous argument and hey-presto - you think you've refuted the original argument!

This is correct as far as it goes. Now, if my deconstruction above isn't enough, maybe you can go through the exercise yourself.

1. What was the original argument that Earthscienceguy made?
2. What was my different or ridiculous paraphrase of that argument?
3. What was my refutation of the paraphrase?
4. What is the key difference between the original and paraphrase that causes the refutation to fail or not apply?

Now, can you tell me what's wrong with that approach?

Steps 2, 3, and 4 didn't actually happen, so I only needed to list step 1. I hope that the rest are useful for the future, though.

can you see any pitfalls?

Being too proud or embarrassed to acknowledge, even to yourself, that I'm right, leaving you open to the same mistake in the future.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Creationism offers the same quality of answer as a drunk guy with a lampshade on his head claiming that time-travelling wombats from the future took some viruses back in time with them to create a paradoxical time loop. Except I wasn't that drunk and it wasn't a lampshade, but my underwear.

Sorry to butt in,

I doubt it.

but you're doing it again, you know, paraphrasing and then attacking the paraphrased argument (aka "strawman" fallacy).

I'm sure everyone else is as shocked as I am, but you apparently don't completely understand the straw man fallacy. I haven't paraphrased anybody else's argument here. To help you out and deconstruct both arguments a bit, Earthscienceguy's two-pronged argument was:

• If there is no consensus view then it is unknown where viruses came from.
• I am saying that creation cosmology has the only answers to the question of where viruses came from.

I haven't paraphrased or changed the argument in any way. Part of my counterargument is that creationism is speculative and lacks evidence. I offered an unflattering analogy that I still think is apt, but the analogy is an illustration of my argument, not restating Earthscienceguy's, correctly or otherwise. You may claim that my argument is wrong or that my analogy doesn't apply, but it's still my argument.

This is just too common here as well, what a strategy though!

I'm sorry you find the analogy unflattering.

An original argument gets presented, you then paraphrase that argument and replace it with a different often ridiculous argument, then refute the ridiculous argument and hey-presto - you think you've refuted the original argument!

This is correct as far as it goes. Now, if my deconstruction above isn't enough, maybe you can go through the exercise yourself.

1. What was the original argument that Earthscienceguy made?
2. What was my different or ridiculous paraphrase of that argument?
3. What was my refutation of the paraphrase?
4. What is the key difference between the original and paraphrase that causes the refutation to fail or not apply?

Now, can you tell me what's wrong with that approach?

Steps 2, 3, and 4 didn't actually happen, so I only needed to list step 1. I hope that the rest are useful for the future, though.

can you see any pitfalls?

Being too proud or embarrassed to acknowledge, even to yourself, that I'm right, leaving you open to the same mistake in the future.

This is an argument you made:

Creationism offers the same quality of answer as a drunk guy with a lampshade on his head claiming that time-travelling wombats from the future took some viruses back in time with them to create a paradoxical time loop. Except I wasn't that drunk and it wasn't a lampshade, but my underwear.

You describe it as an analogy, but it is your interpretation of what Creationism is, the whole point of even saying it is so that the nature of the conversation can move from discussing a creationist thesis to discussing the analogy, I mean why make such an analogy?

I bring these things up because it is deeply rooted in how people argue against theism, creationism, supernatural and so on.

You work to move the discussion away form the original thesis to something else, you perhaps don't even realize your doing it, but why even make an analogy? what logical part does it play in the discourse other than to lay the foundations for ridiculing the opponents thesis?

Now you overlooked this point I made:

Well right there is where you err - clearly if it looks designed then we might well be looking at evidence it was designed, if something looks like evidence why not regard it as evidence for what it looks like?

Darwin did this, to him it looked like species had adapted to a huge array of environments and now we take that appearance of adaptation as being evidence of adaptation.

The reason I say this is because you seem to think that regarding something that looks designed as maybe actually being designed, is somehow unjustified, yet it may in fact be evidence of design.

How else can one recognize that something has been designed, other than by examining it and seeing that it looks like it was designed? do you know of another way?

I can think of a lot of analogies here!

[Jose Fly]

This is an error, at no point have I claimed to be an expert, you are imagining things, I disagree with what some people say about some topics, its usually what happens in a debate.

This is all about how you react to being challenged, being disagreed with.

It's commonly referred to as the Dunning-Kruger effect.

It's such a bizarre phenomenon to observe....I'm rather baffled by it and how a person can be so lacking in humility and self-awareness.

No, its actually called an ad-hominem; that something someone says leads you to attack the person, their beliefs etc. You seem to habitually complain about my disagreeing, challenging, you seem to regard it as effrontery when I post sometimes, always going on and on about me. Look at the above, all you need do - should do - is say "X is untrue Holmes, here's why" but you don't you complain about the fact that I said something you don't like, I shouldn't say this but it suggest you feel some kind of entitlement; It's such a bizarre phenomenon to observe....

This is where you're confused (or something else)....you think I'm bothered by you merely disagreeing with me. However, I get disagreed with all the time...pretty much every day. In my job my colleagues and I are expected to question, challenge, etc. each other. Have you ever been to a scientific conference and seen some of the Q&A sessions? They can be absolutely brutal at times. I can't tell you how many times I've given a presentation and then gotten peppered with skeptical questions and disagreements. And none of it has ever bothered me one bit. In fact, I not only expect it, I love it! That sort of engagement and challenge gets my intellectual energy going.

So no, it's not you just disagreeing with me that is of note. If that were the case, why would I join a Christian message board and talk about evolution? Do you seriously think I wasn't expecting to be disagreed with?

To reiterate, it's the combination of ignorance and arrogance about your knowledge and abilities in biology that I find fascinating, such as how even though you don't know basic biology, you still think yourself sufficiently qualified to unilaterally declare that evolution is falsified. I'm not sure what drives you to do that or what's preventing you from seeing why that's a problem, but it's amazing to watch nonetheless.

In the past, when I've seen this sort of thing from a creationist I usually try to illustrate the point by explaining how it's like if I started making grandiose claims about the Bible, but in doing so it's revealed that I don't know who Moses is or that there are both New and Old Testaments. Would you see such a person as sufficiently knowledgeable about the Bible to be able to declare that it's been proven false? No? Well, hopefully you now understand how your assertions about evolutionary biology come across.

[Jose Fly]

The evidence, which includes both exogenous virus counterparts to endogenous sequences and the ability to create heritable germline viral events via viral infection in the laboratory leads to the conclusion that shared interspecific endogenous viral sequences are due to infections in a common ancestor prior to speciation.

My bet is that SH has little to no idea what you just said or what it means.