Viruses: Created, Evolved, or Both?

[Data]

I'm somewhat more conversant on the subject than evolution and I thought this was an interesting question from an atheist vs theist perspective. Did God create viruses or did they evolve. My position is both. God created them and in the microevolutionary sense they evolved.

[The Barbarian]

I am not arguing against this at all and I'm not arguing against the fact of evolution. I am saying that evidence for the fact of evolution is not evidence for the theory of evolution. And the theory comes in three distinct parts-
1. Evolution
2. Mutations
3. Natural Selection

Darwin's theory:
1. More are born than can survive to reproduce.
2. Every organism is slightly different than its parents.
3. Some of these differences affect the likelihood of surviving long enough to reproduce.
4. Over time useful differences tend to accumulate and harmful ones tend to be removed, and this often leads to speciation.

Darwin did not know about genes, so he merely noted that new traits sometimes appear. He did not discover evolution; scientists before Darwin realized that it must be so. Your third idea, natural selection, is Darwin's great discovery, and what his theory is actually about.

When talking about evidence for evolution it is necessary to tell what aspect of the theory the evidence supports. Evidence for one of these 3 is not necessarily evidence for the others. That's what I'm saying. And I am saying that all the things that genes are supposed to do are not backed up by evidence. For example, if there is a child prodigy his/her ability is routinely 'explained' by 'genes' "He has his mother's genes" Such is the prevalence of the Gene-of-the-gaps theory: Any gap in our understanding is plugged by some hypothetical gene. But science does not know for sure that all these abilities are a result of mutations/genes.

In humans, science has found that intelligence is more a matter of environment than genes. There is some evidence that extreme selective pressure on Ashkenazi Jews in the Middle Ages contributed to higher intelligence, but the effect is small. An enriched childhood environment is a much better predictor of high intelligence.

What is literature? Art? Music? Where do these things come from? Mutations? Well that's the theory.

No. Language is evolved; we even see our closest relative able to use language in a rudimentary way. But language, art, and music seem to be much more dependent on culture. Which is understandable for a species that depends more on learning for survival than all or almost all animals.

The problem is, the Theory of Evolution, as it is normally presented, does not leave any room for interpretations other than mutations - everything is put down to mutations,

No. Recombination, hybridization, polyploidy, epistasis, and other things also cause evolutionary change.

[Difflugia]

You're speaking about things you know nothing about, as if you have presented anything other than a few photos for evidence.

That's adorable. Since just moments ago, you insisted that such photos didn't even exist, I hope you'll forgive me if I think you're deflecting a bit.

Our Creator, who designed not only the human body, but the entire universe and everything in it, knows much, much more than all of the "modern scientists" that you have decided to misplace your trust in.

Perhaps She does, but She hasn't given that knowledge to you or anyone else. Just having lunch with the Creator doesn't help, especially if all She talks about is how much She hates Bacon and Gay Sex.

You can take all of the medical propaganda in this world, like the mainstream information you've cited, and the amount of actual wisdom in it couldn't fill a thimble.

There's a reason that mainstream information is mainstream and not relegated to the hidden pools that allow nothing in or out in a misguided attempt to avoid contamination. If you try with something more than a thimble, you might be surprised at both the volume and clarity you get. We already know what that bucket is full of, so maybe dump some out to make room for something less stagnant.

The reason for the invention of "viruses" (after the medical industry itself proved they didn't exist in the early 1950s) is easy to understand: it is a LUCRATIVE business that makes loads of money off of SICK people.

A few studies on viruses, preplanned "pandemics", pharmacy/witchcraft, contagion, etc., which you may find interesting, if you have an open mind:

I don't think that foil hat helps as much as you think it does.

[mgb]

In humans, science has found that intelligence is more a matter of environment than genes. There is some evidence that extreme selective pressure on Ashkenazi Jews in the Middle Ages contributed to higher intelligence, but the effect is small. An enriched childhood environment is a much better predictor of high intelligence.

But selective pressure cannot happen unless there are mutations so ultimately it still comes down to genes - according to the theory that is.

No. Language is evolved; we even see our closest relative able to use language in a rudimentary way. But language, art, and music seem to be much more dependent on culture. Which is understandable for a species that depends more on learning for survival than all or almost all animals.

Culture will achieve nothing unless genes enable it so it comes back to genes again - according to the theory.

No. Recombination, hybridization, polyploidy, epistasis, and other things also cause evolutionary change.

Same answer again - this is the argument that genes must ultimately do everything. There can be no hybridization without the required differences in genes. So again, the theory automatically puts everything down to genes.

[The Barbarian]

But selective pressure cannot happen unless there are mutations

No. Fitness only counts in terms of environment. So a change in the environment will produce selective pressure, even in the absence of mutations. That's not the only way it can happen without mutations.

Culture will achieve nothing unless genes enable it so it comes back to genes again - according to the theory.

No. Evolutionary theory does not suppose that all human behavior is the result of genes.

Recombination, hybridization, polyploidy, epistasis, and other things also cause evolutionary change.

Same answer again - this is the argument that genes must ultimately do everything.

No. Here, you're confusing genes with mutations. But even then, the data in humans shows that environment is more important than genes in behavior, intelligence, and so on. There is some evidence that anatomy of the brain has something to do with political and social views, but since the brain is quite plastic with regard to environmental influences, that's not evidence for the supremacy of genes, either.

There can be no hybridization without the required differences in genes.

But it can happen without mutations.

So again, the theory automatically puts everything down to genes.

No. In fact, Darwin's theory did not even consider genes.

[mgb]

But selective pressure cannot happen unless there are mutations

No. Fitness only counts in terms of environment. So a change in the environment will produce selective pressure, even in the absence of mutations. That's not the only way it can happen without mutations.

Culture will achieve nothing unless genes enable it so it comes back to genes again - according to the theory.

No. Evolutionary theory does not suppose that all human behavior is the result of genes.

Recombination, hybridization, polyploidy, epistasis, and other things also cause evolutionary change.

Same answer again - this is the argument that genes must ultimately do everything.

No. Here, you're confusing genes with mutations. But even then, the data in humans shows that environment is more important than genes in behavior, intelligence, and so on. There is some evidence that anatomy of the brain has something to do with political and social views, but since the brain is quite plastic with regard to environmental influences, that's not evidence for the supremacy of genes, either.

There can be no hybridization without the required differences in genes.

But it can happen without mutations.

So again, the theory automatically puts everything down to genes.

No. In fact, Darwin's theory did not even consider genes.

You are just plain wrong. The theory of evolution essentially says that the human being is the result of a genetic 'blueprint'. According to the theory of evolution, Environment, hybridization etc have no evolutionary effect unless the underlying genetic structure is there. Unless there is sufficient genetic variation hybridization has no effect so, ultimately, the creature is seen to be the result of a genetic code regardless of what processes moderate the genetic code. Clearly, natural selection has no value unless there is something new to select. And the only way something new can come about is by mutations. That is what the theory says.

Moreso, it says that the more subtle aspects of the creature are grounded in a genetic structure; Creativity, literature, comedy!!!, the very person itself is essentially the result of a genetic blueprint. How those genetic positives are, supposedly, manipulated (by the processes you mention) is completely beside the point.

[The Barbarian]

But selective pressure cannot happen unless there are mutations

No. Fitness only counts in terms of environment. So a change in the environment will produce selective pressure, even in the absence of mutations. That's not the only way it can happen without mutations.

Culture will achieve nothing unless genes enable it so it comes back to genes again - according to the theory.

No. Evolutionary theory does not suppose that all human behavior is the result of genes.

Recombination, hybridization, polyploidy, epistasis, and other things also cause evolutionary change.

Same answer again - this is the argument that genes must ultimately do everything.

No. Here, you're confusing genes with mutations. But even then, the data in humans shows that environment is more important than genes in behavior, intelligence, and so on. There is some evidence that anatomy of the brain has something to do with political and social views, but since the brain is quite plastic with regard to environmental influences, that's not evidence for the supremacy of genes, either.

There can be no hybridization without the required differences in genes.

But it can happen without mutations.

So again, the theory automatically puts everything down to genes.

No. In fact, Darwin's theory did not even consider genes.

You are just plain wrong.

I'm precisely right. Evolution can proceed without mutations. Darwin's theory didn't include genes (he had no idea about them). Hybridization can happen without mutations. Human intelligence and behavior is influenced more by environment than by genes. And natural selection can occur with no mutations at all. Which one would you like me to show you first?

The theory of evolution essentially says that the human being is the result of a genetic 'blueprint'.

No. It says that populations undergo changes in allele frequency over time. Even most geneticists will tell you that genes are not all that determine what kind of human you are.

According to the theory of evolution, Environment, hybridization etc have no evolutionary effect unless the underlying genetic structure is there.

Sorry, not part of evolutionary theory. Maybe you should learn what it is and then come back to discuss it.

Unless there is sufficient genetic variation hybridization has no effect so, ultimately, the creature is seen to be the result of a genetic code regardless of what processes moderate the genetic code.

Here, you're confusing genes with mutation.

Clearly, natural selection has no value unless there is something new to select.

No, that's wrong, too. Natural selection could just remove some existing alleles, without any new mutations at all.

And the only way something new can come about is by mutations.

That's wrong, too. Evolution often occurs by simplifying genomes, resulting in new phenotypes.

You have a lot of misconceptions about genes and mutations.

[mgb]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #46]

Evolution can proceed without mutations. Darwin's theory didn't include genes (he had no idea about them). Hybridization can happen without mutations. Human intelligence and behavior is influenced more by environment than by genes. And natural selection can occur with no mutations at all. Which one would you like me to show you first?

You are focusing on exceptions. I am talking in generalities; all manner of things are routinely understood to arise from genes/alleles/mutations and these beliefs are so often presented as scientific fact when if fact, they are merely provisions for a materialistic world view.

It says that populations undergo changes in allele frequency over time. Even most geneticists will tell you that genes are not all that determine what kind of human you are.

See last answer. An allele is a gene variation. And geneticists understand that if there are 'non genetic' determinants concerning what kind of human you are they will also say that these determinants work on a genetic foundation; ultimately genes are understood to be at the base of all human abilities.

[hybridization is] not part of evolutionary theory.

Yes, hybridization is concerned with genes. You said "Recombination, hybridization, polyploidy, epistasis, and other things also cause evolutionary change."

No, that's wrong, too. Natural selection could just remove some existing alleles, without any new mutations at all.

You are missing the point. Removing genes still results in something new. Try to get the substance of what I'm saying.

Evolution often occurs by simplifying genomes, resulting in new phenotypes.

Same answer - a new thing is created.