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.

[The Barbarian]

[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.

That's biology in general, it's about exceptions.

I am talking in generalities;

As you see, when one gets to specifics, your claims don't hold up.

all manner of things are routinely understood to arise from genes/alleles/mutations and these beliefs are so often presented as scientific fact

By non-biologists, usually as provisions for an unscientific worldview. Real biologists know better.

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.

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.

No, that's wrong, too. Genes are, after all, composed of atoms. So atoms ultimately are understood to be at the base of all human abilities... unless one considers subatomic particles, and their components. Not sure where that ends. But it's more realistic to note that environment is a greater factor in human behavior than genes. People with the same genes and different childhood environments do act quite differently.

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

But hybridization can work perfectly well without mutations. That was your error.

(assertion that evolution requires mutations)

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

You are missing the point.

The point is, you are wrong. Evolution does not require new mutations.

Removing genes still results in something new.

A change in allele frequencies in a population. Without new mutations. Evolution often occurs by simplifying genomes, resulting in new phenotypes.

Try to get the substance of what I'm saying.

You said new mutations were required. That's wrong.

[mgb]

No, that's wrong, too. Genes are, after all, composed of atoms. So atoms ultimately are understood to be at the base of all human abilities... unless one considers subatomic particles, and their components. Not sure where that ends. But it's more realistic to note that environment is a greater factor in human behavior than genes. People with the same genes and different childhood environments do act quite differently.

I still hold to my opinion - the Gene of the Gaps theory is rampant in scientific writings.

Evolution does not require new mutations.

I dare say ToE would not amount to much without mutations.

Dawkins himself presents a version of evolution in a way to places huge emphasis on mutations. But mutations or not, he does believe that human abilities are essentially biological - like musical ability etc. This is not proven but he still uses expressions like 'mountains of evidence', giving the impression that everything he believes in is supported by 'mountains of evidence'. You can split hairs all you like but you can't provide mountains of evidence for all Dawkins believes in. I have read Dawkins and I know how divisive his rhetoric can be.

By non-biologists, usually as provisions for an unscientific worldview. Real biologists know better.

Well there you have it. The Gene of the Gaps theory. And I don't see biologists rushing to correct it.

Genes are, after all, composed of atoms. So atoms ultimately are understood to be at the base of all human abilities...

Well there you have it again - you are saying that all human abilities are understood to be based on material particles, be the atoms or genes.
What is this understanding based on? There is no proof that atoms/genes/alleles are the basis of, for example, musical excellence, mathematical brilliance, artistic ability etc. etc. etc. So where does this understanding come from? It is mere dogmatism, which I have been at pains to point out, is rife in the scientific community.

Clownboat: "Evolution is a change in allele frequencies within a population over time. This mechanism is not sentient."

But when I speak in these general terms I am met with all manner of exceptions, secondary mechanisms and technical objections which are, in the main, semantic diversions from the substance of what I'm saying, namely that all kinds of things are assumed without proof and the general population is left with what amounts to a scientistic, superstitious world view; Little Amy can find the square root of a 5 digit number, to 6 decimal places, in 3 seconds - sure, she has her mother's genes. It must be the genes.

[The Barbarian]

No, that's wrong, too. Genes are, after all, composed of atoms. So atoms ultimately are understood to be at the base of all human abilities... unless one considers subatomic particles, and their components. Not sure where that ends. But it's more realistic to note that environment is a greater factor in human behavior than genes. People with the same genes and different childhood environments do act quite differently.

I still hold to my opinion -

That's the funny thing about reality; it doen't care what we think.

the Gene of the Gaps theory is rampant in scientific writings.

Never heard of it. And I spent a lifetime in biology.

Evolution does not require new mutations.

I dare say ToE would not amount to much without mutations.

Natural selection can use mutations. It just doesn't require them to effect evolution.

Dawkins himself presents a version of evolution in a way to places huge emphasis on mutations. But mutations or not, he does believe that human abilities are essentially biological - like musical ability etc.

Humans are biological entities, so biology is involved in everything. The fact remains that (for example) intelligence and behavior in humans is more affected by environment than by genes.

You can split hairs all you like but you can't provide mountains of evidence for all Dawkins believes in.

You brought him up. How about we deal with the issue on the table? If you think Dawkins has some value beyond a creationist boogeyman, show us.

I have read Dawkins and I know how divisive his rhetoric can be.

So you tossed him in here because...?

By non-biologists, usually as provisions for an unscientific worldview. Real biologists know better.

Well there you have it. The Gene of the Gaps theory. And I don't see biologists rushing to correct it.

Funny, I've never been in a department meeting where anyone said "Some ignorant person is saying wrong things about biology. We need to stop them."

Genes are, after all, composed of atoms. So atoms ultimately are understood to be at the base of all human abilities... unless one considers subatomic particles, and their components. Not sure where that ends.

Well there you have it again - you are saying that all human abilities are understood to be based on material particles, be the atoms or genes.

Ah, forgot my Warning For The Humor-Impaired. (WFTH-I) My bad.

What is this understanding based on? There is no proof that atoms/genes/alleles are the basis of, for example, musical excellence, mathematical brilliance, artistic ability etc.

I just showed you that. Human intelligence and behavior, for example.

etc. So where does this understanding come from?

It's not understanding; it's merely people without much understanding of nervous systems, making assumptions. The mind is not merely an epiphenomenon of the brain, but that's one of the things it is.

It is mere dogmatism,

Not surprising that non-biologists wouldn't understand biology.

which I have been at pains to point out, is rife in the scientific community.

Dogmatism if rife in humans. Odd thing is, those who are most caught up in it, are least aware of it. Dogmatism has a hard time in the sciences, because of a reliance on evidence.

Clownboat: "Evolution is a change in allele frequencies within a population over time. This mechanism is not sentient."

But when I speak in these general terms I am met with all manner of exceptions, secondary mechanisms and technical objections which are, in the main, semantic diversions from the substance of what I'm saying, namely that all kinds of things are assumed without proof and the general population is left with what amounts to a scientistic, superstitious world view

You seem to have moved from science to the inadequacies of science education in public schools.

Little Amy can find the square root of a 5 digit number, to 6 decimal places, in 3 seconds - sure, she has her mother's genes. It must be the genes.

Unfortunate example...

Neurobiological origins of individual differences in mathematical ability
Mathematical ability is heritable and related to several genes expressing proteins in the brain. It is unknown, however, which intermediate neural phenotypes could explain how these genes relate to mathematical ability.
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/a ... io.3000871