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.

[Clownboat]

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.

Viruses do evolve.
None of the available god concepts have been shown to be real. Therefore, the gods, like fairies are unnecessary for explaining viruses.
You may want to consider removing the extra baggage from your reasoning... Unless there is a reason to insert a god concept in the first place that I'm unaware of.

[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.

Viruses do evolve.

Agreed. As stated in the OP.

None of the available god concepts have been shown to be real. Therefore, the gods, like fairies are unnecessary for explaining viruses.
You may want to consider removing the extra baggage from your reasoning... Unless there is a reason to insert a god concept in the first place that I'm unaware of.

Okay. So, you say evolved but not created. Thanks.

ETA: I'm trying to imagine a way we could circumvent the argument of a creator for the purpose of debating the subject without having to have that specific endless and untestable debate, i.e. the existence of God. For the sake of argument without having to go there do you think it possible for the skeptic to contemplate creation without that discussion of God's existence, or is it a forgone conclusion?

[Clownboat]

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.

Viruses do evolve.

Agreed. As stated in the OP.

None of the available god concepts have been shown to be real. Therefore, the gods, like fairies are unnecessary for explaining viruses.
You may want to consider removing the extra baggage from your reasoning... Unless there is a reason to insert a god concept in the first place that I'm unaware of.

Okay. So, you say evolved but not created. Thanks.

ETA: I'm trying to imagine a way we could circumvent the argument of a creator for the purpose of debating the subject without having to have that specific endless and untestable debate, i.e. the existence of God. For the sake of argument without having to go there do you think it possible for the skeptic to contemplate creation without that discussion of God's existence, or is it a forgone conclusion?

It was you that inserted an unidentified god concept as a creator of viruses and now you want to circumvent discussing this assertion. That is a bit of a tall ask IMO.

However, I'm willing to consider any reasoned argument you are willing to make. For example, the universe was created somehow as a starting premise if that is your want. Could have been gods, fairies or whatever... doesn't matter. Now what? What's next?

[Data]

It was you that inserted an unidentified god concept as a creator of viruses and now you want to circumvent discussing this assertion. That is a bit of a tall ask IMO.

Fair enough.

However, I'm willing to consider any reasoned argument you are willing to make. For example, the universe was created somehow as a starting premise if that is your want. Could have been gods, fairies or whatever... doesn't matter. Now what? What's next?

Right. Even if there is some alternative to the two options of creation / evolution. I don't think evolution is in question here. The subject is interesting to me because the believer would have to ask themselves why would ID create viruses? Of course, viruses are beneficial, we couldn't live without them. (Source) When the Plandemic was being acted out I did some research on medicine, viruses, innaculations, vaccines, etc. and I thought it was an interesting subject.

So, yeah, the possiblity of viruses having been created could be the starting point with attribution of any kind. It isn't and argument on the existence of God.

[Clownboat]

So, yeah, the possiblity of viruses having been created could be the starting point with attribution of any kind. It isn't and argument on the existence of God.

We know evolution is a fact. Can you show us something created as you are using it here? That would at least suggest it as a possibility If not, then I don't see a valid reason to offer 'viruses were created' as a premise, but I'm open to being shown why it should be considered.

[Data]

So, yeah, the possibility of viruses having been created could be the starting point with attribution of any kind. It isn't and argument on the existence of God.

We know evolution is a fact. Can you show us something created as you are using it here?

A Buick.

That would at least suggest it as a possibility If not, then I don't see a valid reason to offer 'viruses were created' as a premise, but I'm open to being shown why it should be considered.

Well, it is a debate on created or evolved. I happen to think it was created and it has evolved; you can't really evolve something from nothing but unless you have some other explanation, I don't see why for the purpose of this discussion the attribution is significant.

[Clownboat]

We know evolution is a fact. Can you show us something created as you are using it here?

A Buick.

Is manufactured, but let's assume you were being genuine shall we. How were viruses manufactured (like a Buick is). Was there some assembly line or were you just being silly playing fast and loose with words and their meaning?

Create
bring (something) into existence.

Was my Dodge brought in to existence in Detroit, or were the existing parts assembled there? We all know how we get cars and no one claims that they are brought in to existence... because they are assembled. What is the mechanism for how a virus was assembled, like a Buick is specifically. (Please note the underlined and bolded above)

I happen to think it was created and it has evolved;

I know what you think as you keep stating it. Therefore I'm asking for clarification. How do you propose that viruses were created like a Buick is created? I totally get Buicks, but you lose me at comparing them to viruses.

you can't really evolve something from nothing but unless you have some other explanation,

Straw man.
No one claims that a virus evolved from nothing besides yourself when you suggest there were created (brought in to existence).

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpa ... -14398218/
Viruses may have arisen from mobile genetic elements that gained the ability to move between cells. They may be descendants of previously free-living organisms that adapted a parasitic replication strategy. Perhaps viruses existed before, and led to the evolution of, cellular life.

The above is not a certainty, but it is far from how we get a Buick. How life originated is unknown, but how we got the life we now have on this planet is known and is due to it evolving.

None of todays life appears created, unless you have a valid example that is escaping me. Even bacteria (nylon eating) that once didn't exist now exists because it evolved. Nylon eating bacteria did not come about like how we get a Buick. One is assembled and the other is a change within the population that proved to be beneficial.

Therefore to suggest that viruses came about like how the rest of life came about (evolution) seems reasonable. I'm looking to see if you can make 'viruses were created' as reasonable. If not, I must continue to reject it as a starting premise (keep in mind that who this creator might have been is irrelevant to this observation, but not being able to point to any creator being sure doesn't make it more reasonable I'm sure we agree).

[The Barbarian]

It might be useful to look at bacterial plasmids as a model. Plasmids are bits of prokaryote DNA that exist separated from the rest of the bacterial genome. These are swapped from one cell to another by means of pili on the surface of the cells. And the important part is, they can be swapped between different species of bacteria. Plasmids have been considered to be entirely different from phages, which are viruses that are parasitic on bacteria and other prokaryotes.

Bacteria often carry mobile genetic elements capable of being passed from bacterium to bacterium. One such element is the plasmid, a small, circular, double-stranded DNA molecule. Plasmids can be transferred to daughter cells upon replication (vertically transferred) or to non-offspring cells (horizontally transferred). Horizontal transfer of genetic material between bacterial cells can occur within the same or different bacterial species. Plasmids often encode genes that provide its host with a survival advantage under specific environmental conditions (ex: metabolic constraints or presence of antimicrobials). On the other hand, maintenance of a plasmid means an added metabolic burden of plasmid replications and gene expression. Thus it is only logical that plasmids may be lost if they do not provide an advantage to the host at the given time (ex: environmental pressures relieved or no longer metabolically advantageous).
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5542005/

Phages and plasmids are regarded as distinct types of mobile genetic elements that drive bacterial evolution by horizontal gene transfer. However, the distinction between both types is blurred by the existence of elements known as prophage-plasmids or phage-plasmids, which transfer horizontally between cells as viruses and vertically within cellular lineages as plasmids. Here, we study gene flow between the three types of elements. We show that the gene repertoire of phage-plasmids overlaps with those of phages and plasmids.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45757-3

And of course, viral genes can be transferred vertically as endogenous DNA, or horizontally, as viruses.

But it's beside the point, because viruses could be created by YE creationist-style poofing or created by the process of evolution, like everything else we see. One example is the "nylon bug" mutation that gives bacteria the ability to use nylon oligomers as food sources. It's spread to a number of species of bacteria by horizontal passage of plasmids. Apparently, there are now more than one of these mutations.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1459943/

[mgb]

A thing can be both created and evolved. Evolution IS creation. The real question is, is evolution a sentient process? Viruses my be a non-living automatic process on a molecular level, too primitive to be compared to more advanced created/evolved creatures.