Influenza viruses = evidence for design

One should also note that viruses are generally minimalistic in their genomes, not performing many functions that, say, bacteria perform.

Indeed, just how are flu viruses supposed to resist UV anyhow, outside of the host? Sure, the capsid (I believe flus use capsids) might have some tiny screening ability, but they're extremely thin and couldn't block UV much. Bacteria repair UV damage, because they are autonomous organisms with an ongoing metabolism, while viruses aren't even considered to be "alive" outside of their hosts, according to many.

It's the old trick, pick a useful feature, ignore the evolutionary possibilities, and demand that "Darwinism" produce it regardless of the evolutionary limitations imposed upon viruses.

Why do so many bacteria have such good resistance to UV? Why didn't the "designer" make pathogens less robust and capable of infecting his preferred creations, the humans?

Well, same old BS, pay no heed to the considerable evolved capabilities in autonomous organisms, while demanding metabolic responses in inert organisms (assuming the person demanding this is intelligent enough to know that UV resistance in micro-organisms involves metabolism, for the most part). It doesn't really matter that it makes no scientific sense, because they're only try to ignite ignorant reactions against considered science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Ah the old stupid set-theoretic complement of evolution is ID business.

1 Darwinism predicts x
2 not x is true
3 therefore, Intelligent Design!

As Awesom-o would say, "Laaaaaaame"

WOW - are they really arguing that the flu virus is designed? One of the most lethal pathogens around?

Leaving aside the idea that a virus like the flu can even in principle develop meaningful UV resistance, what kind of a designer is it, one that designs a virus that is incredibly efficient in spreading, killing the weak and immunosuppressed by the hundreds of thousands every year, but leaving the strong and healthy mostly just disabled for a while so that they can spread the infection, a virus which is a master at transformation to evade host resistance, and which hides in wait in viral reservoirs just to renew its attacks year, after year, after year, a virus which has been known to occasionally turn into a monster capable of killing people by the millions?

Or are we to believe that the designer only designed the "good features" of the virus? That's just bizarre.

Or are we to believe that the designer only designed the "good features" of the virus? That's just bizarre.

Note that I'm not saying that some resistance (beyond the capsid) is impossible in inert viruses, but bulky protective molecules and mechanisms (histones, maybe?) are unlikely to be "cost-effective" strategies for flu viruses. They may never have had the necessary precursors, either, in their minimalistic state.

I don't suppose that cost-benefit analyses are anything IDists would resort to, let alone anything like showing that reasonable evolutionary pathways were even open. That's too much like science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Actual conversation with a creationist regarding a story from a science journal that showed the existance of the gas giants had some effect stabilizing the solar system:

Creationist: "It shows God's mercy that He made the gas giants! Without them, we would be bombarded with asteroids and comets from the outer solar system! Life would be impossible! Clearly, the gas giants show intelligent design."

Me: "Yes, it's a good thing God was there to make the gas giants to protect us from that HORRIBLE UNTHINKING MONSTER who made the asteroids and comets. Who was it who made the asteroids and comets again?"

Creationist: "You're going to Hell."

At least the company will be good.

For example, Darwinism suggests that pathogenic viruses should long ago have evolved resistance to solar ultraviolet radiation (UV).

Michael,

Whenever a creationist tells you that "you are going to hell", use this reply; "You may be right, but guess what? With all the lies that you and your fellow creationists perpetuate on your following flock, you are going to be there right beside me. If I happen to get there before you do, I'll save you a seat."

Re "Or are we to believe that the designer only designed the "good features" of the virus? "

Would that be the flagellum?

Oh wait, viruses wouldn't have that would they.

Never mind.

The neat part here is how "politically incorrect" is being used to describe anything which is correct according to the politics of the far right.

Similar to how INGSOC had a Ministry of Truth for disseminating its lies and a Ministry of Peace for fighting its wars, the right-wing noise machine uses "political incorrectness" as a label to praise political correctness and "political correctness" as a smear to attack anything it finds politically incorrect.

Michael,

When someone tells you you're going to hell, ask them to prove it. If it doesn't stop them, it usually means they'll resort to craptastic theology, and you can have fun taking that apart as well.

One of my fun recent points: how can you trust God that he's not going to change his mind on who goes into the lake of fire? Couldn't he get bored after awhile and just chuck the lot?

That is one of the frightening bits of fundamentalist theology. God is all good, we're told, but in turn, good is defined by God. Rape, incest, murder, adultery, etc., aren't wrong because they are wrong, they are wrong because God said not to do them. If God changes His mind tomorrow, it will be okay.

They have no underlying moral structure. It's all about fear of being caught, but by the Celestial Eye-in-the-Sky rather than the cops. They genuinely believe that anyone who *isn't* in fear of God has no reason not to go around murdering anyone they want while raping women, children and farm animals. In fact, they seem to feel it would be natural to do so.

One has to ask, "If YOU, personally, were convinced somehow that there was no God, is this what YOU would be doing?"

Well, it's not what I would do. If you convinced me to embrace atheism tomorrow, I certainly wouldn't decide it was okay to rape the first woman I saw, even lacking a fear of being caught by more mundane authorities. But then, I care about other people. That alone informs the basis of all my moral decisions.

I don't overly worry about being sent to Hell. If the fundamentalists had any power, I'd have been sent along years ago. I can't believe in a God so cheap, vicious and petty as theirs. But then, they're making God in their own image, aren't they?

Me: "Yes, it's a good thing God was there to make the gas giants to protect us from that HORRIBLE UNTHINKING MONSTER who made the asteroids and comets. Who was it who made the asteroids and comets again?" Creationist: "You're going to Hell."

— Michael Suttkus

I'm going to echo Glen Davidson's comments, because they need to be repeated several times. The idea of the flu virus evolving some sort of resistance to UV doesn't make much sense. The selective forces acting on what would be the conceivable "targets" are much stronger inside the host than in the air (where, I suspect, the virus spends precious little time), and they will craft a very different product than will atmospheric UV radiation. (I can only think of the viral coat proteins as a "site" for improved UV resistance, and even then most virologists would probably take issue with me.)

Other organisms tell us how to evolve resistance to UV, and the flu virus has neither the wherewithall or the need. This item from Wells' book doesn't make sense.

Don't forget the most important design feature of the influenza virus: it is designed to be the most contageous under conditions where it can actively avoid UV light, such as indoors.

It has been argued that the Earth is intended as an observatory, laboratory and classroom.

It is ideally positioned to star-gaze and full of creatures great (like you) and small (like viruses).

All to the apparent benefit of mankind to learn at their own pace that there are consequences to free-will.

I think that "how do viruses adapt?" is a far more fruitful line inquiry than "how do viruses evolve?".

Adaptation is observable. Calling it 'gradualism' does not then make evolution observable.

RM+NS is just biological entropy (degenerate), and only degrades pre-existing parametric gene information, which are perfect in declaration and definition.

RM+NS has never been witnessed to form new gene information, as required by gradualism.

So where did the original genetic information come from?

Life is a miracle.

[Snore...]

Wake me up when the new troll has returned from a tour a tour of TalkOrigins.

Dear Mr. Pinhead,

From Panda's Thumb:
"The patrons gather to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation."

My posts discuss (constructively debunk) evolutionary theory, critique (constructively support) the claims of the antievolution movement, defend (contextualize) the integrity of both science and science education, and the spirit of goodness is never far from my conversation.

... and your post is what?

constructively debunk

Life is a miracle.

Why don't we deal with the facts.

Is DuCrane wrong in his assertion that the creation of a new gene has never been observed?

Let's start there. That's a good stating point I think.

Is DuCrane wrong in his assertion that the creation of a new gene has never been observed?

Is DuCrane wrong in his assertion that the creation of a new gene has never been observed?

Yes. Trivially wrong. Every bacteria that develops resistance to antibiotics, does it through a new gene.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

It has been argued that the Earth is intended as an observatory, laboratory and classroom.

— Collin DuCrane

It is ideally positioned to star-gaze and full of creatures great (like you) and small (like viruses).

— Collin DuCrane

I think that "how do viruses adapt?" is a far more fruitful line inquiry than "how do viruses evolve?".

— Collin DuCrane

Adaptation is observable. Calling it 'gradualism' does not then make evolution observable.

— Collin DuCrane

RM+NS is just biological entropy (degenerate), and only degrades pre-existing parametric gene information, which are perfect in declaration and definition.

— Collin DuCrane

RM+NS has never been witnessed to form new gene information, as required by gradualism.

— Collin DuCrane

So where did the original genetic information come from?

— Collin DuCrane

Life is a miracle.

— Collin DuCrane

Don't forget the most important design feature of the influenza virus: it is designed to be the most contageous under conditions where it can actively avoid UV light, such as indoors.

Collin's posts at UD have been so bad, you could devote whole threads to them.

I keep having to explain to creationists that they don't object to evolution, they object to common descent.

It would have been reasonable if Wells omitted the word "political" in the title of his pamphlet. Or better: he should have added "and" between political and incorrect.

[They have no underlying moral structure. It's all about fear of being caught, but by the Celestial Eye-in-the-Sky rather than the cops. They genuinely believe that anyone who *isn't* in fear of God has no reason not to go around murdering anyone they want while raping women, children and farm animals. In fact, they seem to feel it would be natural to do so.

One has to ask, "If YOU, personally, were convinced somehow that there was no God, is this what YOU would be doing?"]

That is the exact thing I was pondering before:
http://scientianatura.blogspot.com/2006/07/perennial-refuted-argument.html

My posts...critique (constructively support) the claims of the antievolution movement

— Collin DuCrane

That is one of the frightening bits of fundamentalist theology. God is all good, we're told, but in turn, good is defined by God. Rape, incest, murder, adultery, etc., aren't wrong because they are wrong, they are wrong because God said not to do them. If God changes His mind tomorrow, it will be okay.

It's been argued that if the Earth where a sphere, people in Australia would have to hang on to the ground for dear life. It's been argued, but it's quite wrong.

It has been argued that the Earth is intended as an observatory, laboratory and classroom.

It is ideally positioned to star-gaze and full of creatures great (like you) and small (like viruses).

All to the apparent benefit of mankind to learn at their own pace that there are consequences to free-will.

I think that "how do viruses adapt?" is a far more fruitful line inquiry than "how do viruses evolve?".

Adaptation is observable. Calling it 'gradualism' does not then make evolution observable.

Man, that comment by Mims is as hilarious as that one AFDave over at AtBC wrote once: "If evolution is true, how come we don't have people able to leap tall buildings with a single bounce?"

Yes, he was totally serious, too.

Who writes those guys' lines? Seriously, this stuff is gold.

RM+NS is just biological entropy (degenerate), and only degrades pre-existing parametric gene information, which are perfect in declaration and definition.

RM+NS has never been witnessed to form new gene information, as required by gradualism.

you like to suggest ludicrous notions that support your position. i wont ask for a power plant or a space ship those are beneath even the connection of brain to eye interaction, as usual much ado about nothing! all i ask is a simple outhouse , they should be springing up occasionall . we should have seen them by now!

— An idiot

Michael Suttkus II: Excellent posts, and have fun at DragonCon. The LA/Anaheim SF WorldCon will host the Hugos this Saturday (26 Aug.), tickets still available!

Doctor Who has three episodes nominated for Hugos! VICTORY IS ASSURED!

(It's about time important subjects were discussed here on Panda's Thumb, don't you think? :-)

AFDave over at AtBC wrote once: "If evolution is true, how come we don't have people able to leap tall buildings with a single bounce?"

all i ask is a simple outhouse , they should be springing up occasionally

Strictly speaking, the "We should have superpowers if EVILution were true" crowd don't generally demand that those things happen at once, only that, by now, they should have happened.

Still utter nonsense, of course. They don't understand that every feature in life comes at a cost. Hawks have excellent distance vision, but at the cost of being nearly blind up close. Cheetahs have great speed, but only at the cost of seriously specializing their anatomy, weakening their spine, compressing their abdomen.

Everything has many costs, developmental (how much energy does it cost to grow this feature), maintenance (how much energy does it cost to maintain this feature), and in opportunity (what do I give up to have this feature?). Natural selection isn't out to pile us under every superpower imaginable, but to create a functional system.

WE could have better color vision with more cone cells, but then we'd lose rod cells and see worse at night. We could have much better night vision with more rods and maybe a tapetum like cats have reflecting light back through the retina a second time, but it would cost us vision in daytime. Human eyes are better than cat eyes in the daytime. Cat eyes are better than human eyes at night. "Perfect" eyes are a creationist delusion.

RM+NS has never been witnessed to form new gene information.

First, define "information," and kindly tell us how we might measure and quantify it. Until you've done this, your claim is untestable and empty of real meaning.

Second, if a blond man and a black-haired woman give birth to a brown-haired child, is that "new information?" Also, if an acorn grows into a huge oak tree, is that "new information?"

My response to Collin appears to have disappeared into the Black Pit of Moderation. Any idea what's up with that?

(It wasn't rude, or nasty, or impolite, or anything like that, so if it was filtered the problem is with the filters)

Now AFDave is complaining that evolution is invalid because he doesn't find big mutant changes without useful intermediate steps?

Stevaroni said: Humans jumping over a building - not so useful in day-to-day survival for most of us

Everytime a commercial comes on that makes a stupid claim (which is, I suppose, most of them), I start griping about bad logic and ridiculing the idiocy.

A 200 dollar value, yours for only $75! Not sold in stores!

Okay, so it's a $200 value... where? If it's not sold in stores, and the only way you can get it is through this commercial, in what parallel earth is it a 200 dollar value? They're just making up numbers.

Makes you smell like a man

I thought that's what you wore cologne to prevent.

After a particularly inspired gripe fest, my brother turns to me and says, "Have you ever thought your life might be less painful if you just stopped thinking about things?"

Well, I hadn't really, but he has a point. Every newscast, every stupid article I run into online, is an exercise in masochism to experience. Don't even get me started on having to get through the room when Dad's listening to Limbaugh or Faux News.

There are times it would be a lot easier not to think.

Okay, that's weird, I sent this to another thread. How did I end up here?