Viruses Disprove Intelligent Design.

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
John 6IX Breezy's picture
Giorgio Armani

Giorgio Armani

Greensnake's picture
MCD:

MCD:

I thought it was beetles!

MCD's picture
The designer? What designer?

The designer? What designer? Which designer?

chimp3's picture
There is still a question

There is still a question about the virus as a life form. However, they do contain DNA. Evolution occurs at the individual gene level , so viruses are capable of random mutation and selection by nature. Of course, this is why we have to change the formula for the flu vaccine every year.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
Ok, but that's why viruses

Ok, but that's why viruses aren't considered alive, because they're just packets of DNA. They lack a lot of important things. They can't metabolize their own energy, they cannot replicate their own DNA, and most importantly they have no proofreading mechanism to prevent mutations.

When influenza changes every years, its because of small variations on the outside of the virus. H1N1 becomes H1N2 but Influenza is sill influenza. Or in rare occasions, two influenza viruses can infect the same animal, and get mixed into a new influenza virus. But those are very predictable and very systematic changes. The changes that occur in influenza, that require new vaccines every year will never turn influenza into Ebola. That's not really evolution IMO.

chimp3's picture
One theory is that viruses

One theory is that viruses evolved from bacteria. Viruses are also considered a component of the evolutionary process re: Horizontal Gene Transfer.

Greensnake's picture
chimp3:

chimp3:

Some viruses actually have RNA instead of DNA, but the action is pretty much the same in that the cellular machinery is hijacked to produce more viruses. Viruses have protein coats around their genetic material, and the surface configuration allows the virus to stick to (and get their genetic material into) human cells. After an infection, the body tends to recognize pieces of these key coat proteins as invaders which allows the immune system to kick in (hopefully). Unfortunately, the surface proteins can evolve rapidly (so that the immune system no longer recognizes the key pieces) and still do the same service for the virus. Hence, the need for vaccination every year.

chimp3's picture
If not alive then they are

If not alive then they are evidence of self assembling organic molecules.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
Ooooh course, so no matter

Ooooh course, so no matter what the truth is, there's always a way to make it fit your paradigm. Viruses aren't self-assembling. They can't do anything until a living cell does it for them. But maybe try Prions? That's a better example of self-assembling organic molecules of sorts. Or even better, try crystals, those are self-assembling inorganic molecules.

chimp3's picture
Just google "virus self

Just google "virus self assembly".

Nyarlathotep's picture
better yet:

better yet:

John 6IX Breezy - I took Microbiology last semester, that's a $900 course. The book we used was Brock Biology of Microorganisms 14th edition, that's $200...That means I spent around $1,100.00 to be taught what viruses are...

John 6IX Breezy - Viruses aren't self-assembling.

Brock Biology of Microorganisms 14th edition (p247) - The information required for the proper folding and assembly of viral proteins into capsomeres and subsequently into capsids is often embedded within the amino acid sequence of the viral proteins themselves. When this is the case, virion assembly is a spontaneous process and is called self-assembly.

Probably too late to get a refund huh?

chimp3's picture
Nyarlahotep is the google

Nyarlahotep is the google daddy!

John 6IX Breezy's picture
I don't think you understand

I don't think you understand what you are quoting.

This "self-assembly" happens inside a living cell. Capsomeres and capsids are proteins. Where do you think the newly replicated virus gets the material to assemble them from? They are floating around the cytosol of the host cell. Viruses are basically parasites, whatever "self-assembly" they do is contextually dependant on being inside a living cell.

Everything that happens at the cellular and molecular level is "self-assembled." Self-assembly essentially means energetically prone. Just like mixing acetic acid and sodium bicarbonate in a cup, makes those molecules disassemble and self-assemble into water and carbon dioxide, proteins likewise assemble into tertiary and quaternary structures to form Capsomeres and then capsids. That's what chemical spontaneity or "spontaneous processes" are. Diamond turning into graphite is a spontaneous process, it happens without outside intervention. Protein assembling into capsids are spontaneous process, it happens without outside intervention.

Proteins are puzzle pieces that tend to arrange themselves in a specific way. Sometimes those proteins can just bump into their natural place to form capsids, sometimes they can't and need the host cell to provide an enzyme that bends the protein in a better way. That's not what Chimp implied by self-assembly. By self-assembly he implied it occurs outside of, and without the help of the host cell.

Nyarlathotep's picture
John 6IX BreezyViruses aren't

John 6IX Breezy - Viruses aren't self-assembling.

John 6IX Breezy - Everything that happens at the cellular and molecular level is "self-assembled." Self-assembly essentially means energetically prone.

And as usual; it didn't take you long to start contradicting yourself.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
CyberLN is going to drown me

CyberLN is going to drown me for this, but I do think you have some form of autism. You seem very unable to understand contexts. You don't communicate well. And any abstract idea, like metaphors, comparisons, idioms, figures of speech, etc., seem to confuse you.

Nyarlathotep's picture
John 6IX Breezy - And any

John 6IX Breezy - And any abstract idea, like metaphors, comparisons, idioms, figures of speech, etc., seem to confuse you.

Well I do have to agree that you confuse the shit out of me. Like when you told us "every" doesn't mean "every"...

or how about the time you told us that you didn't believe in souls, then turned around and told us that living beings are souls!

/e or the time you told us the bible is supposed to be read literally, then turned around and told us that the bible tells us when it is to be read figuratively? Yeah that was pretty confusing.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
That's it, just three

That's it, just three examples? I know you can do better than that.

CyberLN's picture
"CyberLN is going to drown me

"CyberLN is going to drown me for this, but I do think you have some form of autism."

You do that all on your own.

BTW...Sounds like you aren't particularly familiar with the condition of autism, Nyar just doesn't fit the bill.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
http://www.sciencedirect.com
CyberLN's picture
Well, I read: children,

Well, I read: children, three of them, and promising.

It was also about teaching children, not defining behavior associated with adult autism spectrum.

Were the methods used print only (as is the case here) or audible?

Perhaps Instead of diagnosing someone with a condition you have no clue they actually have, you should simply ask Nyar if he is not understanding or just holding your feet to the fire for your lack of consistency.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
I'd rather diagnose. Its more

I'd rather diagnose. Its more fun that way.

chimp3's picture
I never stated viral self

I never stated viral self assembly occurs without the virus parasitically using the hosts cell !. The virus is a parasite that self assembles using the materials of the host cell . That is not the same as the host cell assembling the virus. Viruses self assemble. All parasites depend on a host. That is what a parasite is.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
Well if that's what you meant

Well if that's what you meant then I have no problem with it. So long as you understand that "parasite" is just an analogy. Parasites do actually live inside their host. Viruses don't live lol.

chimp3's picture
I believe I have addressed

I believe I have addressed the status of viruses as alive or not in previous statements.

Greensnake's picture
John 61X Breezy:

John 61X Breezy:

Again, that depends on your definition of life. I think that if you read the literature you will find that there are a wide range of ideas as to what constitutes life.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
In my opinion all living

In my opinion all living things need energy. There needs to be an input of resources; along with the ability to metabolize those recourses. We eat food, digest it, and deliver that energy to all our cells. Plants have photosynthesis. Bacteria ingest through phagocytosis.

What do viruses do? Nothing. They don't metabolize, they don't eat, they don't photosynthesize. They don't need energy. They're just packets of information. No different than a floppy disk.

Greensnake's picture
John 61X Breezy:

John 61X Breezy:

What do you think those viruses are doing inside your cells? Nothing? I would say that they are carrying on the processes of life, at least by some reasonable definitions of life. They take in energy and use it to make new viruses. Outside of the cell they are indeed little packets of information that do nothing. So what? As you surely know as a student of microbiology, many bacteria and fungi also have their spore resting states where they do nothing. Even tardigrades (tiny "Water Bears" with "legs") can dry up and do nothing for long periods of time.

By now I've forgotten the whole point of this argument!

John 6IX Breezy's picture
Ok, but its not so simple. A

Ok, but its not so simple. A virus isn't "living" inside the cell either. Take viriods, which infect plants. All they are, is a strand of RNA. It's not a living thing, its just information. Its just a floating sentence of genetic sequences. A virus is the exact same thing, except their information comes in briefcases. Viruses are not metabolising inside cells. What would they need energy for? The host cell is the one whose confusing the information for its own information, and produces more of it. That's why viruses are essentially stray genetic information, not living thing.

Yes, a lot of bacteria become endospores which is a dormant stage. But they'll eventually come out of it.

Greensnake's picture
mykcob4:

mykcob4:

I think the best way to refute "Intelligent Design" is to point out the many instances where the "design" is just plain awkward and dumb. The human eye, for example, is wired ass-backwards! Yes, it still works quite well if you overlook the blind spot, but it would be an embarrassment to any intelligent engineer. But, God got it right with the octopus! For anyone who believes in Intelligent Design, this has to be an awkward set of facts if their brain is working at all. Even funnier, evolution actually explains why we are wired ass-backwards while the octopus is wired correctly! Biologists have traced the evolution of the eyes of both creatures to different source tissues, the raw material that evolution eventually fashioned into eyes. Once you see how they evolved you can understand why the results are so contrary.

Life is chock-a-block full of silly, dumb design. An Intelligent Designer of the highest order would consistently create a clean, marvelous design. Evolution can also create marvelous design, but it is shot through with stupid but workable design. After all, evolution doesn't build from the ground up like an engineer would. It can only start with parts and systems already on the shelf and tinker with them to arrive at something new. Consequently, we often see a Jerry-rigged, awkward, make-do arrangement with dumb elements that no decent engineer would ever consider.

Aside from life being loaded with dumb, awkward design, the hallmark of evolutionary tinkering, we also have vestigial organs and genetic throwbacks. Life is loaded with them! They scream "evolution!" An intelligent designer would hardly design non-workable legs for some whales and snakes! Speaking of snakes, they have one lung while the other is shriveled up. Odd, don't you think, that the Intelligent Designer didn't lay out a clean plan for one and only one lung if it were that useful? Of course, snakes very likely evolved from lizard ancestors with two lungs. As the snake form evolved, cramming two lungs into a long, slender body may have been difficult or disadvantageious, meaning that one lung eventually evolved out of functional existence and remains to this day as a shriveled up vestigial organ.

Did you know that the fetus grows a fur coat of sorts at one stage of development? But, it just fades away as the fetus matures. What was the point? A reasonable explanation is that our ancestors had fur coats which began to develop before birth. Fur may have become disadvantageous when we developed the ability to sustain long-distance running in a hot environment. Try running a mile in a fur coat and you'll get the idea. Unlike our ancestor apes, and the monkeys and Gorillas of today, our skeletal framework is ideal for running a distance. And, it does have advantages. I once watched an old film set in Australia that showed how a group of Aborigine women would just run down these wild cats. The cats (wild, escaped versions of our pet cats) could run faster but they could not keep it up. That group of women just kept pressing them until they dropped! The same technique works against other animals as well. It was a kitty nightmare.

When evolution dismantled fur coat production in humans it apparently left untouched this phase of growth in the fetus which was probably harmless. (If it's harmless then there is little or no evolutionary pressure to remove it.) So, a few genetic switches are still activated briefly to no consequence. How very evolution-like!

I recall reading about a very rare human being who actually grew a fine coat of fur! It seems that he had a position in the English court some centuries ago and was by all accounts a perfect, cultured gentleman. I don't have the source handy, so it could make for an interesting Internet search. If the story holds up, then the necessary genes for a human, fur coat are still around even though scattered (and diluted) in the general population to such an extent that they rarely all get inherited by an individual.

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
I am atheistic.

NOTE: The facing details are written in layman language.

I am atheistic.

However, without belief/faith or certainty, I can consider/observe probabilities.

This is the problem with humans. We tend to bound our thought cycles in supposed beliefs. Although atheism is the lack of belief, many atheists tend to make claims ie 'God doesn't exist'

.
.
.

(1) We are creating more and more advanced simulations of our own cosmos. Example: 'illustris'

http://www.illustris-project.org/

As time passes, our own simulations of our cosmos gets better and better. I have not encountered (upon searching) any law of physics which stipulates that the creation of universes with life is impossible.

And don't be frightened by the word 'SIMULATION'. The planet's strongest artificial intelligence, 'ALPHA GO', uses simulations of 'go games'.

...but using simulations had not prevented it from DESTROYING world champion Lee Sedol.

It is then likely that a universe like ours is perhaps 'CREATABLE', particularly by intelligence (us).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

(2) We are creating more and more advanced artificial intelligence

As time passes, our brain based artificial intelligence (neural nets etc) EXCEED humans in more and more cognitive tasks.

Our brain runs at roughly 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second.

NOW, there are models that run 10^14 synaptic operations per second, that are small (approaching human-brain size) and efficient.

By 2020, it is likely that we will successfully make models that achieve brain capacity and efficiency.

It is then likely that intelligence like ours is perhaps 'CREATABLE', particularly by intelligence (us).

.
.
.
.
.
.

POST SCRIPTUM.

I discuss in more detail, the problem with 'beliefs' here (using science):

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/new-cult-non-beliefism...

..and also as an atheist, i discuss the likelihood of gods here (using science):

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/scientific-evidence-go...

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.