Would someone other than a horror movie producer consciously create something like this? https://www.livescience.com/anglerfish-fusion-sex-immune-system.html
Hey, thanks for asking the first question! There is design in every aspect of creation, including viruses. The "why's" that get asked as to why there is evil, including evil viruses, in this world is better addressed in the religious forum, so I won't get into that here. If there's interest in that kind of discussion I might start a thread on the topic in the religious area. As far as whether or not COVID-19 was engineered in a laboratory, I'll leave that to others to debate. However, here's something to think about: Since there is technology that can make viruses lethal, should we be surprised if we see viruses or other bioweapons used in the future?
Thanks for the question. This is a good illustration of evidence that debunks evolution. The article you posted points out, “Anglerfish mating is only possible because the fish have somehow evolved away some of their most crucial immune defenses.” It clearly states that this fish has degenerated due to evolution. Entropy is gradual decline into disorder. Evolution is subject to the law of entropy. “Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics The degree of randomness or disorder in a system is called its entropy.” “Second Law of Thermodynamics: every energy transfer that takes place will increase the entropy of the universe and reduce the amount of usable energy available to do work (or, in the most extreme case, leave the overall entropy unchanged). In other words, any process, such as a chemical reaction or set of connected reactions, will proceed in a direction that increases the overall entropy of the universe.” Both quotes taken from: https://www.khanacademy.org/science...f-thermodynamics/a/the-laws-of-thermodynamics John C. Sanford has a Ph.D. in plant breeding/plant genetics. He was a professor at Cornell University until his retirement in 1998. He continues his relationship with Cornell under the title, Courtesy Associate Professor. He wrote a book called Genetic Entropy. He also has a website with free videos to watch on the subject. https://www.geneticentropy.org/whats-genetic-entropy The website contains this review of the book/subject. “Genetic Entropy is by far the most devastating critique of the modern neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution. If mutations coupled with the reproductive filtering of natural selection cannot create nor maintain the integrity of the genome, what can stop it from degenerating.?” - Persuaded Reader, C.R. An overview of the content of Genetic Entropy is as follows: "Dr. John Sanford, a retired Cornell Professor, shows in "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" that the "Primary Axiom" is false. The Primary Axiom is the foundational evolutionary premise -- that life is merely the result of mutations and natural selection. In addition to showing compelling theoretical evidence that whole genomes must in fact degenerate over time, this book strongly refutes the Darwinian concept that man is just the result of a random and pointless natural process." https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4047166-genetic-entropy-the-mystery-of-the-genome So, to answer your question, the original creation of all aspects of the anglerfish was good. It has since degenerated due to entropy and evolution. There is a biblical perspective that provides reasons for why there is entropy, but that is beyond the scope of this thread because it's in the Science forum.
Food for thought: Entropy is a "law" because we are trapped in a 3-1/2 dimensional world. Entropy is merely an observation.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss creation vs evolution with you! This response was written with the guidance of a scientist. I was referred to consider linking an article titled, A Natural Origin-of-Life: Every Hypothetical Step Appears Thwarted by Abiogenetic Randomization (https://www.doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/p5nw3 . (If that link isn't working right, try this one: https://osf.io/p5nw3/ ). Dr. George Matzko has a Ph.D. in chemistry, was chairman of the chemistry department at Bob Jones University for 20 years and then chairman of the science department for another 20 years. It makes the case that every proposed step in abiogenesis, the supposedly scientific study of the origin of life, fails due to a common root cause. The argument is straightforward. A pre-life chemical process leading to life has three main variables: naturally appearing starting chemicals, naturally appearing energy sources, and a naturally appearing environment. The basic assumption of origin-of-life studies is that some combination of these variable first produced amino acids and/or nucleotides, the building block chemicals of life. These, then, were the starting chemicals for the next step: stringing the building blocks together to form proteins and/or nucleic acids. Eventually, some combination of building blocks appeared which was able to copy itself. Eventually, the self-copying molecules turned into living cells. There is a very big problem with this scenario. Every proposed step fails when tested experimentally. Furthermore—and this is the main issue which is the basis of the title—every one fails for the same reason: Millions of possible unique combinations of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen are possible and have been catalogued with certain physical characteristics observed and reported. Naturally appearing energy sources modify existing chemicals into a random output of chemicals near its structure. The initial starting chemicals became more and more randomized over time. This has been observed experimentally. Life requires the initial chemicals to form reasonably pure sequences of specific amino acids or nucleotides so they can start stringing together. There has never been an observed case of starting chemicals doing this. At whatever stage one does an experiment, the same pattern appears. The output chemicals as a whole are further away from life at the end of the experiment than before it started. Science gives clear evidence that natural processes work against a natural origin of life. Abiogenesis is fake science. Results in this field are repeatable—but the repeats all confirm its impossibility. This is an easy argument to understand. Anyone with even a slight knowledge of chemistry can follow it. Thousands of experiments have taken place since the Miller-Urey spark experiment in 1953, almost 70 years ago. Tens of thousands of articles have been written in the journals about this issue. I would encourage you and anyone else reading this thread to try to find a single article which reports of an experiment in abiogenesis which 1) starts with a given set of chemicals suitable for any hypothetical step of abiogenesis, 2) works on them with a reasonably plausible energy source suitable for a pre-life environment, 3) has no kind of interference or intervention by an intelligent being (tinkering by scientists not allowed), 4) produces new chemicals useful towards life, and 5) produces them in a form which can be used in the following step directly as produced . The article claims that naturally appearing principles prevent this from happening. A successful spontaneous appearance of life would require the entire path to be traveled smoothly from one step into its successor and without a single impassable roadblock. Yet, there appears to be a common root cause which prevents any step from successfully advancing to the next. The entire field of abiogenesis is characterized by failure to demonstrate a single hypothetical step, while showing all kinds of barriers that would prevent that from taking place. Yet, even though a successful experiment has never been produced, let alone reproduced independently by others, its validity is treated by materialists as fact despite the evidence. This is for one reason—they place their personal philosophical preferences ahead of observed data when materialism is challenged. They only claim objectivity; when their personal philosophy is challenged, objectivity goes out the window. Replies to the two papers Gaussian linked as well as some of Gaussian's comments: Gaussian first linked to a paper by Sebastian Lutz (https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s10670-012-9392-5 ) Lutz opens with the statement, “If intelligent design (ID) is to compete with evolutionary theory (ET), it must meet the modified falsifiability challenge, that is, make some deductive orprobabilistic observational assertions. It must also meet the modified translatability challenge, which it fails if ET makes all the observational assertions of ID, while ID does not make all the observational assertions of ET.” Gaussian comments on this with the statement, “This paper goes into detail that intelligent design does not follow the logical constructs of any scientifically reproducible theory.” Actually, the hypothesis presented by Matkzo in the paper discussed earlier is consistent with the ID model. It meets the requirements of a scientifically reproducible theory. ET is the one failing to do so. ET is unable to compete with ID. The title of Matzko’s paper says it all: A Natural Origin-of-Life: Every Hypothetical Step Appears Thwarted by Abiogenetic Randomization. A person can predict that any given step of abiogenesis tested experimentally will end up further from the appearance of life than how it started. Abiogenesis requires every step along the path to be successful, no steps must be insurmountable. The principle of randomization applied to an origin-of-life scenario says we should expect every postulated step to be insurmountable. Experiment confirms that it is--it ends up with the new chemicals produced being further away from life than the starting ones. ET does not meet the standards of a valid scientific theory. ID does. Gaussian next linked to an article by Jessica Tracy et al https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017349 Which opens with the comment, "The present research examined the psychological motives underlying widespread support for intelligent design theory (IDT), a purportedly scientific theory that lacks any scientific evidence; and antagonism toward evolutionary theory (ET), a theory supported by a large body of scientific evidence." This paper assumes that ET is true that ID theory isn’t. Therefore, there must be some kind of psychological motive that causes people to believe it. However, if the paper by Matzko is valid, then ET is the one with problems. The paper is directed to the wrong subjects for study. Both papers start with invalid assumptions and have no meaning. Further related discussion follows Gaussian’s next comment. This is funny. The first paper uses probability analysis as valid. Then, the above comment states that a probability analysis is invalid. I suggest the entire comment is meaningless. It is an unproved assertion that might sound well to a person who wants it to be true.However, if there is a Creator God, He decides the kind of evidence He expects us to understand. We do not have the power to confine a sovereign God to our terms. In this discussion, intelligent design is meant in a general sense that there is an intelligent designer. It is not sufficient merely to have a design. For a design to have any value there must also be a means for the designer to build what he designs. In the case of the appearance of the universe and the life that is in it, this in turn implies the designer must not only have extreme intelligence, but also must be able to implement His design. If the appearance of life is outside the capabilities of natural processes to provide, then the Designer-Creator must have innate power to work outside of and independently of the laws of science. He must be a god. Science is the study of reproducible behavior under normal operational conditions. It is based on controlling the variables in an experiment and using the observations to determine the manner in which the variables impact the outcomes. The influence of an uncontrollable variable cannot be defined by the scientific method. Therefore, since a sovereign God cannot be controlled the scientific method is not capable of defining the limits of God. If there does exist a Creator God, One who 1) has a will, 2) who has the intelligence to design living organisms from principles He first designed, 3) who has the innate power to bring matter into existence at will and can mold it in anyway He likes, 4) who can allow normal operational principles to work on their own when He chooses and 5) can intervene in their operation at any time and in any manner He chooses, then we don’t tell Him what He has to do in anything. If He chooses to reveal us in certain manners and if He determines these are adequate, then refusal to acknowledge this evidence does not invalidate it. Such a God can tell us what He wants us to do. We have no ability to tell Him how He has to reveal Himself. He is God, He is sovereign, and we aren’t. Although science cannot prove God, as in a formula, such as Isaac Newton’s Formula for the Force of Gravity, it does provide us with evidence of God’s existence. Science can show us what is necessary to create life. Science can show us that natural processes are inadequate to create life. (This is the topic of the paper I linked above by Dr. George Matzko.) Science shows us that principles of science are not sufficient to create life. Engineering gives us the model to show evidence of God as Creator. The engineering model is a two-step process. First, the designer defines what he wants to build and how to build it. Second, he makes what he designed. Just having a design does not mean the designer has the ability to make it. The designer must have the power to do it. That there is an Intelligent Designer capable of operating outside natural parameters to create life is not a proof subject to laws of science, but it is evidenced by the model of engineering. There is no other scientifically sound explanation of the appearance of life outside this model. This is a mere assertion. If you ARE a created being, then you do not have the option of defining the evidence needed to reveal the existence or non-existence of a Creator. Incidentally, this is not a true statement because there are records in the gospels of Jesus performing miracles that would fulfill this. Probably the most notable one was Jesus feeding 5,000 men plus women and children from a child’s meal of a few small fish and bread sticks. Many, many people not only saw this miracle, but ate the food from it. One of the greatest miracles in history is the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection demonstrates God’s power of life even over death. Many people witnessed seeing Christ alive after His death. I’m trying to keep religion out of this thread as much as possible, because this is in the science section. However, the gospels are also historical records and there were many people who observed this, so I thought I’d mention it.
studentofthemarkets, According to the thread title you only give creationist answers but nevertheless, to put all that creationist pseudoscience you posted to one side for a sec my question is, why is it apparently easier for you to accept that a more complex creator than the universe doesn't need a creator, but a less complex universe does? Isn't it your position as a creationist that the universe is so complex it needs a designer? Then surely the designer must be more complex than the universe, so it too must need a creator? (My supplementary question is do you like Turtle soup? )
STU'S QUESTIONS ARE IN BLUE: studentofthemarkets, According to the thread title you only give creationist answers but nevertheless, to put all that creationist pseudoscience you posted to one side for a sec my question is, why is it apparently easier for you to accept that a more complex creator than the universe doesn't need a creator, but a less complex universe does? Isn't it your position as a creationist that the universe is so complex it needs a designer? Then surely the designer must be more complex than the universe, so it too must need a creator? (My supplementary question is do you like Turtle soup? My reply was written with the guidance of a scientist. The most interesting questions are outside the scope of science. A physicist can give us a formula to define how gravity works. But, there is nothing in physics to tell WHY gravity exists to begin with. Nor can he tell us why it exerts the observed force instead of a different value. A physicist can describe laws of motion and energy and their relationships.. But, he cannot tell us why energy exists, why time exists, or why matter exists. An engineer can put all of these equations together along with a few more and build a rocket that can take a man to the moon and back. An engineer can put to practical use the laws the scientists uncover. But, engineers are also stuck here. They can show us how to use the laws, but they also cannot tell why the laws exist to begin with. The starting point of wisdom is to recognize the limits of the constructs a person is working with. So, the scientific method is incapable of answering the most basic and interesting of questions of mankind. It is well to keep this in mind whenever someone asserts that it is irrational to believe in the validity of the scientific method simultaneously with a personal belief and understanding of a living God who is sovereign in His actions. The true scientific method is following truth wherever it leads. This was the historical position of the founders of most of the early branches of science, including Sir Robert Boyle, founder of chemistry, Sir Isaac Newton, founder of basic principles of physics, Sir Francis Bacon, definer of the scientific method, and most scientists before Darwin’s time. These were professing Christians who openly believed in and worshiped the God of the Bible. They claimed science gave them a greater appreciation of the wisdom and power of God, something that sadly today’s scientists are unable to grasp. After Darwin, Thomas Huxley and the other 8 members of the X-club (discussed below) hijacked science, converting it into a tool to promote materialism. They started with the assumption that natural, materialistic processes can explain everything, both currently observed phenomena and historical artifacts. Then, as an application of this assumption, they redefined science to fit their philosophical beliefs and prejudices. Science was no longer a search for truth wherever it might lead. It was now presented as the best available explanation of the observable evidence that is consistent with and promotes materialism. Anyone who rejected their approach, whether creationist or for any other reason, was mocked, slandered, and actually called names like “stupid.” Their arguments were rejected as not worth the time to answer. Huxley and the X-club had very powerful friends in British politics during this time and used behind-the-scenes power plays to squeeze out the opinions of anyone who disagreed with them. So, in truth the slavery of modern science to materialism is pseudoscience, fake science whenever materialism is challenged. True science is consistent with recognition that it is possible that a living, miracle-working God may exist. Science is based on reproducible experiments. The actions of a sovereign, miracle-working God cannot be controlled by a scientist in an experiment. None of the founders of the major fields of science had a problem understanding this. Huxley’s son Leonard Huxley published a two-volume set of his father’s statements, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, McMillan and Co., Limited, London, 1900. Sometimes free copies of this are available online. Here is an extended citation from the work. Notice the confrontational tone of Huxley’s comments: As I have already said, I imagine that most of those of my contemporaries who thought seriously about the matter were very much in my own state of mind—inclined to say to both Mosaists and Evolutionists, “a plague on both your houses.’’ [Comment: Huxley often made personal attacks on both creationists and evolutionists who would answer their arguments. This is not respectful analysis of issues. In truth, Huxley did not have better answers than his opponents. He was more interested in winning a philosophical victory for materialism than uncovering scientific truth.] and disposed to turn aside from an interminable and apparently fruitless discussion, [Comment: when you (his opponent) talk about it, it is apparently fruitless discussion (so he refuses to discuss the issues of anyone who opposes him regardless of their strength and basis.] to labor in the fertile fields of ascertainable fact. [Comment: so materialism represents fact regardless of its weaknesses and theism represents fruitless discussion regardless of its strength. Hold on, here, Mr. Huxley. Science is inherently incompetent to discern whether God acted in the past or not. You have made the philosophical assumption that God can’t do anything and mock anyone who claims he did. But, this only shows your bias. It does not make you right. The above approach of Huxley and the X-club is discussed in Peter Bowler’s book, Evolution: The History of an Idea, Revised (2nd edition), ISBN 0-520-06385-6. According to Wikipedia this has become a standard textbook in university curricula on the history of evolutionary thought. On page 196 it summarizes the following: He [Huxley] was also a member of the “X-club,” an informal but extremely influential group of men whose behind-the-scenes activity shaped much of late Victorian science. They avoided open conflict in scientific journals but used their editorial influence to ensure that Darwinian values were incorporated gradually into the literature. The journal Nature was founded at least in part as a vehicle for promoting Darwinism. Academic appointments were also manipulated to favor younger scientists with Darwinian sympathies. So successful was this takeover of the British scientific community that by the 1880s, its remaining opponents were claiming that Darwinism had become a blindly accepted dogma carefully shielded from any serious challenge. Screenshot of Evolution: The History of an Idea, Revised (2nd edition) pg 196 Sadly, all of this was removed in the third edition, without explanation. However, this is neither strange nor to be unexpected. When one considers the mindset of materialists, it is a wonder that such an honest recount was ever allowed to be published to begin with. Richard Lewontin recently retired as a professor from Harvard University. He and Steven J. Gould were co-founders of the theory of punctuated equilibrium. He clearly shows how he was still carrying on Huxley’s tradition over one hundred years later: We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.... To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. (https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/01/09/billions-and-billions-of-demons/) This is modern “science, so called.” In Dr. Lewontin’s own words, his commitment to materialism is absolute. His opening statement is misrepresentation. He does not take the side of science, he takes the side of materialism and uses this as his definition of science. True science does not compel him to support materialism, rather his materialism compels him to force materialistic explanations for his “science” regardless of any absurdity of the conclusions. Why? “We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” This is out and out pure pseudoscience. Personal philosophical preferences are given a priority over the natural conclusions of scientific observation. To a person with this mindset, open discussion of any of the issues challenging materialism and supporting theism is absolutely forbidden. This has nothing to do with potential scientific merit, but because the highest priority is to defend materialism. In the above citation, Lewontin represents a modern example of Thomas Huxley. He treats his personal philosophical preferences as the exclusive domain of science with one absolute standard: anything consistent with God cannot be allowed. This is fake science. Sadly, he represents the attitude of most scientists today. Huxley’s legacy lives on. I have noticed many comments on threads here at ET appear to present modern, living examples of Huxley’s and Lewontin’s common methodology. Huxley refused to discuss openly the arguments presented by anyone opposing him. He merely slandered his opponents in any manner he could think of and then used this as an excuse not to consider anything they had to say; it was a waste of time to do so. Huxley’s fatal error was the ASSUMPTION that materialistic processes would be able to explain everything. It is sad to see how the world has gone after this model. The creationist believes God in His wisdom can place evidence revealing Himself in the creation that can be clearly seen by anyone willing to see it. The Bible asserts that He has indeed done this. The two questions you asked are outside of the limits of the physical sciences to determine. The biblical creationist view is that our Creator has spoken and revealed Himself to be self-existent and that there is no other god. Any further discussion on this topic should probably take place in the Religion and Spirituality forum.
My response was reviewed by a scientist. The genetic information to form belly buttons as part of the reproduction process would have been supplied at their creation. As to whether or not God chose to give Adam or Eve a belly button is irrelevant and we have no way of knowing.