SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 950:
Line 950: +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 17:52, April 19, 2017
, 17:52, April 19, 2017→Possible new counterexample about viruses: This stuff is way out of my area of expertise.
::I recommend against it. I don't think the notion that all life started with bacteria is accepted by the scientific community. Biogenesis is, to say the least, not a well-understood topic. In any case, the cited article makes religious arguments, stating, for example, that viruses only started being destructive because of mankind's sin. Considering that viruses and other primitive life forms long predate mankind, this doesn't seem to be a well-founded assertion. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:02, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
::I recommend against it. I don't think the notion that all life started with bacteria is accepted by the scientific community. Biogenesis is, to say the least, not a well-understood topic. In any case, the cited article makes religious arguments, stating, for example, that viruses only started being destructive because of mankind's sin. Considering that viruses and other primitive life forms long predate mankind, this doesn't seem to be a well-founded assertion. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:02, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
:::First, I don't think the article stated that evolutionists believe all life came from bacteria, unless I didn't read properly. Also, your arguments against adding this article are based on your presupposition that evolution and long ages are true (''"Considering that viruses and other primitive life forms long predate mankind..."''). This article is showing that the evolutionary view that retroviruses came from DNA mutations does not hold up. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:19, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
:::First, I don't think the article stated that evolutionists believe all life came from bacteria, unless I didn't read properly. Also, your arguments against adding this article are based on your presupposition that evolution and long ages are true (''"Considering that viruses and other primitive life forms long predate mankind..."''). This article is showing that the evolutionary view that retroviruses came from DNA mutations does not hold up. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:19, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
:::::OK. First, I'm not an expert in any of this, from either a scientific or creationist standpoint. So I'll bow out of the discussion. My "all life started with bacteria" comment was not about the cited ICR article, but about the comment at the start of this section, which presumably was from the CP article. It just struck me as odd that viruses were considered by creationists to have predated humans, but then retroactively changed their behavior as a result of human activity. But it's not for me to say. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:52, 19 April 2017 (EDT)
::::OK, how about adding this:
::::OK, how about adding this:
:::::"Retroviruses" are a type of [[virus]]. An article in ''Science'' claims that a retrovirus can be formed by two "protoviruses" in a process called "recombination". In regards to evolution, both humans and chimpanzees have retrovirus-like [[DNA]] and this is claimed to be evidence for [[evolution]]. But this ignores the fact that evolutionary theory says that chimpanzees and humans diverged of 6 million years ago, in which case these retrovirus sequences should have mutated to the point where they would be completely different. Furthermore, it assumes viruses existed before animals where as the ''Science'' article says animals existed first to produce the retrovirus.
:::::"Retroviruses" are a type of [[virus]]. An article in ''Science'' claims that a retrovirus can be formed by two "protoviruses" in a process called "recombination". In regards to evolution, both humans and chimpanzees have retrovirus-like [[DNA]] and this is claimed to be evidence for [[evolution]]. But this ignores the fact that evolutionary theory says that chimpanzees and humans diverged of 6 million years ago, in which case these retrovirus sequences should have mutated to the point where they would be completely different. Furthermore, it assumes viruses existed before animals where as the ''Science'' article says animals existed first to produce the retrovirus.
::::I'm not sure what the best section to put it in would be and I can't add it as the page is currently protected. [[User:FredericBernard|FredericBernard]] ([[User talk:FredericBernard|talk]]) 11:45, 19 April 2017 (EDT)
::::I'm not sure what the best section to put it in would be and I can't add it as the page is currently protected. [[User:FredericBernard|FredericBernard]] ([[User talk:FredericBernard|talk]]) 11:45, 19 April 2017 (EDT)