ID and coronavirus conspiracy theories

[Stoic]

Maybe, rather than dumping a link to a video, you can do something constructive and summarize it and its relevance to the actual topic under discussion.

Yeah, that's 80 minutes of my life I'd like back.

There's nothing (to my recollection) specific to the coronavirus in the video. It's just Behe talking about how complex viruses (and their methods) are, and how (in his illustrious opinion, and with no specifics) evolution could not possibly have produced something like that.

[Sparko]

Even if the virus was man-made, it wouldn't be from scratch, so the whole ID argument would be moot.

[lee_merrill]

There's nothing (to my recollection) specific to the coronavirus in the video. It's just Behe talking about how complex viruses (and their methods) are...

Well, Behe said that we can't detect that something wasn't designed:

ID has never claimed they can prove design is not present; that would require a designer who is not smart enough to hide his design or create an unbreakable code if he so chooses. ID only says that when improbability, order, and purpose rise above a certain threshold, you can detect design. And the higher it rises above that threshold, the more certain the presence of design.

... and how (in his illustrious opinion, and with no specifics) evolution could not possibly have produced something like that.

Behe gave specifics, talking about protein-protein interactions, and referring to his books, saying coronaviruses were probably designed.

Scientists have been looking for evidence of human design. They know (or at least assume they know) what tools are available to humans to modify a virus, and they know what telltale signs would be left behind if humans used these tools. They also have an idea of what purposes humans might have had in mind if they chose to modify this virus.

I don't know what telltale signs that would be, but they might detect purpose (though I would find that doubtful too).

The tools actual biologists are using are meant to analyze something's evolution. Nobody set out to look at whether this virus was designed; they simply applied the tools we'd developed to study evolution to the data we've gotten from viral genome sequencing.

I would say more than three neutral mutations, that provide a function, would point to design.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=lee_merrill;765053]Well, Behe said that we can't detect that something wasn't designed: [/wuote]

The usual 'arguing from ignorance' foolishness.

Behe gave specifics, talking about protein-protein interactions, and referring to his books, saying coronaviruses were probably designed.

The 'known' science says no.

[TheLurch]

I would say more than three neutral mutations, that provide a function, would point to design.

if they provide a function, they wouldn't be neutral now, would they?

And, if you don't understand basic stuff like that, why do you think you can understand anything else about biology?

[Stoic]

Behe gave specifics, talking about protein-protein interactions, and referring to his books, saying coronaviruses were probably designed.

He referred to his books, but gave no specifics in the video about why coronaviruses could not have evolved.

I don't know what telltale signs that would be, but they might detect purpose (though I would find that doubtful too).

It's not a matter of detecting purpose, but of assuming purpose. You can do that with respect to human designs, because you know a lot about human purposes. If the designers were malevolent, then the purpose would be to hurt more people, or a particular group of people. Benevolent designers might want to make it nonvirulent, but still able to provoke an immune response.

As for telltale signs,

If the virus had been genetically engineered in a lab there would be signs of manipulation in the genome data. This would include evidence of an existing viral sequence as the backbone for the new virus, and obvious, targeted inserted (or deleted) genetic elements.
But no such evidence exists. It is very unlikely that any techniques used to genetically engineer the virus would not leave a genetic signature, like specific identifiable pieces of DNA code. -- source

I would say more than three neutral mutations, that provide a function, would point to design.

I could go with three mutations that were individually deleterious, but neutral mutations have essentially an unlimited amount of time to build up, and to find some place to be useful.

[lee_merrill]

if they provide a function, they wouldn't be neutral now, would they?

I meant mutations that would in themselves be neutral, that together provide a function.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

He referred to his books, but gave no specifics in the video about why coronaviruses could not have evolved.

He referred to new protein-protein interactions, of which three non-selectable point mutations to provide it would be difficult, if not impossible.

As for telltale signs,

If the virus had been genetically engineered in a lab there would be signs of manipulation in the genome data. This would include evidence of an existing viral sequence as the backbone for the new virus, and obvious, targeted inserted (or deleted) genetic elements.
But no such evidence exists. It is very unlikely that any techniques used to genetically engineer the virus would not leave a genetic signature, like specific identifiable pieces of DNA code. -- source

Excessive mutations would indeed be evidence of design, I would agree. And I stand corrected on genetic engineering leaving telltale signs.

I could go with three mutations that were individually deleterious, but neutral mutations have essentially an unlimited amount of time to build up, and to find some place to be useful.

Yes, but there would be evidence of tampering if there were four or more non-selectable mutations from a known coronavirus, that provide a new function. The probability of mutations occurring together decreases exponentially, as the number of required mutations increases. Re Behe's discussion of chloroquine resistance in malaria in the video, and in his book.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Well, Behe said that we can't detect that something wasn't designed:

The usual 'arguing from ignorance' foolishness.

Behe's example was a crime scene, where the criminal tries to make it look like an accident. This is not arguing from ignorance.

Behe gave specifics, talking about protein-protein interactions, and referring to his books, saying coronaviruses were probably designed.

The 'known' science says no.

Given the difficulty of developing new protein-protein interactions, how is it that a virus could develop by evolutionary means?

Blessings,
Lee

[Stoic]

He referred to new protein-protein interactions, of which three non-selectable point mutations to provide it would be difficult, if not impossible.

Excessive mutations would indeed be evidence of design, I would agree. And I stand corrected on genetic engineering leaving telltale signs.

It's not a matter of excessive mutations, though we do have an idea of how fast mutations occur. The problem is we don't know a priori what the effect will be of particular point mutations. If we were just using trial and error, it would take us as long as it takes nature to do it. So we have to start with a sequence of DNA or RNA that we already know has a particular effect, and splice it into an already existing sequence. The odds are very low that someone could find an already existing virus, and a sequence of known effect to splice into it, that were completely unknown to virologists.

And for this particular virus, the effect of the modification is to provoke an excessive response from the immune system. Virologists don't even know how it does that, much less how they would design a virus to do that.

Yes, but there would be evidence of tampering if there were four or more non-selectable mutations from a known coronavirus, that provide a new function. The probability of mutations occurring together decreases exponentially, as the number of required mutations increases. Re Behe's discussion of chloroquine resistance in malaria in the video, and in his book.

It would seem to be very improbable if you start with the idea that these mutations were working towards a particular purpose. But the reality is that mutations simply occur, and in some rare instances they cause things to match up somewhere in the almost infinite space of things they might come into contact with.

[TheLurch]

I meant mutations that would in themselves be neutral, that together provide a function.

Why three?

[lee_merrill]

It's not a matter of excessive mutations, though we do have an idea of how fast mutations occur. The problem is we don't know a priori what the effect will be of particular point mutations. If we were just using trial and error, it would take us as long as it takes nature to do it. So we have to start with a sequence of DNA or RNA that we already know has a particular effect, and splice it into an already existing sequence. The odds are very low that someone could find an already existing virus, and a sequence of known effect to splice into it, that were completely unknown to virologists.

I agree that a whole new spliced-in sequence would indicate design.

And for this particular virus, the effect of the modification is to provoke an excessive response from the immune system. Virologists don't even know how it does that, much less how they would design a virus to do that.

All right, though I would still maintain that more than 3 non-selectable point mutations would indicate tampering.

Thank you for this informative discussion, by the way! It's refreshing.

Blessings,
Lee



It would seem to be very improbable if you start with the idea that these mutations were working towards a particular purpose. But the reality is that mutations simply occur, and in some rare instances they cause things to match up somewhere in the almost infinite space of things they might come into contact with.[/QUOTE]

[lee_merrill]

Why three?

Well, more than three, I think I misspoke. But two required non-selectable mutations Behe calls a Chloroquine Complexity Cluster (or CCC), because the development of resistance to chloroquine in the malaria parasite required two simultaneous mutations. The development of resistance happened, but it required a tremendous number of parasites to find it. So a "double CCC" Behe concludes, is outside the range of evolution.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

I meant mutations that would in themselves be neutral, that together provide a function.

Blessings,
Lee

It is common for mutations that would in and of themselves neutral that provide function.

[TheLurch]

Well, more than three, I think I misspoke. But two required non-selectable mutations Behe calls a Chloroquine Complexity Cluster (or CCC), because the development of resistance to chloroquine in the malaria parasite required two simultaneous mutations. The development of resistance happened, but it required a tremendous number of parasites to find it. So a "double CCC" Behe concludes, is outside the range of evolution.

So, one, you're refusing to acknowledge the extensive discussions of the literature on these mutations, which show the two mutations did not have to occur simultaneously.

Second, you're attempting to apply the evolution of drug resistance to completely unrelated contexts.

Third, you're ignoring that fact that a vast number of neutral mutations always exist in all populations, and thus the raw material for evolution of new functions pre-exists the selective pressures for them.

Summing up: your definition is arbitrary and unsupported by biology.


Finally: stop listening to Behe. I won't call him a liar, because i think he's delusional enough that he believes what he's saying. But what he's saying is frequently false.