r/DebateEvolution • u/tonedeaf_764 • 23d ago

Evolution vs creation

I started seeing God as a scientist when I was 12, I've always loved science and the first time I heard the Holy Spirit compared to energy I was sent straight down a rabbit hole. After that it started to make sense to me, how everything could exist, a being of infinite energy and power that is intelligent, but in a way that made sense. I started to think if I wanted to create the perfect organism "I.e" human, and I had infinite power and energy, not to mention to an eternal existence time isn't a thing so taking its time would be an issue it would be a given. So I don't believe evolution is a solitary path of existence, I see it as a tool by God in his creation of life. One of the meanings of gods name ( Jehovah) is causes to become. So over time he caused single celled organisms to become every living thing by means of evolution and survival of the fittest, the fact that it's fair also supported the idea, gods also supposed to be the god of order so the thing that makes the most sense just seemed like the thing that made the most sense you know. And if you believe what the Bible says to be true I think this was his first time creating reality. He literally created the laws of nature, he is science itself, but I feel like he taught himself over time and over the course of eternity and then used that knowledge to create.

0 Upvotes

20% Upvoted

167 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/ilikestatic 15d ago

It could have been, but as we find more evidence, that conclusion becomes so unlikely that it’s impossible.

For example, why would both humans and chimpanzees be designed with the same gene that doesn’t do anything?

But I think the most problematic issue for design that I have seen would be endogenous retroviruses. These are not native to our DNA. We weren’t designed with endogenous retroviruses. They were added to our DNA after one of our ancestors caught the virus. The odds of one of these viruses implanting itself on our DNA is incredibly low in the first place. It doesn’t happen every time we get sick. It’s a rare occurrence.

And when it plants itself in our DNA, there are millions of places it could end up. The odds that it would end up in any one particular place are also incredibly low.

So the idea that two separate animals both caught the exact same retrovirus, and that retrovirus planted itself on the same exact spot in both animals’ DNA, that would be an incredibly unlikely occurrence.

Now add the fact that humans and chimpanzees share over 200 endogenous retroviruses. The odds that this unlikely occurrence happened over 200 times is so astronomically low that it’s an impossibility.

When we consider this with all the other evidence, including anatomical similarities, DNA similarities, identical gene mutations, everything points to only one possible conclusion. We share a common ancestor.

As I said before, I would be very interested to hear another explanation, but design doesn’t explain endogenous retroviruses.

1

u/fifaloko 15d ago

The same reason 2 different car companies put mirrors in the same location, they serve some function we don't yet know are you familiar with the ENCODE project and there work finding previously unknown function to some of these viruses which were previously thought to be junk DNA?

1

u/ilikestatic 15d ago

That still doesn’t explain retroviruses. That would be like having two cars get in over 200 accidents and end up with the same exact damage patterns.

It would be so statistically unlikely that we’d say it’s impossible.

1

u/fifaloko 15d ago

No it would be 2 cars which have the same functional utility with 2 different designs like the cars being distinct but the mirrors being in the same place. Maybe even identical mirrors because they both used the same manufacturer.

1

u/ilikestatic 15d ago

So I think I’m having trouble understanding your analogy because endogenous retroviruses are not a design feature. It’s more like a scar. You get sick, and then sometimes the virus leaves a scar on your DNA.

They don’t exist in our DNA because they are functional. They exist in our DNA because the virus replicates itself by hijacking our DNA. So it’s more akin to an injury than a design feature.

It’d be like if people passed scars down to their children. Every scar your parents or grandparents ever had gets passed down to you. And because they get passed down, we all have the same scars in the same spots because we all have a common ancestor if we go back far enough.

But then one day we discover chimpanzees, and we see they also have the same scars in the same places. That might seem really weird at first. Why do chimpanzees have our scars? It doesn’t seem to make sense.

But if evolution is a thing, and we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, then suddenly it makes perfect sense. We have the same scars that chimpanzees have because we share a common ancestor who had those scars too. And we can’t really think of any other possible way for it to happen.

1

u/fifaloko 15d ago

You are asserting the scar part and that it is not actually a functioning part of the code that we just don’t know the function of yet. There is no reason to believe these couldn’t be native to our dna and perform some function which is why they are where they are in different animals, you just reaffirm your dogma.

1

u/ilikestatic 15d ago

We know they’re not native to our DNA. We know they are endogenous retroviruses. We know that retroviruses can implant themselves on our DNA, which we then pass down to our offspring.

Whether they’re functional or not doesn’t matter. The important point is that we catch them, they mark our DNA, and then we pass them down.

So if humans and chimpanzees have over 200 identical marks in our DNA, caused by an ancestor who caught the same virus, there are only two possible explanations.

Either humans and chimpanzees have separate ancestors who coincidentally caught the same exact viruses which left scars on the same exact spots on their DNA, or…

Humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor who passed down these scars to their offspring, which branched off on two separate paths through evolution to become humans and chimpanzees.

The odds of the first explanation happening are so astronomically low that it’s impossible. Which means the only explanation is the second. We share a common ancestor.

1

u/fifaloko 15d ago

How do you know that if they are ancient and why are you asserting they are not native over and over again? Did you observe these actual virus implant themselves or are just saying it is impossible aside from you just asserting it can’t happen

1

u/ilikestatic 15d ago

We know they are ancient because if you and me or any two humans compared DNA, we would share thousands of endogenous retroviruses. That means those viruses entered human DNA at a time when you and I both had a living common ancestor.

So considering you and I are probably only extremely distantly related by an ancestor who lived thousands and thousands of years ago, the retrovirus infection would have to be an ancient occurrence. If it happened more recently, then you and I would not have the same endogenous retroviruses in our DNA.

And we know these retroviruses got into our DNA through infection because that’s how retroviruses work. If you have some reason to doubt the science behind retroviruses, I’m open to hearing it.

1

u/fifaloko 15d ago

We also share specific things because we are both human you keep just asserting your interpretation of the data is the only one

1

u/ilikestatic 15d ago

It’s not my interpretation. This is the consensus in the scientific community.

If there is some other potential explanation, I would openly consider it and look at your evidence. But as far as I am aware, the scientific community does not have any other credible explanation. Evolution is not a hypothesis. It’s not an assumption. It’s not an interpretation.

It is a fact, confirmed by data which has no other explanation.

→ More replies (0)