Avian flu, viral mutation, and evolution

[QuikSand]

In pretty much any scientific discussion of the current avian flu threat, you can't help but hear learned speculation about how this virus (like many, many others in well-documented cases) may be able to mutate to a new strain that may have different properties than the current (specifically a new method of transmission). From what I understand, this is rather common in viral species -- their life cycle is so short that they actually go through generation after generation in a fairly short period, this allowing for various mutations and changes to take hold in a widespread way in fairly short order.

It just strikes me -- how does this widely-held view square with those who argue against the theory of evolution, and that creatures that are here are essentially here in the form that God created them? Or is there nobody who actually argues that any longer (in light of such obvious evidence to the contrary) and that the creationist view is now basically that all things spring forth and adapt from an original species of the creator's making... and that, I guess, man is exempt from all that because he was "made in God's image" (sorry of that quote is faulty) and has therefore never changed.

I realize this has the potential to turn into an ugly slugfest (I'm not even setting a line on it)... and that's really not my objective. I am honestly curious how ardent creationists who seek to refute evolution wholesale square that belief with what we seem to be witnessing right before our eyes all the time?


*crossing my fingers that something productive comes of this*

[Buccaneer]

I would venture, as one being among the body of believers all my life, that a majority do believe the critical notion that "God created..." but the Scriptures being purposely vague on the "how" or the "process of creation". I think we were called "theistic evolutionists" (or "old earth creationists") though I believe those terms have mutated (get it?) into a different term. You pointed out the distinction of man's creation and I think such distinction is noteworthy.

No, I was not there.

[st.cronin]

In pretty much any scientific discussion of the current avian flu threat, you can't help but hear learned speculation about how this virus (like many, many others in well-documented cases) may be able to mutate to a new strain that may have different properties than the current (specifically a new method of transmission). From what I understand, this is rather common in viral species -- their life cycle is so short that they actually go through generation after generation in a fairly short period, this allowing for various mutations and changes to take hold in a widespread way in fairly short order.

It just strikes me -- how does this widely-held view square with those who argue against the theory of evolution, and that creatures that are here are essentially here in the form that God created them? Or is there nobody who actually argues that any longer (in light of such obvious evidence to the contrary) and that the creationist view is now basically that all things spring forth and adapt from an original species of the creator's making... and that, I guess, man is exempt from all that because he was "made in God's image" (sorry of that quote is faulty) and has therefore never changed.

I realize this has the potential to turn into an ugly slugfest (I'm not even setting a line on it)... and that's really not my objective. I am honestly curious how ardent creationists who seek to refute evolution wholesale square that belief with what we seem to be witnessing right before our eyes all the time?


*crossing my fingers that something productive comes of this*

I'm not a creationist, but as I understand their argument, even the most hardcore creationists are ok with mutations - their beef is that new species do not arise from mutations.

And really, there are 'ardent' evolutionary biologists as well. It's still more of a theoretical argument than an evidentiary one, contrary to what many scientists would have you believe.

[albionmoonlight]

I have heard hard-core Creationists (those of the "the world is only 4000 years old" school) confront the fact that carbon dating of dinosaur bones that indicates that creatures lived on Earth millions of years before humans. They argue that evidence of these bones presents a test sent by God to challenge our faith. We must believe in the literal truth of the Bible even when confronted with evidence to the contrary because that evidence is simply a trap to trip us up.

I could see one explaining away evidence of "evolution before our eyes" in the same way.

[Buccaneer]

I have heard hard-core Creationists (those of the "the world is only 4000 years old" school) confront the fact that carbon dating of dinosaur bones that indicates that creatures lived on Earth millions of years before humans. They argue that evidence of these bones presents a test sent by God to challenge our faith. We must believe in the literal truth of the Bible even when confronted with evidence to the contrary because that evidence is simply a trap to trip us up.

I could see one explaining away evidence of "evolution before our eyes" in the same way.
Except they don't know how to read ancient Hebrews or the Septuagint.

[Chubby]

Except they don't know how to read ancient Hebrews or the Septuagint.
Coming from someone who helped design such a langauage I'll take your word for it.

[sabotai]

I have heard hard-core Creationists (those of the "the world is only 4000 years old" school) confront the fact that carbon dating of dinosaur bones that indicates that creatures lived on Earth millions of years before humans.
Dinosaur fossils are not carbon dated. They use other forms of dating to date those. (Just pointing out a misconception I see all of the time. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.)

[QuikSand]

I'm not a creationist, but as I understand their argument, even the most hardcore creationists are ok with mutations - their beef is that new species do not arise from mutations.

This is more or less what I'd expect, and I guess it makes some sense... though it certainly seems odd to draw a line and say that mutations that allow for some varieties of characteristic changes are allowed... but not those that would result (even over long period of time) in wholesale change in species.

Much of this whole "intelligent design" argument seems to lie in the general public's widespread innumerology -- their/our basic inability to effectively process very large numbers (like tens of millions of years... and certainly not billions of years). I wonder if this is another branch of the same tree -- accepting that sure, you might see a twitch from time to time here and there... but that sort of thing would never amount to a complete change from fish to mammal, and certainly not from proto-huimanoid to modern man.

Of course, never is a pretty long time.

[cuervo72]

Dinosaur fossils are not carbon dated. They use other forms of dating to date those. (Just pointing out a misconception I see all of the time. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.)

Where's Allosaurus when you need him?

(and I'm staying out of this)

[st.cronin]

This is more or less what I'd expect, and I guess it makes some sense... though it certainly seems odd to draw a line and say that mutations that allow for some varieties of characteristic changes are allowed... but not those that would result (even over long period of time) in wholesale change in species.

Much of this whole "intelligent design" argument seems to lie in the general public's widespread innumerology -- their/our basic inability to effectively process very large numbers (like tens of millions of years... and certainly not billions of years). I wonder if this is another branch of the same tree -- accepting that sure, you might see a twitch from time to time here and there... but that sort of thing would never amount to a complete change from fish to mammal, and certainly not from proto-huimanoid to modern man.

Of course, never is a pretty long time.

I think it's a *bit* deeper than that.

One thing that people today don't realize is that evolutionary biologists used to claim matter of factly that they had proved the non-existence of God; that sort of talk went out of style decades ago, but the roots of conflict regarding religion and science on this topic has not lacked valid complaints against either side. I don't believe there is any science on the side of creationism, but it is not hard, truthfully, to look at evolution and it's claims with some skepticism.

[sabotai]

I'm not a creationist, but as I understand their argument, even the most hardcore creationists are ok with mutations - their beef is that new species do not arise from mutations. And they'd be right. Something having a mutation occur to them does not, and it never does, make them a new species. Of course, they say this assuming that evolution does claim this, so when they say things like this, it pretty much shows how much they don't know about evolution.

And to swing it back on topic, it's not just the mutations that make it hard to fight them, it's the extremely fast life cycle. By the time you find something that destroys them and is safe for humans to use, what you have something to fight a long since gone ancestor of the virus that is active now. It might still work for the time being though, and it might not. It's also why mutations in bacteria and viruses (or is it technically virii...whatever) are dangerous. Because of the extremely fast life cycle, the mutation spreads through the population like wildfire.

But then again, someone who works in the medical field (paging eaglesfan27) could do a much better job at explaining it than me. I'm just going off of the partial biology degree I have (switched majors in college) and the semi-extensive list of books I've read. :)

[Warhammer]

This is my take on all this:

First, let me say that 10 years or so ago, prior to the current trendiness of "Intelligent Design" I basically came to the conclusion that God created the universe and life. He set up the rules of science, and basically let things go from there. There is nothing to prevent evolution from being a part of God's plan.

Second, we need to remember that all science is basically trying to impose laws on the natural world. Meaning, that we really don't know why things work the way they do, but we impose views/beliefs that fit what we see in certain circumstances. For example, if I drop a ball at arm's length, it will fall to the ground. Therefore, there must be some force that causes it to accelerate towards the ground, etc., etc.

Third, evolution basically has two methods of advancing. The continuous route is through natural selection. Basically those genes most favorable to a situation are those that are passed on generation to generation. This could be why much of the population of West Africa carries one "marker" for sickle cell anemia since that helps against malaria. Or, you can look at the famous moths in Birmingham about 1000 years ago, that first tended to be white, then turned grey after industrialization, and then turned white after the town began to clean up. The second route for evolution is through mutations. This is a more sudden route to jump ahead, but it is more risky. First, the mutation has to be beneficial, otherwise, over the long haul the mutation gene will go away. Second, it almost HAS to be a dominant gene, or it will fail to take hold in the population (otherwise two people with recessive genes would ahve to both have the same mutation and pass on the right gene, etc., etc.) However, this does potentially have the great benefit of introducing completely new genes into the population.

Now this is the thing, how does belief in God and the Bible preclude evolution, and where does science and evolution cut God out of the picture? Could evolution not be part of God's plan?

[QuikSand]

And they'd be right. Something having a mutation occur to them does not, and it never does, make them a new species. Of course, they say this assuming that evolution does claim this, so when they say things like this, it pretty much shows how much they don't know about evolution.

I have always understood mutations to be a significant component of evolution theory... but I suppose I'm open to being shown wrong and dumped into the category of people you disparage. Warhammer's post above meshes more clearly with what I understood to be prevailing understanding.

Care to elaborate?

[Warhammer]

Just a note regarding my post (I really need to get my wife to edit my posts):

The moths in Birmingham occurred during the Industrial Revolution about 100-150 years ago.

[Kodos]

Richard Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker is an excellent book on this topic, if a bit old now. I read it back in college in the early 90's. Dawkins has a flare for explaining scientific concepts in a way that someone without a scientific background can understand. On the other hand, his style will turn off people with strong religious beliefs, as he pretty much dismisses the need to have an all-powerful being to explain the complexity of life and of the universes we see around us.

[Kodos]

I have always understood mutations to be a significant component of evolution theory... but I suppose I'm open to being shown wrong and dumped into the category of people you disparage. Warhammer's post above meshes more clearly with what I understood to be prevailing understanding.

Care to elaborate?

I think sabotai is saying that any individual animal cannot mutate into a new species. But new species can come about through the process of mutation. For instance, say we have your standard chipmunk population, and some segment ends up separated from the rest on an island. Then, a mutation (actually, a bunch of mutations) happens to arise in the island group and gradually takes hold throughout the population on the island (if the mutation provides some sort of advantage). At some point, the accumulation of mutations may change the island chipmunks to the degree where they can no longer cross-breed with regular chipmunks, at which point they would be considered a separate species.

[QuikSand]

I think sabotia is saying that any individual animal cannot mutate into a new species. But new species can come about through the process of mutation. For instance, say we have your standard chipmunk population, and some segment ends up separated from the rest on an island. Then, a mutation (actually, a bunch of mutations) happens to arise in the island group and gradually takes hold. At some point, the accumulation of mutations may change the island chipmunks to the degree where they can no longer cross-breed with regular chipmunks, at which point they would be considered a separate species.

I could certainly buy that separation... though it's not at all what I got from sab's statement above.

[Kodos]

Something having a mutation occur to them does not, and it never does, make them a new species.

That's what I took from this line. And if that is the proper interpretation of what he meant, he's right. Just because some gene in my body mutates won't make me into a new species. Unless I'm The Fly or something. ;)

[Blackadar]

The Devil made me do it.

[QuikSand]

If by "something" he means, for example, a single fruit fly and not a certain species of fruit fly then I get it. I was reading it the other way (the latter), possibly the source of my confusion.

[Kodos]

If by "something" he means, for example, a single fruit fly and not a certain species of fruit fly then I get it. I was reading it the other way (the latter), possibly the source of my confusion.

Yeah, if you read it the other way, then he's wrong.

[sterlingice]

Coming from someone who helped design such a langauage I'll take your word for it.
Zing! :D

SI

[sabotai]

To elaborate...at least attempt to...

The first thing you have to realize is that mutation happen quite frequently. The vast majority of mutations are just not noticable. They basically do nothing, add nothing, take nothing away. Just a random mutation the usually drifts out of existance after the first generation (the person who has the mutation does not pass it on and it's gone).

That person is not a new species, as Kodos pointed out. Mutations spread through reproduction and if two organisms can't reproduce (are of seperate species), then it doesn't get passed around. So obviously, with the mutation, that organism still being to it's parent's species.

On the second point, mutations are a small part of evolution, but they are usually not what causes speciation. Mutations can and do take part in the genetic drift between two populations, but the point I was making is that they are not the only (or primary) cause of it. In other words, mutations are a part of the process, not the process itself.

If you have two populations of the same fruit fly. One population has a (1) mutation occur and have it spread and in time, the mutation is in every individual. The second population has a seperate mutation do the same thing. Now, let's imagine in our control enviroment, all genes remain constant and the only change is the two mutations that occured. These two populations, 99.9999999% (not god, can't make it an absolute :) ) of the time will still be able to breed and create viable offspring if you were to merge them.

I hope that clears it up some.

[sabotai]

At some point, the accumulation of mutations may change the island chipmunks to the degree where they can no longer cross-breed with regular chipmunks, at which point they would be considered a separate species.
Not only that, but also considering that the difference between the enviroments of the two populations would generally cause certain traits to become more prevailent in one population and others to become more prevailent in the other population. Landscape is different, prey is different, preditors are different, water supply is different, and so much more that certain traits become needed in one population, and those same traits could become fatal in the other. So each population, through many generations, eliminate some traits and emphasis others. Different traits are emphasised and different ones are eliminated, they drift more genetically due to this, throw in some mutations and you got yourself a new species. (just want to emphasis again that mutations are not the sole or primary cause of speciation.)

[st.cronin]

Maybe I'm just being obtuse, but isn't 'mutation' the currency of evolution? Evolution/speciation doesn't occur without mutation. Mutation does not equal evolution, but without mutation, evolution is impossible.

[Neon_Chaos]

Dinosaurs are space-creatures who wage battle against each other.

http://www.ruary.org/aglarond/blog/images/posts/dino/dino02.jpg

DINOSAUCERS!

[sabotai]

EDIT: Forget what I said here. I'm starting to think some of us are talking about two different things.

Speciation and evolution are not the same thing. Evolution is the gradual change in the gene pool. Speciation is the process in which new species arise. Speciation occurs when the change in the genetic pools of two populations of the same species become great enough that the two are no longer genetically compatible. Mutations are a small part of this. They can add to the genetic diversity of the population in different ways.

The original post I was speonding to was, at least the way i read it, saying Mutation =/= Speciation (was saying that's what some of the creationists say) and I was just saying that's correct (with a comment basically saying they didn't realize that evolution doesn't claim they are the same). It seems like this is starting to get into general evolution instead of specifically talking about speciation. Maybe that's causing the confusion?

[sabotai]

Here's a good article on mutations: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

It talks about the effects of mutations, the various types of mutations, etc. etc. It probably won't mesh perfectly with what I said, but it seems we all have a different idea of what evolution is exactly and it's causing some of us to think and apply the terms we've been using differently. In my case, just forget everything I said, and read. :)

[Kodos]

Maybe I'm just being obtuse, but isn't 'mutation' the currency of evolution? Evolution/speciation doesn't occur without mutation. Mutation does not equal evolution, but without mutation, evolution is impossible.


Evolution doesn't necessarily need mutations to occur. Within any population, there are many variable traits. Blond hair and fair skin versus darker-hair and darker skin would be an easy to see variation within the gene pool of our species. Now maybe being fair-skinned causes blonds to get cancer and die before reproducing more often than death before reproduction occurs in darker-skinned individuals. Gradually, the population would drift more toward the darker complexion. Eventually, maybe blonds are very rare and only come from the pairing of individuals who get recessive blond genes from both of their parents (but whose parents are darker skinned). Visibly, the darker complexion becomes the most common appearance of individuals in the population. But any blonds that do get born are still the same species, even if the species as a whole looks different than it did earlier. The species has evolved to look darker skinned on average, but is not a new or different species than it was earlier. The environment has just selected the darker skin trait over the fairer skin trait. But the genes for both are still in the population -- it's just that the darker skin gene has become more common because fair-skinned individuals tend to die before reproducing.

[Toddiec]

Now this is the thing, how does belief in God and the Bible preclude evolution, and where does science and evolution cut God out of the picture? Could evolution not be part of God's plan?

My feelings are very close to Warhammers if I take his meaning correctly. I believe God created all things and he continues to create (or change) all things as he see's fit. This includes scientific theory, mutations, bird flu, etc. Do I know why God creates these things...no. If I had to guess, it is a test of faith, as albionmoonlight stated. God does these things for a reason that only He knows.

Anyway, just my two cents.

[andy m]

the whole test of faith argument is hilarious. i can just envisage God sitting around with his buddies saying "hey, get this, i am going to make fake dinosaurs, just to see what happens in a few thousand years time when humans have developed to the stage where they are interested in digging up the earth to see if they can find anything that helps them explain their origins. after they stumble across these poorly knocked up old bones that i concocted a couple of weeks ago on a spare evening when there was nothing interesting on the telly, that's when we'll see who REALLY believes in me! HAHA! gizza beer, Rodney".

[Kodos]

Ah. The first step toward ugliness. Congrats!

[Toddiec]

Hey, I am just telling you what I believe. You believe differently, which is just fine. I take no offense in you telling me that my beliefs are "hilarious", because we are all human and we will believe different things. I am just offering the other side of the fence for the purpose of good natured debate.

[Warhammer]

I think it is no more hilarious than it is to believe that everything is here because of some random carbon molecule chains started to replicate themselves....

Anyway, I'll ask again, where does belief in God, preclude the fact that dinosaurs existed on earth?

[Toddiec]

I am not sure if you are directing your follow up at me or not, but I will reply. I agree with you Warhammer, if I am following you correctly. I believe that everything was created by God (including dinosaurs, fossils, etc.) for a reason. Is that reason a test of faith...maybe. Is it because God placed it there only to intrigue our human nature and give us something to debate about on message boards...possibly.

The only thing I know for sure is it would not matter if a dinosaur walked into this room and said, "Hey, how's it going", I would still believe that God made that happen.

[Warhammer]

Toddiec, no it was not directed at you. It was in response to andy_m.

It amazes me that people will shoot holes into any belief of God, yet will sit back and hang their hat on science.

As a much smarter man about the ways of science told me (paraphrased since it was 5 or so years ago):

Science is man trying to impose a system on nature to understand what is happening. However, there are so many things going on, that it is nearly impossible to put everything into one system. However, once we do figure things out, it is so beautiful and perfect that there has to be some higher intelligence that made the system.

Again, that was paraphrased, but you get the point.

[Brillig]

Well, if that's true, since it's the mind of man that creates this system of science, then this beautiful perfect creation is the creation of man, no?

Therefore man=god.

[Warhammer]

No, what the point was is that man is trying to put a framework around nature. There are many things in our framework that we think are correct, but are in fact wrong. Then when we figure out what is really going on, it is so simple that it is beautiful.

An easier way to think of it is:

Nature has a system that we are trying to figure out. We draw up a system that we thinks mimics that of nature. It doesn't and we have to edit those parts of our system that don't match up.

[Brillig]

Hmm, I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.

It's a question of where the credit for the beauty of the system goes.

I say the credit goes to the scientists who create the model of the system. You say it goes to the creator of the system. Or rather that it proves the existence of the creator of the system.

(We'll disregard the fact that the beauty of the system is an issue of perception and really proves nothing.)

Consider DaVinci's Mona Lisa.

I say that the credit for the beauty of the painting goes to the painter. You say that it goes to the woman who modelled for the painting.

[Neon_Chaos]

I believe... that life's bitch. We argue about semantics a lot, and then we die.

[Marc Vaughan]

Hmm, I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.

It's a question of where the credit for the beauty of the system goes.

I say the credit goes to the scientists who create the model of the system. You say it goes to the creator of the system. Or rather that it proves the existence of the creator of the system.

(We'll disregard the fact that the beauty of the system is an issue of perception and really proves nothing.)

Consider DaVinci's Mona Lisa.

I say that the credit for the beauty of the painting goes to the painter. You say that it goes to the woman who modelled for the painting.

Nicely put ...

(personally I'm in the camp of evolution not at all clashing with creationism ..)

[sabotai]

I believe... that life's bitch. We argue about semantics a lot, and then we die.
And hopefully get laid many times along the way. :)