While it may not be the pandemic that some feared, the latest iteration of the H1N1 virus is further evidence that evolution is an ongoing process:
While much of the modern controversy over evolution centers around whether humans evolved from non-human primates (scientists overwhelmingly agree this is the case), some people still try to poke holes in the theory of evolution, one of the most solid theories in science. In addition to evidence from ancient fossils and modern DNA studies, one of the many lines of evidence supporting evolution is that it can quite simply be seen in action among some species that evolve particularly rapidly, such as fruit flies.
But on no stage does evolution unfold more quickly or with more potentially sickening or lethal consequences for humans than among viruses. It is, to pass on a scary phrase used among scientists and marketers, viral evolution. And you could be the star host of this all-too-often deadly show.
The sudden ability of the new swine flu virus to hop from pigs to humans and then to skip from person to person, at least in Mexico, is an excellent example of evolution at work.
“Yes, this is definitely evolution,” said Michael Deem, a bioengineer at Rice University in Texas.
Deem studies how evolution is affected not just by mutations but by the exchange of entire genes and sets of genes. Viruses, which are basically packets of DNA with a protein coat, are really good at this. Viruses are also really good at exploiting the fact that we humans cough and sneeze without covering ourselves and generally don’t wash our hands frequently in a day.
“Viruses have evolved to exploit human contact as a way of spreading,” points out Peter Daszak of the Wildlife Trust, whose team 14 months ago predicted just this sort of evolution in an animal flu, coming from Latin America to the United States after evolving to infect people.
David Schaffer, a professor of chemical engineering and bioengineering at the University of California at Berkeley, explains the mechanics of how a flu virus morphs:
“For flu, there are multiple ways that diversity can arise (the virus has multiple strands of RNA in its genome, and it can mix and swap strands with different flu variants to give rise to fully novel variants … in addition, each strand can individually mutate),” Schaffer explained this week.
“Furthermore, in this case, the ‘enhanced’ property from the virus’ point of view is the ability to infect humans. So, this is viral evolution.”
Of course, the creationists have a ready-made response for this one — since there is no such thing as evolution, viruses never evolve. Therefore, pandemics don’t exist.
Yea, you go with that one guys.
H/T: LGF
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:53 pm
I would be careful on confusing “evolution” with what is going on with swine flu.
Micro-Evolution or “variations does happen. This is scientific fact, has been proven, and is observed each and every day. Roses exist with thorns and without thorns. Different dogs can breed and you can get a big dog, or a small dog, or a short haired dog or a long haired dog. However you will always get a dog. You’ll never get a different kind of animal, rather a variation.
I’d prefer to use the term “variations” instead even of micro-evolution, however that’s the term that is used so we’ll have to go with it.
Variations do indeed happen, and viruses can in fact mutate. Creationists argue only that while a virus may evolve on a micro variant scale, it will never have new beneficial genetic material added to it out of no where.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:28 am
In response to the first comment – when are people going to stop bringing out this tired old argument that “new beneficial genetic material” cannot be added to something? The new flu we are seeing contains a combination of genes from three different organisms in it. If you study organisms, you find that new information gets added all the time – sometimes that information is harmful but sometimes it is beneficial. In studies with bacteria, they have shown not only that mutation can arise in lineages that do not have them to start with (new information) but that in some cases, that information is beneficial. If that is going to be your argument against evolution, then you’re proven wrong by any number of studies. Please try to learn about what you’re claiming – don’t just repeat old arguments that have been debunked dozens of times already!