VIRUSES: DO THEY EVOLVE? by Joseph UK
|
VIRUSES: DO THEY EVOLVE? |
|
I have read on a creationism website "we don't see evolution happening in our world today." Of course we do! Consider flu viruses. Every new outbreak of flu is a new virus. Is this not evolution? – Ellen S. |
|
Thank you very much for your question. In order to answer it, we will have to delve into the world of microbiology and natural selection. But first we need to discuss the two main subjects in your question: evolution, and viruses. Viruses are a bit of a puzzle for microbiologists. They contain DNA and RNA that are found in all living things. This is packaged up in a “protein coat”. Despite this, viruses are not usually considered to be living because they are not made up of cells and cannot reproduce by themselves. Instead, the We now need to discuss evolution. It is important to recognise that biologists use several distinct definitions for evolution that are blurred together as if they are all the same. Evolution means “change” and can be used to describe an animal changing slightly to show different traits, or it can be used to describe molecules changing into humans over billions of years. The two different types of evolution are called macroevolution, and microevolution. But aren’t they both the same? Over vast periods of time, can the small changes in an animal build up into large, new traits? No. Microevolution is limited to the genetic information it contains within the DNA of an organism. This information can be dominant or recessive, in other words, switched on, or switched off. Take, for instance, a dog. In its DNA, there may be information for long and short hair. In this particular dog, both are dominant (switched on). So the dog has medium hair. Now that dog has babies, and passes on her hair genes. In these new dogs, the short hair is dominant. The genes for long hair may be switched off, or, if the mother and father did not give any long hair genes, they may not even possess the genes for long hair. Later, the mother has more puppies, this time with the long hair gene dominant. Again, the short hair gene may be either switched off, or not even present. Now the dog pack move from their location, to a hot climate (Africa?). Now this is where natural selection begins. The famous natural selection statement “Survival of the Fittest” has an opposite statement: “Extinction of the Unfit”. In this warm climate, the long haired dogs will be naturally selected against – i.e. they will die from overheating. Macroevolution (molecules to man evolution) is entirely different. This describes the changes in an animal kind over time. This means that new traits are added that the organism didn’t come from its genes. In other words, new information has to be added to the DNA genome. As of yet, we have found no natural means of creating new information in the DNA. So what about viruses? They seem to change, and a new virus epidemic occurs. Is this evolution? No. Instead something very similar to our dog examples is happening. Viruses can change in several different ways to render immune systems and antibiotics useless, and create a new epidemic, without any evolution involved. The most important way a virus can do this is by a process called “re-assortment”. This occurs when two varieties of virus infect the same host. When viruses infect cells, the virus is effectively disassembled and then re-made. If two viruses affect one cell, genes from each virus can be mixed up during the reassembly process. Take, for instance, the animal viruses that are commonly heard about on the media. Some viruses can infect birds and pigs. If a bird virus, and a human virus meet in a pig and mix some genes, the newly assorted virus can now infect humans. Since it is a newly combined virus, the human immune system has never encountered it before, and cannot fight it straight away. This virus spreads to other people, and an epidemic occurs. Note that no new information has been added, existing information has been re-shuffled to create a combination of information from two different viruses. In other words, this is an example of micro-evolution, using existing information, not evolution in a Darwinian or Neo Darwinian sense. They start and finish as the same kind of virus (i.e. influenza), but with a slightly different compatibility. Viruses can also change due to mutations (copying errors) in their genes. If the mutation affects the shape of their surface protein (i.e. their “skin”), immune systems and/or antibiotics do not recognise them straight away, and the virus successfully enters and attacks the body, spreading through people, and hence, you got it, an epidemic occurs. This surface protein change can also mean that the virus can attach itself to the cells of other previously non infect-able hosts. None of these changes are evolution. They simply cause small changes in the already existing proteins, or add different information from other viruses. They do not explain the origin of the proteins or information, and the virus has not changed into another type of virus, it has just been made more compatible. It started out as a virus, and ended up as a virus. It is even given the same name, just with a different number after it (i.e. Influenza A [number or letter]). So, in conclusion, viruses do change, and this may lead to a new epidemic, but no known change in viruses is an example of evolution. For more on supposedly evolving flu viruses see the question: FLU VACCINES: Do we need new ‘flu shots’ because the influenza virus is evolving? Answer by Diane Eager here. DONATE TO SUPPORT OUR TEAM click Secure Web Give Gifts Tax deductible in UK and USA or mail to country nearest you click Contact Promote Creation Research meetings and programs in your area with our comprehensive range of FREE ADVERTISING. |
|
|
viruses will inject DNA or RNA into a living cell, hijack the reproductive organelles of the cell, make copies of the DNA/RNA, and then assemble them so they can spread. Viruses differ considerably in their ability to cause disease. Many known viruses are not associated with disease at all. Others cause very mild symptoms that often go undetected. And some, such as the HIV virus that causes AIDS in people appear to have come from another species where they do not cause disease. And of course, there is the infamous influenza virus, which I am currently suffering from as I write this!Chinese Feathered Dinosaurs by Caleb LePore USA
CHINESE FEATHERED DINOSAURS by Caleb LePore USA
The UK Guardian reported 16 July 2015: “Zhenyuanlong suni: biggest ever winged dinosaur is found in China.”1 The article goes onto to say: “The fossil of the prehistoric raptor is so well preserved that scientists have been able to reconstruct its impressive plumage, from the tiny feathers on its head and neck, to the larger quill pen-like feathers that sprout from its tail and substantial wings.”1
BBC News reports, “The dinosaur has been named Zhenyuanlong, meaning "Zhenyuan's dragon," in honor of the man who procured the fossil for the museum in Jinzhou, allowing it to be studied.”2 This new fossil was reportedly discovered in Early Cretaceous deposits of Liaoning, China. Compared to many of the previously purported ‘feathered dinosaur’ specimens, this one’s size is quite substantial measuring 126.6 cm (4ft 2in) long. As its tail is incomplete, scientists estimate it was 165 cm (5ft 5in) in total body length and would have weighed 20kg, which is far heavier than any living flying bird.
Classified as a dromeosaurid, it is considered an older relative of the more famous Velociraptor. Unlike Velociraptor, however, whose discovered fossil remains thus-far lack any feathers or feather imprints, the scientists who reported this new specimen say that, “Feathers are present and well preserved on several portions of the body, particularly the arms and tail.”3
However, the reason the scientific community is in a flap over this specimen is the presence of clearly-distinguished structures interpreted as ‘wings.’ “It’s the biggest dinosaur that has ever been found with wings,” said Steve Brusatte, a paleontologist at Edinburgh University. “In general it is very bird-like, but it’s big, and has these very short arms with full-blown wings…’ The Guardian went on to report that the experts claim,‘The specimen poses a conundrum for researchers, because despite its impressive wings, the animal was probably incapable of flight. Brusatte said their function was a mystery, but they might have been used in colourful sexual displays, just as peacocks parade their tail feathers to court peafowls. Another possibility is that the dinosaur used its wings to protect its eggs.”1
Before we get our feathers all ruffled up about this new fossil, we need to take a step back and ask: What we know for sure? One thing is for certain: this is not a ‘missing link’! Even by evolutionary-dating standards, it is impossible, for this to be a dino-to-bird link, because it dates to the Early Cretaceous, while the supposedly earliest ‘true bird,’ Archaeopteryx, was found in Upper Jurassic rocks. Such is the case for nearly all of the supposed ‘feathered dinosaurs’ found in China. The only way that evolutionists can salvage their idea of dino-to-bird evolution is to imagine ‘ghost lineages’; that is, to imagine that fossils found in later rocks might have evolved from earlier unfossilised creatures which werestill be on their way to becoming birds. However, this idea is pure, unwarranted speculation based on evolutionary assumptions, in spite of the evidence.
We can also ask; “What assumptions are being made in the classification and interpretation of this creature?” Evolutionary researchers use a system called ‘cladistics’ to classify organisms according to their supposed evolutionary history. This system, claimed to be the most objective method of classification, uses a creature’s possession or lack of certain traits as diagnostic for determining how an organism relates to others on the evolutionary tree. However, as many have pointed out before, this system is actually highly subjective, because traits can be included or not included depending on whether or not someone believes that a certain trait is a result of evolutionary descent or convergent evolution. Convergent evolution is a term evolutionists use to describe a situation when two supposedly unrelated organisms evolve very similar structures or body plans (i.e. marsupial moles vs. placental moles). As a result, though cladistics may appear objective, it is, by nature, designed to only spit out answers that are acceptable to the evolutionary paradigm.
Interestingly, Brusatte also stated, ”So even though this is a dinosaur, even though it is a close relative of velociraptor, it looks exactly like a turkey or a vulture."2 So, is this creature really a feathered dinosaur or a bird? It is hard to tell at this point. More researchers (including independent Creation scientists) actually need to see the specimen in order to verify that the traits used to classify this creature have been accurately reported.
It is interesting to hear the response of evolutionary researchers to the discovery of Zhenyuanlong, “When you see a dinosaur like this that’s pretty big, and has these short arms and bird-like wings, it begs that question: what are wings really for? We used to think pretty much anything that had wings was flying, but that’s not so clear now,” [Brusatte] said.”1
So, whether or not this specimen turns out to be a feathered saurus or bird the Truth of God’s Word stands confirmed: God created birds and reptiles, including the sauruses, separately on Days 5 and 6 of Creation Week, and they did not evolve into one another or anything else. We also need to note that nothing in the Bible eliminates the possibility that God created some land dwelling creatures with feathers, as He obviously did for the flightless Moa Birds, Emus and Ostriches. In fact, so-called flightless birds show all the evidence of being designed to be ground dwelling running creatures, who use their non flying wings for a number of useful functions. For illustrations see Vestigial Flightless Birds.
Furthermore, this is not the first fossilized creature with feathers that could be a running bird rather than a dinosaur. In 1998 a fossil creature named Caudipteryx was claimed to be a feathered dinosaur. At the time Creation Research suggested this creatures was an extinct running bird. Two years later, other scientists compared the structure of beipedal dinosaurs and running birds and came to the conclusion: “Surprisingly, Caudipteryx , described as a theropod dinosaur possessed an anterior centre of mass and hindlimb proportions resembling those of cursorial birds.” Jones, T. D., et, al. Nature 406, 716-718, 17 August 2000, doi:10.1038/35021041. (Cursorial, means to run along the ground) See our Fact File report Evolutionists catch up with us . Other scientists have since disputed this and the debate goes on. However, this dispute reminds us of the difficulty of studying a creature that is only represented by dead bones, rather than living specimens.
There is also no doubt that the media is using this latest claim of a ‘feathered dinosaur’ as an opportunity to ‘prove’ Jurassic World’s portrayal of raptors wrong. How glad we are to see that the makers of this movie have stuck to their ‘artistic license’ defense, to which they could also add the argument that no actual fossil velociraptor has shown any trace of feathers at all.
Bibliography:
1. Sample, Ian. "Zhenyuanlong Suni: Biggest Ever Winged Dinosaur Is Found in China." The Guardian. 2015 Guardian News and Media Limited, 16 July 2015. Web. 11 July 2015. <http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/16/zhenyuanlong-suni-biggest-ever-winged-dinosaur-discovered-china>
2. Gill, Victoria. "Dinosaur Find: Velociraptor Ancestor Was 'winged Dragon' - BBC News." BBC News. 2015 BBC, 16 July 2015. Web. 11 Aug. 2015. <http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33510288>
3. Lü, Junchang, and Stephen L. Brusatte. "A Large, Short-armed, Winged Dromaeosaurid (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Early Cretaceous of China and Its Implications for Feather Evolution." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 16 July 2015. Web. 11 Aug. 2015. <http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150716/srep11775/full/srep11775.html>
4. Pickrell, John. "The Great Dinosaur Fossil Hoax." Cosmos Magazine. N.p., 27 July 2015. Web. 11 Aug. 2015. <https://cosmosmagazine.com/life-sciences/great-dinosaur-fossil-hoax>
For more information on the claim that dinosaurs evolved into birds see the questions:
FEATHERED DINOSAURS? Don’t feathered dinosaurs prove that birds evolved from dinosaurs? Answer here.
DINOSAURS: Latest finds should convince you they evolved into birds. What’s stopping you? Answer here.
Fast Fossil Facts Joseph UK
|
REFERNCE LINKS: 3. CLICK 4. CLICK 5. CLICK 6. CLICK |
Sitting along the West Norfolk Coast are the magnificent Hunstanton Cliffs. Despite the fact that they are not very large, as some cliffs come, they have still earned the title of the 7th best geologic location in the UK1. The reason for this is the unusual type of rocks that are found there. As you can see from the photo of the cliffs, they are rather beautiful to look at. The cliffs are made up of three main rocks layers. The bottom brown layer is a coarse sandstone with fairly large pebbles in it, called carstone. The next layer is red chalk, or the Hunstanton Formation. This is quite a distinctive feature of Hunstanton, and is red due to its iron-rich content, so it is basically rusty2. The third and last layer is the grey chalk. The two chalk layers are very rich in fossils, and there is one fossil in particular that we will focus on in this report. Likewise the brachiopod (seashell) shown, also found at Hunstanton, is a polystrates, and both are great evidence that it would have taken a huge watery catastrophe to lay such a vast amount of sediment down in a short enough amount of time to actually fossilise these creatures. Noah’s flood has not been ruled out by these strata at all. You can trust the Bible on any topic, creation, the flood etc.! It is God’s very own message to mankind. It explains the sin than man is caught up in. The very same sin that caused God to judge the world with the Global Flood. But just as God provided a way to escape the Flood, the Ark, He has also provided a way for us to escape the destructive power of sin. He Himself came down to the Earth, as the man Jesus, and lived a sinless life, before dying on a cross to take the sins that you have ever committed or ever will commit, and will grant you everlasting life. All you need to do is confess that you are a sinner, repent, which means to turn around from the sinful life that you are living, and take the amazing free gift of eternal life that God has paid for! For more on rapid fossil formation see the question: DINOSAURS: What real evidence do you have they were buried rapidly? Don’t just say Noah’s flood. Answer by John Mackay here.
|
|
Crocs in Rocks Buried Alive Joseph UK
| Crocs in Rocks Buried Alive!! Moroccan phosphate beds give evidence supporting the Biblical Flood. Contributed by Joseph. | |||
|
|||
Morocco is one of the best places in the world for fossils and one of the best places in Morocco is the Kem Kem Basin, Khouribga. Especially for aquatic fossils, The Kem Kem basin is a massive bone bed made up of mineral phosphates (usually derived from bone) and it is the largest phosphorite bed known in the world. One palaeontologist described the fossils in it as, “Hundreds of times more abundant than a normal marine sediment” (italics mine)
exist in a normal present day environment 
modern crocodile tooth shows. Their teeth are designed to fall out really easily. A crocodile is always growing new teeth to replace old, worn-out ones. The new teeth grow in at the base of the old teeth, pushing the old teeth out of the jaw. To have a crocodile skull so well preserved when the large teeth are still present, is quite remarkable. 
One final point. Look at the crocodile skull. How do we know that it is a crocodile? The answer is simple? It looks like one! Here we have an animal that is from rocks that are claimed to be around 83 million years old, and yet they still are living today. They have even been found in rocks supposedly up to a 250 million years old. Evolved they have not! The crocodiles are not evolving and have not evolved! They are doing exactly what the Bible says God created them to do. “Reproducing after their own kind!”About Joseph UK
|
|
Ask a Question
 |
||
|
Send your question to question4joseph@gmail.com (maximum 150 characters) and Joseph or one of our team will reply to your question as soon as possible. NB: Any foul or abusive comments will be trashed immediately.
|
