It's a common misconception that evolution is a matter of faith, because it happens too slowly to observe. Here's the way one reader sees it: "I don't see any fish walking around, nor do I see any other creature in mid-evolving mode. . . . Simply stated, both creationism and evolution should be taught as competing theories; both are not provable, and both cannot be duplicated in a lab."
But evolution does happen in the lab, in real time, and it's bad news for us because such rapid evolution allows organisms that can kill us by evading drugs, vaccines, and our own immune systems.
Viral evolution is in the news because scientists reportedly created a new strain of bird flu (H5N1) that's highly contagious, prompting a government advisory board to request that scientific journals not publish the details.
As I quizzed Penn bioterrorism expert Harvey Rubin about the situation, he continued to talk about evolution and "fitness" of flu viruses. Indeed, he said, the whole point of creating a newer, scarier H5N1 was to help anticipate the virus' future evolution.
It's not easily transmissible now. But thanks to evolution, that might change.
This conversation led me to biologist Eddie Holmes of Penn State's Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics. "Viruses give us the best, most precisely defined examples of evolution you could possibly think of," he said.
Flu viruses evolve particularly fast because they're based on RNA - the single-stranded relative of DNA. RNA doesn't have any mechanism by which to repair copying errors, the way DNA does, so these viruses mutate much faster than DNA viruses.
Working with viruses, Holmes said, "is like watching human evolution on fast-forward." In 10 years, a virus can undergo as much evolution as a human could in 10 million.
The fact that these viruses undergo mutations is just part of the story. Their mutated progeny are subject to the sorting effect of natural selection. Those that are best at surviving and reproducing themselves predominate.
Viruses have hit upon a number of survival strategies, said Holmes. Measles infects children, thus ensuring a constant crop of new potential hosts. Herpes viruses can lie low, going undetected by the immune system much of the time, so it can survive in a host and spread for decades.
For flu viruses, the strategy is to evade the host's immune system. People are immune to whatever flu viruses have made them sick in the past, but evolution leads to slightly different versions coming back each season.
Some mutations change the proteins, called antigens, that are the targets of the immune system. By natural selection, the viruses that acquire new antigens can infect a lot more people and will be much more successful than those that have the same old antigens.
Holmes said evolutionary ideas were guiding the quest for a universal flu vaccine - one that would protect us not only from evolving seasonal viruses, but also from new ones, such as H5N1, that jump from other species.
To get such universal protection, scientists need to attack something that's common to all flu viruses. They are using genetic sequencing to find stretches of common genetic code, hoping to find a common Achilles' heel. If viruses didn't evolve from a common ancestor, this wouldn't work.
Meanwhile, at Penn, biologist/computer scientist Joshua Plotkin is learning about evolution by studying both flu and HIV.
Viruses disprove the common misconception that random mutations can't lead to improvements in an organism, he said. Unfortunately for us, random mutations lead to flu viruses that can escape our immune systems and vaccines.
"That's proof positive that some mutations are of adaptive utility," Plotkin said. "I can't think of a more straightforward example than that."
Understanding evolution helps scientists stay a step ahead of flu.
There are patterns, he said, that can be discerned from the last 30 years of flu evolution. Sometimes, two mutations act in concert, for example, so if scientists see one, they can anticipate the other and base a vaccine on an educated guess about its future course.
In his work, Plotkin also studies the way natural selection acts along with the laws of physics to lend some order and predictability to evolution.
The physics comes in because some mutations lead to new proteins whose physical structure may or may not be stable.
Success breeds more success for flu. The more virus gets out there, the more possible new mutants. "Flu is the most successful organism on the planet," said Plotkin. The better it does, the more opportunities it gets to do even better.
Another type of evolution leads to pandemic strains such as the H5N1, which jumped from birds in the late 1990s. Such a jump was also responsible for the 1918 pandemic, and the more recent swine flu outbreak.
In this kind of evolution, viruses of different types exchange pieces of genetic code to produce something new. H5N1 has pieces of a virus that infects waterfowl and pieces of a human seasonal flu.
Penn State's Holmes said the evolutionary relationships among hosts could help us understand these rare events. Viruses have an easier time jumping between closely related species, such as humans and chimps. That's because the virus uses a lock-and-key-type system to infiltrate cells, and chimp cells are similar to our own. Luckily for us so far, bird flu has a hard time getting into human cells.
But now we know that it could mutate to gain access, thanks to those researchers who've created the new lab-altered, super-infective version that started this tale.
Some readers have said they accepted microbial or viral evolution, but felt that scientists still hadn't shown enough evidence it could happen in more complex organisms - especially us. Complex species like us evolve slowly. But we know microbes evolve through the same mechanism. They share with us the same types of molecules - RNA and DNA - that transmit the genetic code.
"The same laws of physics that operate on microbes also operate on large organisms," said Plotkin. "We have no reason to believe protein evolution will be substantially different."
Contact staff writer Faye Flam at 215-854-4977, fflam@phillynews.com,
on her blog at www. philly.com/evolution, or @fayeflam on Twitter.
A lot of people think that evolution is only about things that happened in the distant past. That it's all about fossils. And that it has no relevance to what is going on today. I'd suggest looking at the Wikipedia article on "Long-Term Evolution Experiment with Escherichia Coli". But it is unreasonable to expect that any one experiment can cover all features of a large field like evolution. thoms
Comment removed.
This, alas, will do nothing to persuade hard-core creationists, for whom there are two kinds of evolution:
Too large to have been directly observed, therefore deniable
Small enough to be observed, therefore doesn't count.
PaulBraterman
Neither evolution nor creationism explains a species capable of destroying everything that's ever evolved or been created. I therefore believe in destructionism. montani semper liberi
Human beings suck. Religion is worse. Those that follow those fairy tales and force them upon others are scary. thingfish
A couple of things:
- A familiar refrain of anthropomorphism here - viruses "lie low", have "strategies", etc. I realize that this is a bit of a syntactic shorthand, but it does lend an air of intelligence to evolution (and viruses) that they do not have. Maybe we look at these outcomes, these apparent emergent properties, and see what looks like long-term intelligent strategization, but this is hardly the case. It is more like massive trial-and-error, last-brainless-virus-standing kind of thing.
- Is it really fair to combine the evolution of relatively simple organisms such as viruses with much more complex ones such as humans? Humans (and other animals, from a biological basis) are basically evolved frameworks of cooperating systems, aren't they? We have nervous, digestive, circulatory, immune systems, all working together to create the person that we regard as "individual", don't we? These seem to me to add second-, third-, or even higher order delays and complexity to evolutionary trajectories. It seems a gross simplification to say that virus evolution is merely a minification of human evolution. nerdyseahorse- Sorry... "combine" should be "compare"
nerdyseahorse
I have compiled a list of dozens of observed emergence of new species including plants, insects, fish, reptiles, birds and mammals;
http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2009/03/emergence-of-new-species.html Dr_GS_Hurd
The only organism that hasn't evolved is the creationist's brain. EdgarX
"It seems a gross simplification to say that virus evolution is merely a minification of human evolution."
It might seem that way to you, but incredulity is not evidence. The evidence shows that it is a difference in degree, not in kind. xdrta
Actually, the creationist brain seems to have regressed. In an earlier column, Faye Flam cited the many early religious thinkers and pioneering scientists who were persons of faith but had doubts about the Biblical account, at a time when orthodoxy was the safest course. Nowadays, creationists are either literalists or cagey polemicists who make disingenuous pseudo-scientific arguments. jxxphilly
Wow. Ad hominem attacks, insults, snickers, sarcasm-- such is the level of debate against faith in God. Whatever happened to open-mindedness, to respect, to freedom of thought and speech? Oh, yeah, your kind of speech. I remember. Respect for other beliefs is only allowed for Buddhists, Wiccans and Extremist Muslims.
I am not arguing against single mutations, even those that build on prior changes. I know that the earth is far older than several thousand years. I do not see any credible evidence, however, of an organism jumping across to become another species. In the cited E-Coli study, after over 50,000 generations, with millions of mutations, there have been very few that have actually "stuck", and--guess what--ALL of the cells are STILL E-COLI!!!!! They can eat one different food, wonderful. Some have lost their ability to withstand osmotic changes--sounds dangerous. The food thing-- We see this on islands, too, where a finch or something will know how to eat something that is only found there. It is still a finch, though. And always will be.
Once again, faith in evolution, faith in God, both are beliefs taken on faith. And personal motivations are often the reason for such rigid, angry, insulting, adherence to Evolutionism. Well, I have to admit, such folly can be found among all people who hate and insult others, which means some of all human beings. Such was the case with the Social Darwinists who tried to advance the evolution of the human race by killing untold millions of "undesirable" people in the late unlamented 19th and 20th centuries.
Get real, get open-minded, people. All actual truth fits together, so don't worry. Just be aware of your true motivations and respect others. Peace out.
ahamom- I am sorry, but this argument against so-called macro-evolution is a false division in evolutionary biology. There is only "evolution," which is genetic drift driven by natural selection. The most common source of mutation and genetic change is sexual reproduction. Every act of sexual reproduction causes a recombination of genetic material in new and different forms, and it is the most common source of mutation. Also, most mutations simply go unnoticed, being neither noticeably negative or positive. There is no faith required for evolution - the evidence is in our own bodies and in the DNA of our children.
If you would like to see some active species aparently caught in the middle of the transition from one genus to another I would like to point out lung fish and monotremes. Monotremes are egg laying mammals whose morphology is closer to birds and reptiles than it is to mammals. However, the monotremes are technically classified as mammals because they have hair/fur and feed their young with milk among other traits that are associated with mammals. Lungfish and other air breathing fish with lobe-like limbs are transitional species between fish and true amphibians. There are obvious other "transitional" species, but you can find them yourself if you are willing to look past the common myths recited from the pulpit regarding the "lies" of evolution.
The insults from people who support evolution come from the fatigue and frustration of having to debunk the same misunderstandings and misrepresentations of evolutionary biology over and over and over again.
I highly recommend going to your library and reading for yourself. All the information you need to understand the basics of evolutionary biology is accessible by everyone. Read something modern like "Your Inner Fish" by Shubin or "Scaling Mount Improbable" by Dawkins. It will help you shake off the veil of ignorance crammed down the throats of so many well-meaning creationists. CRW - Wow. Baseless assertions, insults to common sense and intelligence,advocacy of belief in spite of the absence of evidence, or even evidence to the contrary. Snickers and sarcasm and hoots of laughter are the APPROPRIATE responses to the idea that there is an immortal, invisible, space-alien superman who hears your thoughts and grants your wishes. That idea DESERVES no respect, because it is ridiculous on its face.
You are, of course, fundamentally(!) mistaken to conflate the conclusions of evolutionary theory with faith in gods. The former are based firmly on objective evidence, while the latter is based on nothing but empty authority.
If you find my words insulting, gee, 'scuso! You can shut me up forever with just one single, solitary shred of unequivocal, empirical evidence for the existence of your gods. Well? I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.
PS. Please note that I do not criticize you as a person, but rather your false beliefs based on incorrect inference about external reality that persist despite the evidence to the contrary. You have every right to cherish counter-factual convictions, no matter how irrational they may be, but those convictions do not automatically deserve respect just because they are religious in nature. phhht
Is it fair to say that the debate is between a quest for answers in nature (not all yet answered, but partially so), and an acceptance of supernatural explanations, even though many of these "answers" have to be abandoned in the face of scientific evidence? As for island finches, they have adapted to the environment of that island in order to survive. If some were blown to a different island, they would adapt and become unable to breed (i.e, be a different species) than their relatives left behind. Part of the divide boils down to confirmation bias. Most scientists probably rejected a supernatural view before studying the nuances of evolution, whereas most creationists and literal believers were raised in religious homes and adhere to faith. Darwin made his argument from evidence, not supernaturalism--that's a real distinction. jxxphilly
- John Hawks' weblog
- Pharyngula
- The Primate Diaries in Exile
- Evolution for Everyone David Sloan Wilson
- Why Evolution is True
- Abstract | Philly
- Not Exactly Rocket Science Discover Magazine
- Bad Astronomy Discover Magazine
- Academy of Natural Sciences
- National Center for Science Education
- Understanding Evolution University of California Berkeley
- March
- February
- January
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011














In pursuit of her stories, writer Faye Flam has weathered storms in Greenland, gotten frost nip at the South Pole, and floated weightless aboard NASA’s zero-g plane. She has a degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology and started her writing career with the Economist. She later took on the particle physics and cosmology beat at Science Magazine before coming to the Inquirer in 1995. Her previous science column, “Carnal Knowledge,” ran from 2005 to 2008. Her new column and blog, Planet of the Apes, explores the topic of evolution and runs here and in the Inquirer’s health section each Monday. Email Faye at
Tony Auth graduated from UCLA with a degree in biological illustration. He was chief medical illustrator at a large teaching hospital in southern California before joining the Inquirer as staff editorial cartoonist in 1971. Like all practicing political cartoonists, he’s gotten more than his share of both awards and hate mail. Over the years Tony has written and/or illustrated eleven children’s books.
