Others have pointed out the biomolecular problems with this Genetic Entropy interpretation of H1N1. The premise that genetic degradation is responsible for the decreased virulence and ultimate extinction of viral strains is one that I cannot take seriously at the epidemiological level. Why is viral fitness defined one way in endemic avian hosts and another in humans? When Europeans came to the new world, did the viral smallpox they transmitted to Native Americans, wiping out large proportions of the population, suddenly become less genetically degraded? The virus is the exact same pathogen, the obvious difference is that one population has a history of exposure and built up resistance, and the other population had no such defence. Nothing to do with viral genes, let alone Genetic Entropy.
We have plenty of dna samples from humans, plants and animals that are thousands of years old. Shouldn’t we find evidence of GE in a comparison of ancient to modern?
We have sequenced entire genomes from specimens hundreds of thousands of years old. No Creationist scientist has ever demonstrated any GE in the samples.
GE only has a chance of working as claimed in a YEC world and a young age for species which has already been disproven 100X over.
We find your paper on mutation accumulation as a predictor of viral virulence quite compelling. Nice graphs, discussion of rates and nucleotide sites, backing of CMI. We think it should go to experiment.
That’s great! If you can’t falsify it, it cannot be science!
Right there. I suggest we take two populations on separate continents, and expose them to the exact same virulent strain of virus. The control population will have husbanded farm animals and been exposed to the related viruses for millenia to give them time to build up resistance, and the other will be a population for which this farming is alien and has had no prior exposure to the virus through human contagion. If the virulence of the virus in the first population remains business as usual, and the second population suffers millions of fatalities, we will know the difference in mortality rates could not due to the accumulation of mutations and your theory is bonkers!
Sounds good. So the ethics committee already green lighted this? Great, let’s go with smallpox.
It’s generally supposed that selection acting on pathogens will generally reduce their virulence, as a pathogen that kills its host will be able to spread less quickly than one that doesn’t. Do Carter & Sanford ever consider that question?
I fully agree that we don’t know how the first life came about. More importantly, it is a fascinating question that we should pursue. This is why creationism isn’t that attractive to me, because it isn’t curious as to how the first life arose. In fact, a lack of curiosity seems to pervade creationism. I am drawn towards fascinating questions instead of protecting an answer. Perhaps @PDPrice can prove me wrong and show that there is some curiosity left in creationist circles.
Patrick has initiated an important thread on measles and vaccination. A Measles-Free Future
Here is another disease which does not fit Sanford’s genetic entropy - the idea that a pathogen’s accumulated mutation, much of the change appearing to be degenerative, is correlated with attenuated virulence leading to natural pandemic cessation and viral extinction. Measles is a highly contagious RNA virus. From CDC: Measles is highly communicable, with greater than 90% secondary attack rates among susceptible persons.
Although risk of death under modern care is slight but real: Death from measles was reported in approximately 0.2% of the cases in the United States from 1985 through 1992.
Highly contagious but not highly virulent is a recipe for a persistent virus. Far from extinct, this virus has been successfully passing down its genetic payload over generations since 500 AD at least. Nothing in this epidemiology is compatible with Sanford’s genetic entropy.
This is more about human society than science specifically. The scientific debate was settled long ago, and nothing creationists have offered challenges those conclusions. What we do have is a social and political movement that is trying to cast doubt on science because of religious beliefs, and that is what we are confronting more than anything else.
I fully agree. I just don’t want to gloss over the ridiculous “science” put forward by Creationists just to prevent someone having their feelings hurt.
From Price and Carter: While it is arguably correct to say that certain viruses are able to maximize their spread by not killing their host, that explanation does not work in the case of influenza, since most deaths from influenza happen after the contagious period of the infection has already subsided—often from secondary infections like pneumonia. For the flu virus, the best way to spread is to reproduce as much and as quickly as possible; that is also likely to be much more deadly to those it infects.
Well, that’s it, conventional epidemiology overturned. To me, the conclusion does not flow from the premise. Fitness and Reductive Evolution
Oh, and I find the following line from the Sanford Carter paper precious: Thus, the possibility of an artificial acceleration of mutation rate deserves further investigation, and may suggest new avenues of research in terms of pandemic management. A new Look at an Old Virus
A horticultural biologist turned authority on human disease might have credibility, but not by making statements as this. Why this may the worst idea in the history of the cosmos I leave to the imagination of the reader.
How can they identify an aspect of incredibly deadly diseases that mainstream science is allegedly missing/denying, claim it “deserves further investigation” in 2012, but do no such investigation for the past 7 years?
