# The new Ebola outbreak weakens an argument often put forward against genetic entropy of RNA viruses

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science\
**Created:** [March 16, 2021, 4:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403 "2021-03-16T16:42:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2021, 7:03pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/21 "2021-03-17T19:03:18Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> That’s true. But the fact of the matter is that Sanford doesn’t think that GE proves that the Earth is young. Rather, his thesis is that given only mutation/selection (given only neo-Darwinian theory), all species must go extinct. The corollary being that if life on earth is old, then the neo-Darwinian theory is false.

It’s a bit more complicated than this, since in his treatment of “neo-Darwinian theory”, Sanford makes a host of extremely dubious assumptions about the DFE of mutations. He arrives only at his conclusion by assuming the near-constancy of an extremely deleterious-skewed distribution, which has never been verified by measurement in any experimental or wild population of organisms.

So the conclusion here should be stated more like this:  
Rather, his thesis is that given only his personally imagined constant DFE of mutation/selection (given only neo-Darwinian theory plus Sanford’s very idiosyncratic, empirically unverified and constant DFE of mutations), all species must go extinct. The corollary being that if life on earth is old, then Sanford’s personal, synthetic caricature of neo-Darwinian theory is false.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2021, 7:03pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/22 "2021-03-17T19:03:19Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> No, a better description of the argument is that RNA viruses may adopt more than one lifestyle either in their natural reservoirs or in humans, for example a lifestyle prone to GE during outbreaks and a lifestyle that allows them to better resist GE such as the one infered from the recent Guinea outbreak.

What lifestyle removes the necessity of replication for transmission?

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> You can scoff all you want, but the fact is that this idea is now supported by the data of the new Ebola outbreak.

How is the idea supported by the data, now or ever?

As Michael posted, per the studies, far from stasis, there were appreciable mutations, so this data _conflicts_ with Sanford’s idea. That is not a scoff.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2021, 8:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/23 "2021-03-17T20:11:40Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> …only mutation/selection (given only neo-Darwinian theory),…

We know that evolution involves much more than only mutation and selection. Do you really not know this?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2021, 8:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/24 "2021-03-17T20:11:42Z")

</div>

> [@thoughtful](#):
>
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > Why are you using the frame of “argument” but not evidence?
> 
> Because GE is about interpretation of the evidence.

If you truly believed that, you would be directly citing evidence, not arguments. Do you not understand this distinction? You appear to be strenuously avoiding the evidence, which all but screams that you either don’t find it to be convincing, or that you predict it won’t be convincing if you looked at it, or most likely some combination of the two.

> [@thoughtful](#):
>
> You [@dsterncardinale] are misleading when you present what he says…

I think that’s a serious ethical accusation. Is there any evidence to support it?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Okoko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_okoko/32/13148_2.png) [@Michael\_Okoko](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Okoko)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2021, 8:25pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/25 "2021-03-17T20:25:04Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> You can scoff all you want, but the fact is that this idea is now supported by the data of the new Ebola outbreak.

Please point out in the data on the recent EBOV outbreaks where we find support for GE?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Okoko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_okoko/32/13148_2.png) [@Michael\_Okoko](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Okoko)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2021, 9:13pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/26 "2021-03-17T21:13:15Z")

</div>

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> As Michael posted, per the studies, far from stasis, there were appreciable mutations, so this data _conflicts_ with Sanford’s idea. That is not a scoff.

The earliest Ebola outbreak was reported in 1976 (there might have been earlier, unreported ones), 45 years later (enough time to have accrued a huge mutational load leading to GE considering the nature of RNA virus genomes) we are still seeing new outbreaks. Of course, the virus has circulated in bats and other wildlife reservoirs for even longer, latently and actively. I wonder when GE will extinguish the virus.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2021, 10:09pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/27 "2021-03-17T22:09:22Z")

</div>

> [@thoughtful](#):
>
> He doesn’t use GE to argue that.

Yes, he does.

> [@](#):
>
> A scientific convert to six-day creation, his groundbreaking new book [_Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome_](https://creation.com/store_redirect.php?sku=10-3-513) demonstrates why human DNA is inexorably deteriorating at an alarming rate, thus cannot be millions of years old.  
> [https://creation.com/john-sanford](https://creation.com/john-sanford)

> [@thoughtful](#):
>
> I’m not aware of more than 1?

One what?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2021, 10:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/28 "2021-03-17T22:38:11Z")

</div>

> [@Michael\_Okoko](#):
>
> > [@Giltil](#):
> >
> > You can scoff all you want, but the fact is that this idea is now supported by the data of the new Ebola outbreak.
> 
> Please point out in the data on the recent EBOV outbreaks where we find support for GE?

The idea I was referring to is not GE but the idea that the Ebola virus can adopt a lifestyle within an host that reduces its sensitivity to GE. Obviously, the data on the recent Ebola outbreak support this idea.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2021, 11:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/29 "2021-03-17T23:04:49Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> But the fact of the matter is that Sanford doesn’t think that GE proves that the Earth is young.

Oh, really.

> [@](#):
>
> The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate. This is exactly what we would expect in light of Scripture—with the Fall—and is consistent with the declining life expectancies after the Flood that the Bible records.
> 
> The problem of genetic entropy (genomes are all degenerating), is powerful evidence that life and mankind must be young.
> 
> –John Sanford  
> [https://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible](https://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2021, 11:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/30 "2021-03-17T23:05:26Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> The idea I was referring to is not GE but the idea that the Ebola virus can adopt a lifestyle within an host that reduces its sensitivity to GE.

Wouldn’t it be more important to figure out if GE exists before concerning yourself with sensitivity to it?

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Obviously, the data on the recent Ebola outbreak support this idea.

It’s not obvious at all. What is obvious is that you did not answer @Michael_Okoko’s perfectly reasonable question:

> [@Michael\_Okoko](#):
>
> Please point out in the data on the recent EBOV outbreaks where we find support for GE?

Where, Gil?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Witchdoc](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/witchdoc/32/10610_2.png) [@Witchdoc](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Witchdoc)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 2:02am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/31 "2021-03-18T02:02:06Z")

</div>

Here is my mathematical attempt at refuting GE.

For genetic entropy in hep B to happen by “deleterious mutations invisible to selection”, the deleterious effect must be smaller than 1/N.

Hepatitis B has a very short genome, 3.2kb in length.

So to have sufficient deleterious-but-invisible-to-selection mutations for an individual in say a population of 1 million hep B virii, there would have to be 100000 mutations of deleterious effect 0.000001 to achieve an effect of size 0.1.

But their genome only has 3200 base pairs!

So. Did each of these base pairs mutate 30 odd times gradually over time to do this? No, obviously this cannot happen, as there are only 4 possibilities per nucleotide.

Conclusion:  
GE is impossible for Hepatitis B.

You can do a similar calculation for Ebola, which is 19kb and again similarly prove GE cannot occur for Ebola, and similarly for influenza A, which is 14kb, and H1N1 which is 13.5kb.

So for Hep B, Ebola, influenza A, H1N1, there MUST be a limit to how much degradation via mutation invisible to selection.

If anyone can find a flaw in the above math and logic, I am very happy to be corrected.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Okoko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_okoko/32/13148_2.png) [@Michael\_Okoko](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Okoko)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 11:51am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/32 "2021-03-18T11:51:54Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Obviously, the data on the recent Ebola outbreak support this idea.

What is obvious from the 2021 EBOV outbreak data is that latent EBOV genomes experienced a significantly low mutation and evolutionary rate. That’s it. The only way latent virus genomes could evade GE (which hasn’t been shown to exist) is to cease mutating, which is unrealistic in biological organisms. Latent or not, viral genomes replicate, and as they replicate, mutations happen.

You also seem to be ignoring the HIV data, which shows that a huge chunk of its proviruses (latent virus genomes) are defective upon reactivation years after infection, partly due to mutations experienced while integrated within host genomes. As much as 90% of latent HIV genomes become defective with time.

Latency doesn’t help you.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 11:52am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/33 "2021-03-18T11:52:36Z")

</div>

> [@Witchdoc](#):
>
> So to have sufficient deleterious mutations in say a population of 1 million hep B virii, there would have to be 100000 mutations of deleterious effect 0.000001 to achieve an effect of size 0.1.
> 
> But their genome only has 3200 base pairs!
> 
> So. Did each of these base pairs mutate 30 odd times for a cumulative effect? Obviously this cannot happen, as there are only 4 possibilities per nucleotide.

You seem to have treated the total number of possible hep-B genomes as merely being 4 \times genome length = 12800.

It’s actually 43200 \simeq 3.9 \times 101926. Way more than enough to contain 100000 mutations of very small deleterious effects.

Put another way, every mutant at one position in the genome can be seen in the context of one or more mutations elsewhere in the genome. So even though every position only has 4 different states (sticking to substitutions only), there are many more possible combinations among sites.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 2:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/34 "2021-03-18T14:20:02Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Oh, really.
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate. This is exactly what we would expect in light of Scripture—with the Fall—and is consistent with the declining life expectancies after the Flood that the Bible records.

Illuminating link, where the theological, almost devotional, impetus for GE is on display.

The line from this interview which jumped out at me was

> All this is consistent with a miraculous beginning, a young earth, and a perishing earth—which “will wear out like a garment” (Hebrews 1:11). Only the touch of the Creator can make all things new.

This encapsulates the popularity of GE to many the church. At the start is a perfect and purposeful creation. The day of the fall pronounced death, but why did Adam and Eve not physically die that day? Well internally they did, the process of corruption unleashed in their genes. It has only become worse over the past six thousand years as decay has accumulated, with death on the individual level cascading to the looming threat of the inexorable extinction of mankind. So you have the entire sweep of history, from the paradise of Genesis to the apocalyptic eschatology of Revelation, engraved on the tableau of our very genes. This is preaching to the choir.

Like the old version of the creationist argument from the 2nd law of thermodynamics, GE is held to refute evolutionary adaptation. As a bonus, if the objection be raised that GE is incompatible with the fossil record of the ancient extent of life, well, there you have it - life is young. Unfortunately, for the lay congregation, this illusionary message which seems to integrate science and gospel will have tremendous appeal.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 2:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/35 "2021-03-18T14:41:30Z")

</div>

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> Like the old version of the creationist argument from the 2nd law of thermodynamics, GE is held to refute evolutionary adaptation.

That’s an apt comparison. Just as the 2LoT argument ignores the input of energy into the system, the GE argument ignores the input of beneficial mutations into the system, among other problems.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 3:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/36 "2021-03-18T15:34:20Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> That’s an apt comparison. Just as the 2LoT argument ignores the input of energy into the system, the GE argument ignores the input of beneficial mutations into the system, among other problems.

They don’t so much ignore it as they argue they are too few and of too little magnitude of effect to matter in the long term. They’re wrong when they argue this, but it’s too simplistic to say they really _ignore_ beneficial mutations.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 4:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/37 "2021-03-18T16:26:32Z")

</div>

> [@dsterncardinale](#):
>
> > [@Giltil](#):
> >
> > _we suggest that the natural reservoir most likely involves a very quiescent viral state, as might occur within a host where there is very little viral replication, and hence much lower mutations rates._
> 
> This is just not a serious argument. _We have measured the rates_ .

Look. Sanford has predicted the possibility of a quiescent viral state of RNA viruses within some of their reservoirs whose effect would be to slow down their evolutionary rate compared to the rate observed during outbreaks. Now, the data from the recent Ebola outbreak precisely document a nearly 10 times slower evolutionary rate of the virus in a survivor compared to the evolutionary rate expected during sustained human-to-human transmission. So contrary to what you think, Sanford’s conjecture is all the more serious because it has been confirmed by the facts.

> [@dsterncardinale](#):
>
> It’s misleading to quote Sanford making his own argument? Perhaps you could point me to the part where he explains the context specificity of GE.

I’ve pointed you to such part!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 5:08pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/38 "2021-03-18T17:08:02Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Sanford has predicted the possibility of a quiescent viral state of RNA viruses within some of their reservoirs whose effect would be to slow down their evolutionary rate compared to the rate observed during outbreaks.

slow down =/= quiescent

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dsterncardinale](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dsterncardinale/32/9144_2.png) [@dsterncardinale](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dsterncardinale)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 5:08pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/39 "2021-03-18T17:08:05Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Look. Sanford has predicted the possibility of a quiescent viral state of RNA viruses within some of their reservoirs whose effect would be to slow down their evolutionary rate compared to the rate observed during outbreaks.

Look. We’ve measured the rates in different hosts. Influenza doesn’t have such a state. Period. “Dormant in the survivors of previous outbreaks” doesn’t mean “not replicating except for during outbreaks”. Sanford is wrong about this and pretending otherwise is unserious.

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> > [@dsterncardinale](#):
> >
> > Perhaps you could point me to the part where he explains the context specificity of GE.
> 
> I’ve pointed you to such part!

By all means, remind me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 6:33pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403/40 "2021-03-18T18:33:48Z")

</div>

> [@Michael\_Okoko](#):
>
> It is pertinent to note that the two, 2021 Ebola virus variants identified did not enter any evolutionary stasis. They only experienced a slower evolutionary rate consistent with latent or persistent viral infection

Note that several opponents to GE on this site have scoffed at this idea of latent viral infection for RNA viruses, thinking that it was impossible. The data of the recent Ebola outbreak prove them to be wrong. A good example of what Behe called « The Pretence of Knowledge »!

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-new-ebola-outbreak-weakens-an-argument-often-put-forward-against-genetic-entropy-of-rna-viruses/13403.md?page=3)