Swine Flu Is Evolution in Action

LiveScience ^ | 4/28/09 | Robert Roy Britt

[steve-b]

Anyone who thinks evolution is for the birds should not be afraid of swine flu. Because if there's no such thing as evolution, then there's no such thing as a new strain of swine flu infecting people.

For the rest of the population, concern is justified.

The rapid evolution of the influenza virus is an example of Nature at her most opportunistic. Viruses evolve by the same means as humans, plus they use tricks such as stealing genetic code from other viruses.

The strategy is what makes the flu so virulent and often keeps the microbes one step ahead of scientists who would destroy or neutralize them....

[HiTech RedNeck]

Sillies, hacking away at the same straw man. The micro-evolution and macro-evolution discussions are not the same.

[Just mythoughts]

I will NOT disagree with you. Flu does about size up evolution.

[Paladin2]

Nope, ManBirdPig flu is obviously more intelligent than the medicos.

[D Rider]

Unconvincing argument, comparing a parasitic construction to a live cell that the virus requires to exist... The difference in order of magnitude between the two is overwhelming. But everyone is welcome to their point of view.

[CharlesWayneCT]

A perfect example of how the “science” of “evolution” has been communicated to the masses.

I guess the swine flu sprouted wings and is flying around now, or maybe it has gotten feet and can walk right into your house. :-)

Actually, those who believe in evolution shouldn’t be afraid of the flu, because it’s just “evolution in action”, and survival of the fittest is the way of the world.

[MyTwoCopperCoins]

Actually, those who believe in evolution shouldn’t be afraid of the flu, because it’s just “evolution in action”, and survival of the fittest is the way of the world.

You mean, if you knew the force of gravity could crush you to death, you shouldn't be afraid to jump off the roof of that 20-storey building?

[Murp]

Lets see if I've got this straight. According to the article, viruses are not alive, yet they have figured out how to take advantage of us humans “sneezing and not washing our hands.” Dead things planning their future? Now there's a real winner!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Constitution Day]

Bump!

[RinaseaofDs]

Swine flu is NOT about evolution. It’s about mutation.

There has NEVER been any evidence showing the evolution of one species into another. A frog into a fish, or a fish into a mammal, etc.

Adaptation is a better word than evolution, such that words still mean things.

[ClearCase_guy]

This piece is an excellent example of why I don't buy into the whole evolution myth -- the people trying to sell this stuff don't even understand the nature of the controversy. Or if they do, they are dishonest about it and attempt to win arguments through trickery.

Fish evolving into land dwelling animals with lungs would be an example of evolution. It's one kind of animal giving rise to a different kind of animal. A mutated virus isn't even close -- and people who think it is, are useless.

[FormerRep]

You clearly don’t understand the definition of evolution.

[ClearCase_guy]

I understand that the definition of evolution has been specifically contrived so that Evolutionists can say "We win".

[Riodacat]

Here's why mankind is susceptible to swine flu:

[Erik Latranyi]

I lost my job and was replaced by a ManPigBird Virus.

Now THAT would be an example of evolution....not this diarrhea.

[RegulatorCountry]

Where does this “swine flu” virus fit into the evolutionary “tree of life,” and when did virii arise?

[MEGoody]

::::rolls eyes::::

Yes, the swine flu virus turned into a dog, er a cat, er an ape. No wait. . .it turned into a human. Yeah, that's it!

Sorry, no, it's still a virus. It simply adapted. Far cry from claiming that all life came from a single-celled organism that came about all by itself.

[Liberty1970]

steve-b, you seem to harbor the common misconception that creationists believe in stasis, and that any kind of evolutionary change is automatically evidence for common descent. Not so. Creationists believe in degeneration from a perfect beginning, whereas evolutionists believe in innovative development and growth of functional, integrated complexity from nothing to a single cell to the present diverse array of complex life.

Take a close look at swine flu evolutionary changes and other antibiotic changes and all other examples of (presumed) beneficial mutations (I have scores of examples on file), and you will see the creation position wins a total victory. Because even if we restrict ourselves solely to beneficial mutations, the absence of anything approaching development (as opposed to neutral changes or destructive changes) in evolutionary biology provides strong proof of the direction of our origins.

[DevNet]

Your understanding of evolution is faulty.

[ari-freedom]

“You mean, if you knew the force of gravity could crush you to death, you shouldn’t be afraid to jump off the roof of that 20-storey building? “

nope because we have these things called parachutes