Thank you for the example. But I am curious: why would evolutionary theory predict that parts with a structural function would change more rapidly than those with a mechanistic function? Wouldn't random mutation be uniformly distributed within the virus?
However, I would surmise that if a random mutation affected a mechanistic function, then the virus would die or fail to reproduce, whereas a mutation to a structural function would still allow a virus to live and reproduce. So, then in living viruses, the mutations would primarily show up in the structural functions.
I see this is an example of random mutation (micro-evolution), but not a validation of macro-evolution. The virus, while mutating, still remains a virus. I have yet to find a solid experiment validating macro-evolution. Do you know of any?
Thank you for the example. But I am curious: why would evolutionary theory predict that parts with a structural function would change more rapidly than those with a mechanistic function? Wouldn't random mutation be uniformly distributed within the virus?
However, I would surmise that if a random mutation affected a mechanistic function, then the virus would die or fail to reproduce, whereas a mutation to a structural function would still allow a virus to live and reproduce. So, then in living viruses, the mutations would primarily show up in the structural functions.
I see this is an example of random mutation (micro-evolution), but not a validation of macro-evolution. The virus, while mutating, still remains a virus. I have yet to find a solid experiment validating macro-evolution. Do you know of any?
Yes, your surmise is correct: mutations do happen at a fairly constant rate randomly throughout the virus genome, but survival of mutated viruses is not at all random. In a nutshell, that is a very simple illustration of the principle of evolutionary theory (i.e. "the fit survive").
In the scientific world, we do not distinguish between "macro" and "micro" evolution. The process of evolution is the process of accumulation of random mutations over time. Some mutations are not survivable, so do not persist, but other mutations remain and are passed down to the offspring. The more time that passes, the more random mutations there are, so that after the passage of many generations, the "modern" species is quantifiably different than the "original" species. We will never see an example of, for instance, an animal with arms giving birth to an animal with wings, but we can find fossil evidence of animals whose arms became more and more wing-like over the course of thousands of years.
What she describes is the adaptability that exists and always has within that virus she’s examining. It has nothing to do with “evolution”, ie, one life form changing into another, more highly advanced organism containing more DNA information than its ancestor.