Were Viruses Created or Evolved? (article)

Viruses have a bad reputation. They are ultra-tiny, well-designed machines that copy themselves in a process that sometimes causes disease in the organisms in which they reside. One class called retroviruses is equipped with machinery that splices its own viral code into the DNA of a host cell.

Retroviruses have been portrayed as genetic "leftovers" from an evolutionary past, but how did they really originate?

A report published in Science showed how one retrovirus was "born." Researchers discovered that a retrovirus named XMRV was formed when two DNA sequences called "proviruses" were brought together through "recombination."1 This occurs during gamete development when genetic material from the parent cells is rearranged into new combinations of genes in the offspring, resulting in more genetic variations.

The study authors wrote, "We conclude that XMRV was generated as a result of a unique recombination event."1

Could other—or perhaps all—viruses have entered the world by recombining unique DNA sequences that were already present in animal genomes? Perhaps God made viruses during the creation week as integral parts of plants and animals.

If so, He certainly did not form them to cause disease. At the end of that week, He declared His works "very good."2 But like many other created features, their original purpose was warped because of "the bondage of corruption" brought about by mankind’s sin.3 For example, God made sharp teeth to equip animals to eat vegetation, but many have long since abandoned herbivory and become carnivores.4

It is possible that God made viruses as tiny robots to carry life-enhancing genetic information from one cell to another.5 At some point after the Fall, the once-balanced cell-virus interactions would have begun to falter and fail.

Another implication of this research concerns evolutionary claims regarding human-chimpanzee ancestry. Both species appear to share certain retrovirus-like DNA sequences. These have been assumed by evolutionists to have originated from a retroviral infection of the ancestral population that supposedly gave rise to both chimpanzees and humans.6

This assumption, however, ignores the fact that in the supposed six million years since the species diverged, the useless retroviral DNA would have mutated beyond recognition. It also presumes that the virus came first. The Science study demonstrated that the animal DNA came first and brought forth a retrovirus.

The finding also implies that the "provirus" DNA sequences that combined to become a retrovirus were situated on the chromosome right where they could be joined by the precise cellular machinations that perform recombination. Thus, what appears to be shared retrovirus infections in chimps and humans could have come from "proviruses" in their genomes—created for originally good and similar purposes—that were later activated by recombination.

This study is consistent with the idea that retroviruses, and even the retroviral-like DNA sequences found in genomes, began as created genetic features and were not the products of evolution.

Paprotka, T. et al. 2011. Recombinant Origin of the Retrovirus XMRV. Science. 333 (6038): 97-101. Genesis 1:31. Romans 8:21-22.

Criswell, D. 2009. Predation Did Not Come from Evolution. Acts & Facts. 38 (3): 9. Indeed, viral machinery is exploited by man for gene therapy. If man can use viruses to accomplish a good purpose, then so can God.

Thomas, B. 2010. Evolution's Best Argument Has Become Its Worst Nightmare. Acts & Facts. 39 (3): 16-17.

Additional reading if you are interested.

We Are Filled with Viruses

Posted on March 26, 2011 in Cell Biology, Genetics, Health, Human Body

Viruses have a bad connotation. We immediately think of the ones that cause disease: “I’ve got a virus,” you say when feeling under the weather. Actually, you have trillions of them all the time, even in the best of health. A single gram of stool sample can have 10 billion of them! What does that mean? Scientists are only beginning to find out.
One thing it means is that they can’t be all bad. Elizabeth Pennisi reported in Science this week about work at the University of British Columbia and Washington University to explore the human virome.1 She began her report,

In the past decade, scientists have come to appreciate the vast bacterial world inside the human body. They have learned that it plays a role in regulating the energy we take in from food, primes the immune system, and performs a variety of other functions that help maintain our health. Now, researchers are gaining similar respect for the viruses we carry around.

Bacteria have been easier to count than the tiny viruses. Many of our internal viruses are bacteriophages that invade and kill bacteria. This suggests they play a role in keeping the brakes on bacterial infections. “For every bacterium in our body, there’s probably 100 phages,” Pennisi wrote. The number of virus species identified in stool samples of healthy adults varied from 52 to 2773. “The viromes varied significantly from one individual to the next; they were even more diverse than the bacterial communities within the same individuals,” Pennisi reported. “But each person’s viral community remained stable over the course of the year.” That is, unless they go on a different diet or eating regimen; then the viromes change. But people who eat the same foods tend to converge on virus profiles. Researchers also found that infants with fevers had more viruses than healthy infants.
We are full of viruses, in other words, but we don’t know what they all do. This is “a true frontier” of research, with much to learn. “Ultimately, those viruses are incredibly important in driving what’s going on” one scientist from the University of British Columbia said. It’s not enough to know your bacteria; you have to know the viruses that interact with them.

1. Elizabeth Pennisi, “Microbiology: Going Viral: Exploring the Role Of Viruses in Our Bodies,” Science, 25 March 2011: Vol. 331 no. 6024 p. 1513, DOI: 10.1126/science.331.6024.1513.

Commentary from:

http://crev.info/2011/03/we_are_filled_with_viruses/

It’s always been intriguing that viruses look incredibly well designed. Some bacteriophages look like lunar landing capsules, legs and all. Scientists have learned that some viruses have shells like hard plastic (05/07/2004) and pack their DNA into their capsids with motors generating remarkable force, in an orderly manner (03/20/2007, 12/30/2008). They are also extremely effective in finding their target cells, inserting their DNA, and commandeering the genetic machinery to make copies of themselves.
Evolutionists don’t know what to do with viruses. They are not considered transitional forms between molecules and life. Intelligent design would describe their design and predict that they have functions, but would be at a loss to explain harmful viruses. It takes Biblical creation to explain that they were probably designed for good originally, but some became harmful because of the Fall due to sin. The analogy might be to a science fiction movie where robotic servants went berserk, or to the broom of the sorcerer’s apprentice that multiplied and could not be stopped. Sometimes a single mutation can turn a beneficial bacterium into a disease-causing terror; the same could be true with viruses.
Maybe they were intended to be regulators of bacteria. Maybe they were designed to convey information to the body about new environments, and were equipped to copy themselves to spread the word so that the body could be prepared. Who knows? This is, after all, a frontier of research. For philosophers, it’s noteworthy that we are stumbling onto a reality right around us – right within us – about which we have been largely oblivious, with the potential to dramatically change our understanding of nature.
Given that an athlete running the high hurdles in the peak of health is carrying around trillions of viruses, intuition suggests that most of what they do for us is good. The scientific research appears poised to find many beneficial functions for our viral passengers. It happened with bacteria; it took society a long time to change the emotional response from “germs… uggh!” with the householder running to get the antibacterial spray, to an appreciation of the many good things bacteria do for us. Now we look differently upon our bacterial passengers. We have learned they outnumber our own cells, and are learning that our viral passengers outnumber the bacteria 100 to one. Expect amazing things to be discovered about these tiny, mysterious machines.

if you want a gfascinating but semi-technical discussion abotu retroviruses and hteir roles in species, and to see how it’s impossible that primates and humans are elated thanks to the efvidences of viruses, then the folloiwng is quite a discussion

http://www.christianforums.com/t5784958/

A couple of SIMILIAR retroviruses (albiet with different insertion points) does not an evolutionary process make, especially when there are so many differences between humans and primates, and hwen ALL primates share most hte ERV’s between them, but not between them and humans-

Parasitic invasions and symbiotic relationships are not evidence of evolution as has been claimed, then later admitted to beign false, when scientists falsely tried to assert that eukoroytes were a ‘perfect exampel of evolution in the process right before our eyes”- they later admitted that it was a lie- teachers had to remove htel ie from school books, although soem schools still have thjis assinien assertion in some books with NO footnotes statign that the info was later admitted to beign false-

Anyways- the above link will show that a couple of similiar PTERV’s does not a link make- the fact is that we are similiar species, and in some cases susceptible to the same parasitic threats that reulst in similiar conditions- that’s NOT unusualy for species that are similiar but still so different as to be wholly different and unique species

for years, lucy was portrayed as their ‘berst evidence’ that man evolved fro mapes, and the textbooks even to this day show models with slim feet and hands (Characteristics of groudn dwellers who no longer need to use feet and hands to support themselves in branches they claim) howrver, the drawigns do NOT represent the actual evidence which showed that ‘lucy’ had long curved finger bones and muscular feet- juyst like all primates- but here again textbooks still will NOT admit the whoel truth- Apaprently because they simpyl must create a link where none exist

and as for their ‘most compelte fossil evidnece to date’? They cite a link between an ocean dwelling creature, and the cynodont and claim the land dweller is the ‘closest livign relative of the ocean species’ however once you investigaste the deceitful drawings between their two best ‘links’ (which shows them nearly identical in size i ntheir deceitful drawings,) you will discover that the ocean species is the size of a rat, whierl the land dweller was the size of a hoppo- but by golly you’d never know that juswt lookign at the deceitfulyl drawn pictures-

Only an itnelligent designer is capable of creatign informaiton out of nothing- nagture is NOT caapble of doign so- it’s biologically impossible for nature, with all her ‘laws’ to create soenmthign out of nothing- and it’;s also biologically impossible for nature to have takern dirty chemicals, purified them and created the right amino acids top survive in conditiosn that were impossible to support them- The whole process of evolutio nbreaks down right fo the very foundations- not to mention it’s mathrematically imopossibel Not just improbable, but impossdible for mutatiosn to create new non species specific informaiton

but all these facts get waved aside by evoltuionists as thoguht they are meaningless- they are not- they are the death knell to the hypothesis of evolution

natural selection is a biological fact and a bilogical possibility- evolution is not- it’s biolgically impossible,

Nagtural selection simply is a process hat eliminates or alters ifnromatio nalready present WITHIN the boundaries of the species specific genetic code- (in other words, it can not add info, but can only alter info already present)

for an example, over time, hummingbirds that wound up stranded on Hawaii, were forced to get their nectar from flowers with deep pockets- so to speak- thsoe hummingbirds with the longest beaks survied, while those with the shorter beaks did not- thsoe with the lognest beaks passed along hteir genes by mating with other logner beaked birds, until eventually only long beaked birds remained o nthe iisland- the fact that they developped logner beaks by selectively manipulating hte genetic info already available does not give evidence of actual evolution, only of selective adaptation- natural selection-

Antoehr good example is the breedign of dogs, breeders can carefully and painstakenly breed dogs with certain traits (like hairlessness) swo that eventually the trait becoems fixed i nthe psecies- they havenm’t actually created a new species, but just just altered one that already exists-

Inoformatio nthat is already resent in spceices can and does change in species- but it can onlty change within certin species specific parameters- There are limtis due to biological limitations- evolution requires ignorign htose limitations and ignoring impossibilities in order to develope the process-

Whether it a beneficial virus or a harmful virus, it’s still a virus, and no evolutionary theory can account for that.

There are exceedingly more beneficial viruses in the human body than harmful ones.

And man is still a man.

God created, lovingly and carefully, with the capacity to ask why, unlike every other living thing on this planet.

And no, God did not create those detrimental viruses.

Did he allow them to happen?

Maybe.

Did he allow the evil of man to be expressed?

Maybe.

Is the evil in Man predetermined ? The destiny of your genes?

Can you ever know what is good, without knowing what is bad ?

Sure.
Biblically, the first Creation was “very good”. And when God Himself describes something as “very good”, you know there’s nothing violent or jarring to the senses in it at all. All creatures were herbivores, and there was not even any death.
Sin entered the world, and all of Creation was cursed. Death, disease, predation, thorns (and sharp teeth) were part of the curse.
If the plants previously had no thorns and had them following the cursing of Creation, it’s not a stretch to think that animals did not have killing/meat eating teeth prior to the curse, either.
The teeth conjecture is just that - conjecture on my part, because I nor anyone else was there that wrote about it, and only the thorns were specifically mentioned in the Biblical account.

Now, this theory of mine is based on the presupposition of the truth and inspiration of the Bible.
If your presuppositional worldview varies from this, the theory will make no sense.
But, the important thing in any conversation of this type is to recognize that you, as well as I, interpret what we see through the lens of our presuppositions.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.