8/14/2019 HIV Conundrum Aunali Khaku
1/2
The Community on Friday - HIV Conundrum
http://www.world-federation.org/Secretariat/TConFri/tconfri_HIV_conundrum.htm
A Social, Cultural, Educational & Religious E-ForumUnder the
Facilitation of the World Federation of KSI Muslim CommunitiesIssue
No. 25-05, July 8, 2005/ Jamaada al Thaani 1, 1426 AH
This is the second in a series of articles about the Evolution
controversy. Asthe title indicates, it mainly focuses on the HIV
virus. In order to make itreadable I have tried to make the science
behind it as simple as possible.
One of the standard examples that evolutionary biologists
advance as evidence forevolution is drug resistance in HIV. The
example revolves around the fact thatHIV positive patients treated
with 3TC, a nucleoside inhibitor, within days show3TC resistant
viruses. According to evolutionists this demonstrates evolution
inaction. They assert that the process that took place in the
patient's body in afew days mimics the process by which the
diversity of life as we see it arose.Undoubtedly the feat of these
viruses is amazing. However does this really mimicthe fantastic
theory of evolution advanced by Darwinists? In my essay, I will
tryto explore this example and analyze the challenges that it poses
to Darwinian
evolution.
First and foremost, the process by which the 3TC resistant HIV
proliferated, was anatural selection - a process that skeptics of
Darwinism have no problemsaccepting. The mutation that causes
resistance is a simple recurrent mutation andhence there are always
a few resistant viruses present within HIV populations.When the
drug 3TC was given to HIV positive patients, the 3TC resistant
viruspresent in them survived and proliferated whereas the normal
ones died off. Henceno new variation was introduced into HIV but
rather existing variation waschiseled away at. Thus, as exciting as
this may sound, this example makes amarvelous case for natural
selection but not for evolution.
Secondly, although we may be tempted to think that a permanent
improvement has
been made to the HIV genome, what really occurred is transient.
When the drug isremoved, the resistant virus is now at a
disadvantage as it reproduces slower thanthe non-resistant one and
soon the normal HIV reasserts its dominance. Hence thisvariant is
only advantageous in the presence of 3TC. This is like the
argumentthat a man without a leg is better because he will not
suffer from polio.Obviously in an environment controlled and
manipulated by humans, the 3TCresistant strain is at an advantage,
but whether this process could have occurredin the harsh world of
nature when humans were absent is highly doubtful.
However the most important challenge that this example poses to
evolution is notabout natural selection but rather mutation.
Everyone agrees that naturalselection can only weed out the weaker
organisms. It cannot introduce newvariation. The Darwinian view is
that new variation is introduced by random
mutation. The HIV virus has a phenomenally high mutation rate
and Darwinistsoften tout it as an example that mutation is really a
force capable of introducingnew variation. In fact they assert that
it is through this process (randommutations and selection) that
complex life arose. However as we shall soon see,this example
actually disproves the ability of mutation to induce
favourablevariation.If random mutations can bring in new variation,
an organism with a phenomenallyhigh mutation rate and a fast
reproduction rate will evolve very fast. At amutation rate of 1012
per second the HIV virus should technically have producedmany new
species. However no scientist in his right mind ever suggests that
the
8/14/2019 HIV Conundrum Aunali Khaku
2/2
HIV virus has given rise to any new species. Why? Because it is
ludicrous tothink that higher life forms can arise from lower life
forms by this simplisticprocess. Thus if the HIV virus, a very
simple organism with a high mutation andreproduction rate can not
give rise to a new species by random mutation andselection, how
could life as we know it, have arisen by this simple process,
giventhat most of the other higher organisms actually have lower
mutation andreproduction rates. The simple answer is it could not.
Thus the next time youread about the HIV virus as evidence for
evolution think again!
By Aunali Khaku (Pennsylvania, USA)For any comments, please
write to: [email protected] here for Previous
Issues
