The Community on Friday - HIV Conundrum

http://www.world-federation.org/Secretariat/TConFri/tconfri_HIV_conundrum.htm

A Social, Cultural, Educational & Religious E-Forum

Under the Facilitation of the World Federation of KSI Muslim Communities
Issue 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. As

the title indicates, it mainly focuses on the HIV virus. In order to make it
readable I have tried to make the science behind it as simple as possible.

One of the standard examples that evolutionary biologists advance as evidence for
evolution is drug resistance in HIV. The example revolves around the fact that
HIV positive patients treated with 3TC, a nucleoside inhibitor, within days show
3TC resistant viruses. According to evolutionists this demonstrates evolution in
action. They assert that the process that took place in the patient's body in a
few 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 mimic
the fantastic theory of evolution advanced by Darwinists? In my essay, I will try
to 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 a
natural selection - a process that skeptics of Darwinism have no problems
accepting. The mutation that causes resistance is a simple recurrent mutation and
hence there are always a few resistant viruses present within HIV populations.
When the drug 3TC was given to HIV positive patients, the 3TC resistant virus
present in them survived and proliferated whereas the normal ones died off. Hence
no new variation was introduced into HIV but rather existing variation was
chiseled away at. Thus, as exciting as this may sound, this example makes a
marvelous 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 is
removed, the resistant virus is now at a disadvantage as it reproduces slower than
the non-resistant one and soon the normal HIV reasserts its dominance. Hence this
variant is only advantageous in the presence of 3TC. This is like the argument
that a man without a leg is better because he will not suffer from polio.
Obviously in an environment controlled and manipulated by humans, the 3TC
resistant strain is at an advantage, but whether this process could have occurred
in the harsh world of nature when humans were absent is highly doubtful.

However the most important challenge that this example poses to evolution is not
about natural selection but rather mutation. Everyone agrees that natural
selection can only weed out the weaker organisms. It cannot introduce new
variation. The Darwinian view is that new variation is introduced by random
mutation. The HIV virus has a phenomenally high mutation rate and Darwinists
often tout it as an example that mutation is really a force capable of introducing
new variation. In fact they assert that it is through this process (random
mutations and selection) that complex life arose. However as we shall soon see,
this example actually disproves the ability of mutation to induce favourable
variation.

If random mutations can bring in new variation, an organism with a phenomenally

high mutation rate and a fast reproduction rate will evolve very fast. At a
mutation rate of 1012 per second the HIV virus should technically have produced
many new species. However no scientist in his right mind ever suggests that the
HIV virus has given rise to any new species. Why? Because it is ludicrous to
think that higher life forms can arise from lower life forms by this simplistic
process. Thus if the HIV virus, a very simple organism with a high mutation and
reproduction rate can not give rise to a new species by random mutation and
selection, how could life as we know it, have arisen by this simple process, given
that most of the other higher organisms actually have lower mutation and
reproduction rates. The simple answer is it could not. Thus the next time you
read about the HIV virus as evidence for evolution think again!

By Aunali Khaku (Pennsylvania, USA)

For any comments, please write to: secretariat@world-federation.org
Click here for Previous Issues