Parasites justifiably get a bad rap. At best, they are gross things that burst out of the bodies of other organisms alien style. At worst, they can cause severe human disesase. One species (Ascaris lumbricoides) infects a quarter of people on the planet. This however is a relatively benign parasite compared to those of the malaria parasites – which infect up to 200 million new people a year, and may kill up to 3 million people a year. It is therefore understandable that we should feel uncomfortable about them. However, if we can think dispassionately about them, and consider them as organisms, they are really quite remarkable and have evolved some amazing solutions to survive in a hostile environment. In fact, parasitism may be the most popular lifestyle there is as most species have several parasites, and even parasites have parasites of their own.
All organisms live in an environment that presents challenges that have to be overcome – be it a lack of water, light, oxygen or predators. Parasites though live in an environment that is actively trying to kill them. Animals (and plants) have evolved elaborate immune systems that try and kill invading organisms, and in return, parasites have evolved counter measures. Some species, such as Leishmania sp. effectivly live in baths of digestive enzymes, bleach and toxic radicals called phagolysosomes. Others can also immunosuppress their hosts. An example of this would be the hook worms (Ankylostoma sp). As an aside, these are actually being tested to treat allergies. Some species (Leishmania again) can make the host produce an entirely inappropriate immune response that actually antaganises the type of response that would kill the parasite. Some species (Schistosoma sp) even cover themselves in host molecules to disguise themselves.
One group called the Trypanosoma brucei complex have a rather interesting way of evading the immune system. These are transmitted by tsetse flies and cause a wasting disease called ngana in cattle. In humans, two subspecies (T. brucei rhodesiense and T. brucei gambiensie) cause sleeping sickness. Normally, an infected individual will show peaks and troughs in the number of parasites in their blood. See Figure 1.
Figure1
This is due to the immune system clearing the parasites from the blood and new variant parasites arising that have different properties. The surface of trypanosomes is almost completely covered by a molecule called the Variant Surface Glycoprotein (Figure 2). This coat also forms a barrier that prevents the immune system seeing or reaching important membrane proteins. This is important, because if the immune system could see and reach an essential parasite surface molecule, that does not vary, that could be the end of the infection.
Now the god bit. Fundies who believe in a literal garden of Eden and talking snake claim there was no death and suffering before the fall, therefore no trypanosomes (and Tyrannosaurs ate plants!) One particular one that some readers will be familiar with wrote this sick piece on the boxing day tsunami in which he wrote “He [Darwin] makes one big mistake – he assumes that the world as it is now is the world as God created it. But that is not the case. When you read Genesis One notice the repeated refrain, ‘And God say that it was good’. God did not create the world to have natural disasters, cancer and death. Something came into the world which has upset the natural order of things and polluted the whole environment. That is why, as Paul tells us in Romans 8, the whole creation ‘groans as in the pangs of childbirth’. We are faced with two choices – either the world is as it is because that is the way things are, or things are the way things are because sin came in and corrupted a good and perfect creation.”
Apparently we are to blame, and Robertson later writes “What is the explanation and solution for all this? How can we explain and more importantly cope with this bent universe and our perverse human natures?”"
This is just total bollocks (no apologies for terminology, a spade is a spade) and contradicted by fossil tumours, fossil deformities, fossils with bites, fossils with their last meal of a conspecific inside them, evidence of volcanism and earth quakes and mass extinctions all considerably pre-dating the existence of man to name but a few. It really is pathetic that people hold this view.
Despite the total absurdity of the claim, there are also internal inconsistencies in the fundie argument – although it is also applicable to the loving god argument in general. The point is that supposedly only god creates and he does so with a purpose. Now, if there was no suffering or disease, then why invent an immune system? If he is loving, then why create a trypanosome that has “built in” methods of specifically overcoming an immune system? This leaves you with the problem of loving God designing something that could have no purpose because there was no disease, then creating something to overcome this non purpose and cause suffering. It’s too mental for words.
12 comments:
Nice to see you picking up on that bit of nuttiness from DR.
I honestly can't tell if he really knows what he believes, or just patches together a lot of nonsense into a form that feels comfortable.
I honestly can't tell if he really knows what he believes, or just patches together a lot of nonsense into a form that feels comfortable.
I know what you mean. This article was pre-TGD, so I'm guesing that this more closely reflects his true position - not trying to appear to be compatible with science. If he truly understood evolution, he would see the problem the fall creates.
We have to be a bit wary of him though (shockeroonie). He has called the likes of Ken Ham a gift to atheism. He even asked _J_ to help refute him. My suspicion could be that he is now playing the creationist role ar RD.net to get the arguments shot down, so I would handle with care - either that or he is just trying to cause trouble again.
I'm happy if people want to accept evolution, but I feel it is a total bastardisation to inject religion - or have to justify it in the context of a particular religion.
The evidence is there despite what the bible or any other religious text says. That's why I wont help him. Well, I actuallytold him that I would help him if he could provide some testable evidence that his god was directly involved in it.
Has he been appearing on any threads recently?
Has he been appearing on any threads recently?
Yes, stirring things up as usual.
Comparing deadly parasites and DR? No contest really, parasites have a better moral compass by far!
Great article Billy, I honestly learned something from that - the irony is my stomach is making me feel like absolute crap at the moment so its fun to read articles like this! :)
Quick question, the evolution of parasites like the malaria one,is it as gradual as lets say the evolution of the eye where it takes many years and generations or since bacteria reproduce at astonishing speeds the generations produced have a faster chance of producing a generation that is capable of adapting to the attacks from the immune system?
Hi Philip.
Parasites like the malaria ones (and certainly trypanosomes) are ancient lineages. They probably co-evolved with our ancestors, so there would be no need for rapid adaptation as such. It appears that tryps and malaria may have originally been parasites of invertebrates that made a jump to vertebrates. I dont think it is known how rapidly that occurred (almost certainly it happened while our immune systems were less evolved as fish have trypanosome species of their own too.)
There are recorded cases of rapid changes in host specificity - eg HIV and the apple maggot fly, but they already have some parasite pre-adaptations
Current thinking is that malaria parasites are more closely related to plants.
Good post Billy
I think I learnt something.
Oh, and as for the fundies, I'm sure they can ignore a little more evidence - it is the 'moderates' that get me who are able to 'accept' evolution (though guided by God somehow) and still cannot see this means God, by choosing evolution is an evil bastard OR weak by having no choice but to use evolution. Neither squares with the message in the bible (or their) idea of God.
Then there is that small problem of Jesus dieing on the cross for our sins fitting in with evolution – still cannot understand that one... ER has tried to explain it to me, but I didn’t understand it.
Whatever we say about the fundie, they are consistent with the bible – not their fault the bible is full of it and they cannot see it due to their poor education or something.
Lee
Then there is that small problem of Jesus dieing on the cross for our sins fitting in with evolution – still cannot understand that one...
It is obvious why fundies have a vested interest in denying evolution.
ER has tried to explain it to me, but I didn’t understand it.
Can you remember where?
Hi Billy,
(Lets see if my html links work first time?)
As I said, I’ve touch on this question about evolution, original sin and Jesus crucifixion a few times over at ER’s place, and although one poster seemed to give me the ‘cold shoulder’ on one thread about the blood sacrifice of Jesus, ER was kind enough to tackle the question more head-on on a thread called ‘lets talk about original sin’ where we got to discuss original sin and of course I raised the question about evolution and why did Jesus have to die.
I would therefore recommend the this last thread to get some idea how a ‘moderate’ Christian ‘squares the circle’ – and if I can be so arrogant, since it is a long thread - just jump to my comments because I hope I have tackled the key responses from the theists (at least highlighted their comments I have issue with, it doesn’t mean my response was great)
Oh, and just one more thing for ER if he is reading this - I am not trying to open up old debates, I know this one is long dead but since Billy asked what your response was I did not want to paraphrase it, fuck up, and misrepresent you and your views. I still think it is great you tackled the question at all, most Christians either throw the book at me (the fundie saying the bible is right so that’s it) or try and change the subject.
OK, now that is all said and done.
Here’s ER’s last comment on the subject (I think) which I have copied below:-
+++++++++++
“... But, I'll take a stab at it directly. But I'll tell you up front. I don't intend to answer a single question from you about it. Partly because, to be blunt, I mean what I said about why I think you ask incessant questions: You love the game. You ask questions of Christians to get answers -- not to "learn" anything about truth, because by your own admission, there is no truth that a Christian can possibly have that you would accept since it's tangled up in faith and it can't be tested and "shown" to you, in a way that you define. You win that game every time, because you've rigged it. You refuse offers of evidence because you reject that it's evidence. You reject testimony because you reject the assertion that there is a life of faith that also employs reason, and a reasonable way to live life that embraces faith.
1. Humankind has God-consciousness now. You deny it, both personally and globally. That's fine with me.
2. Whether God-consciousness came with the breath of God onto a handful of a dust, or it evolved just as other forms of human consciousness evolved, it exists now. My direct answer to your question about evolution in this context is that it is irrelevant.
3. The core of God consciousness is the understanding that "I am, but I am not God."
4. Rome authorities crucified Jesus for reasons having nothing to with theology.
5. Many, I guess most (not sure about that) of his followers, who were Jews, came to interpret his death, within the context of their religion, as a sacrifice to God -- the ultimate sacrifice to God, rendering further sacrifice unnecessary, said sacrifice understood to atone for sin -- a concept which has been debated every day since, and which some Christians today recognize as part of their religious heritage, but not exactly the best way to explain the meaning of the crucifixion. There are numerous theories of atonement. I personally tend toward the "moral influence view" but I don't think it's necesarry at all to pick one and fight for it. Because, as I'e said, I don't think that Christianity is a matter of stacking up certain beliefs. It's a way of life centered on allegience to Jesus -- meditating on the person of Christ, seeking, finding, discarding, seeking some more, etc., but keeping Christ, as a conduit to God, at the forefront of one's heart and mind, and life. I accept that the origins of Christianity are in Judaism and in Jewish sacrifice. But I am not a Jew. Because I believe that I am, but I am not God, and I don't find any way for me to "get to" God on my own -- one might say that I'm lost on my own -- it follows that there would have to be some provision made for me to "get to" God apart from myself. I think the Jesus story, whether Jesus is seen as Son of God (whatever that means exactly) or Son of Man (whatever that mwasn exactly) or a glimpse at Logos-Wisdom-Sophia, is a hopeful story of how God intervened in some way to reconcile all of us humans saddled with a God-consciousness but separated from God, despite the longing we have to be in full communion with God, because we are not God, back TO God. Whether the crucifixion was a bargain, a pay-off, a sacrifice in the Jewish sense, the supreme example of love, whatever -- those are things to ponder. But not, in my view, to worry too much about. It happened.
6. The Resurrection. First instance of God breaking through the chasm between God and "not God." The Resurrection of Christ is a present reality, not an event in the past. I am NOT joshing when I declare that Jesus Christ was palpably present with me as I drove to Arkansas to say good-bye to my dying mother. Among other instances.
There you go. You will find it whooly unsatisfactory. Not a lick of science, and not much reason, in it -- other than my early declaration that evolution is utterly irrelevant to the meanings of "sin," and the crucifixion and resurrection. Not a lick of Bible in it, either, notice. This stuff is NOT mere words on pages. This stuff is NOT just stacks of doctrine.
But I will not engage you on any of it. Not a bit. And I defy you to say again that I haven't hazarded an answer.
You may, of course, post another comment -- to the ether.”
+++++++++++
I’ve not had the courage to ask again, since it is clear that such a subject is not an easy one (certainly for me to understand such responses)
Very few Christians even think about the question (just try asking Bruce) and normally avoid the question all together so this is why I guess I like ER’s place – the tough questions are at least thought about.
Lee
Thanks Lee,
He didn't really adress the issue though :-(
I think it is unfair to say you wont accept evidence. If things offered as evidence fail under scrutiny, why should it be accepted. People could offer grand pianos as evidence of alien abduction, but does it stand up? So should it just be accepted because someone claims it proves their position?
Hi Billy,
He didn't really address the issue though :-(
Yep... you're not wrong but can you name any Christian who has - this is why I keep plugging away :)
I don't think the problem can be answered, but I would love to hear a solution that makes sense.
I think it is unfair to say you wont accept evidence. If things offered as evidence fail under scrutiny, why should it be accepted.
It has be a fallacy of some kind; just have to find the Latin name to sound clever.
So I agree, they shouldn’t be accepted...
I use the court of law analogy on the value of evidence.
A letter from your mother saying you were eating dinner at her place at a certain time does NOT override the evidence of 6 security cameras showing you shooting a person in cold blood, leaving the victim’s blood over your clothes which are later analysed by forensics confirming both the blood, gun used and fingerprints found on the gun.
Oh yeah, the letter is ‘evidence’... but its value will be assessed as a whole.
People could offer grand pianos as evidence of alien abduction, but does it stand up? So should it just be accepted because someone claims it proves their position?
You’re spot on of course.
Though I’ve not heard of the ‘grand piano theory of alien abductions’ before, guess it is only a matter of time :)
Lee
Parasites though live in an environment that is actively trying to kill them.
I have a friend like that - ding ding - does this make him a parasite?
Parasites though live in an environment that is actively trying to kill them.
I have a friend like that - ding ding - does this make him a parasite?
Reminds me of someone who mouths off about proddies at Ibrox - and another thing.....
Post a Comment