In analogy with the Red Queen’s wild rush of Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There viruses also mutate continuously and independently of the environment – eventually selecting one variant rather than another. This behavior helps viruses to pass on their genome to subsequent generations as much as possible, which does not necessarily mean becoming progressively more friendly with human hosts (and others).
Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was a genius. Maybe not him, a nineteenth-century English mathematician, but he alter ego, Lewis Carroll. He wrote a couple of important books, and a few others on the market. The books are titled Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There. The first novel is about playing cards, the second about chess pieces – I dare not think what Carroll would have invented if he had based another novel on go. In each of these booklets, there are dozens and dozens of characters that perhaps Carroll had invented only for his little girls, but who have been captured by the world of science to make metaphors, emblematic figures, examples, and suggestions of how nature works. Evolutionists also appropriated more than one character and used his phrases to explain parts of the theory.
One of them is the Red Queen, from Through the Looking Glass. Thus, this Queen can move on the board quickly and effortlessly, like the queen of chess. At a certain point, in the second chapter The garden of talking flowers- Alice meets her as she tries to reach a hill. To this end, the Queen drags her into a breathtaking race, and after a few minutes, the two find themselves in the place they started from. Alice is surprised, saying that in her country if you run you will arrive in another place. To which the Queen replies with one of the most quoted phrases of the two books What a slow country. Here, however, you have to run as hard as you can to stay in the same place. Evolutionist Leigh Van Valen used this phrase and the situation as a metaphor for his theory (or hypothesis or effect or model or dynamics. Defined as “of the Red Queen. Which, among other things, states that the extinction of a species is a constant probability and does not depend on the life of the species itself. The consequence is that they must continually modify their genome (ie evolve to survive and not become extinct. This is because other species run with them in the same environment, and the race thus represents a kind of competition in order not to become extinct. Subject to some considerations on co-evolution and collaboration between different species, this theory also sheds light on many other evolutionary dynamics, including the arms race between predators and prey, the evolution of sex, interaction with pathogens, and more.
Metaphorically, and coming to our situation, this means that our species must be able to keep up with (and, in the hopes of many, overcome) the frenzied race of the virus that causes Covid-19. Unfortunately, the disparity in the speed of evolution between some parasites, viruses in particular, and the organisms affected, us, is obvious. Suffice it to see the countless mutations that have arisen within a little over a year in this viral “species” that has made the leap from bat to man. The viral generations are tens and tens of thousands, and the human one not even one. Mutations are the object, in my opinion, of numerous misunderstandings. The crucial point, about which we discuss and squabble, is that for many commentators (even experts) these variations in the rather simple genome of the virus must lead to a less lethal species, perhaps less infectious, certainly more friend than its victim.
Almost like an automatic process. And it is not clear why. That is, we understand why according to a certain narrative that has been going on for decades; which states how, when a parasite attacks a parasitic species, it must sooner or later come to some kind of truce with the victim. The truce necessarily implies genomic variations that lead to a better coexistence with the host. So to a lower lethality, because – it is argued – the virus has “interest” that we remain alive, otherwise how can it also attack others of our own species and therefore spread? Basically, it is argued that a virus or other parasite that attacks a “new” species (new to it) becomes better and better after some time until it becomes harmless, like a cold virus to humans. And this always happens and in any case. In conclusion, mutations that lead to lower infectivity and/or lethality would be appreciated by the virus and the host, because they increase its silent presence in the population. And here, given the mutual appreciation, these mutations occur or will happen and everything will resolve itself in some bearable heat.
as happens with the flu, or even no death, as happens with the cold. mutations that lead to less infectivity and/or lethality would be appreciated by the virus and the host because they increase its silent presence in the population. And here, given the mutual appreciation, these mutations occur or will happen and everything will resolve itself in some “bearable” death, as happens with the flu, or even no death, as happens with the cold. mutations that lead to less infectivity and/or lethality would be appreciated by the virus and the host because they increase its silent presence in the population. And here, given the mutual appreciation, these mutations occur or will happen and everything will resolve itself in some bearable death, as happens with the flu, or even no death, as happens with the cold.
Too bad that things are not like that. A virus, like any other parasite, has no “interest” in keeping its host alive and viable if this leads to fewer of its descendants. The virus, like any other living being, has the only evolutionary interest of reproducing as much as possible, in the shortest possible time, with no future vision. If this resulted in the death of the host, it worse for the latter. Yes, but even worse for the virus, I am told, because in this case the virus itself also disappears. As is the case with extremely lethal viruses, such as Ebola or Marburg. They are new viruses that have attacked humans by jumping from a forest species to the invader and have killed hundreds of people for their extreme effectiveness in disrupting the system they entered.
A flash in the pan soon extinguished, hopefully. Why, precisely, they have been careful to reproduce, not to make peace with the enemy. But there are thousands of intermediate situations between Ebola and Marburg on the one hand and a cold or flu on the other. To reiterate: the evolutionary fitness of the virus (this is how the survival of a living or pseudo-living being such as a virus is measured) is linked to reproduction, not to truce with the sick host. And in fact, the mutations that have arisen and that are now widespread almost all over the world (let’s call them by names other than Brazilian, South African, and English) apparently lead to greater transmissibility of the virus, and perhaps in some cases to greater lethality. The dynamics of a new host’s viral invasion are not as elementary as they say, and hopefully.
It all depends on many aspects of the interaction: for example But there are thousands of situations in between Ebola and Marburg on the one hand and a cold or flu on the other. To reiterate: the evolutionary fitness of the virus (this is how the survival of a living or pseudo-living being such as a virus is measured) is linked to reproduction, not to truce with the sick host. And in fact, the mutations that have arisen and that are now widespread almost all over the world (let’s call them by names other than Brazilian, South African, and English) apparently lead to greater transmissibility of the virus, and perhaps in some cases to greater lethality. The dynamics of a new host’s viral invasion are not as elementary as they say, and hopefully.
It all depends on many aspects of the interaction: for example But there are thousands of intermediate situations between Ebola and Marburg on the one hand and a cold or flu on the other. To reiterate: the evolutionary fitness of the virus (this is how the survival of a living or pseudo-living being such as a virus is measured) is linked to reproduction, not to truce with the sick host. And in fact, the mutations that have arisen and that are now widespread almost all over the world (let’s call them by names other than Brazilian, South African, and English) apparently lead to greater transmissibility of the virus, and perhaps in some cases to greater lethality. The dynamics of a new host’s viral invasion are not as elementary as they say, and hopefully.
It all depends on many aspects of the interaction: for example, the evolutionary fitness of the virus (this is how the survival of a living or pseudo-living being such as a virus is measured) is linked to reproduction, not to truce with the sick host. And in fact, the mutations that have arisen and that are now widespread almost all over the world (let’s call them by names other than Brazilian, South African, and English) apparently lead to greater transmissibility of the virus, and perhaps in some cases to greater lethality. The dynamics of a new host’s viral invasion are not as elementary as they say, and hopefully. It all depends on many aspects of the interaction: for example, the evolutionary fitness of the virus (this is how the survival of a living or pseudo-living being such as a virus is measured) is linked to reproduction, not to truce with the sick host. And in fact, the mutations that have arisen and that are now widespread almost all over the world (let’s call them by names other than Brazilian
South African and English) apparently lead to greater transmissibility of the virus, and perhaps in some cases to greater lethality. The dynamics of a new host’s viral invasion are not as elementary as they say, and hopefully. It all depends on many aspects of the interaction: for example But there are thousands of intermediate situations between Ebola and Marburg on the one hand and a cold or flu on the other. To reiterate: the evolutionary fitness of the virus (this is how the survival of a living or pseudo-living being such as a virus is measured) is linked to reproduction, not to truce with the sick host. And in fact, the mutations that have arisen and that are now widespread almost all over the world (let’s call them by names other than Brazilian, South African, and English) apparently lead to greater transmissibility of the virus, and perhaps in some cases to greater lethality. The dynamics of a new host’s viral invasion are not as elementary as they say, and hopefully. It all depends on many aspects of the interaction
For example, the evolutionary fitness of the virus (this is how the survival of a living or pseudo-living being such as a virus is measured) is linked to reproduction, not to truce with the sick host. And in fact, the mutations that have arisen and that are now widespread almost all over the world (let’s call them by names other than Brazilian, South African, and English) apparently lead to greater transmissibility of the virus, and perhaps in some cases to greater lethality. The dynamics of a new host’s viral invasion are not as elementary as they say, and hopefully. It all depends on many aspects of the interaction: for example, the evolutionary fitness of the virus (this is how the survival of a living or pseudo-living being such as a virus is measured) is linked to reproduction, not to truce with the sick host. And in fact, the mutations that have arisen and that are now widespread almost all over the world (let’s call them by names other than Brazilian, South African, and English) apparently lead to greater transmissibility of the virus, and perhaps in some cases to greater lethality. The dynamics of a new host’s viral invasion are not as elementary as they say, and hopefully. It all depends on many aspects of the interaction,
for example, the mutations that have arisen and are now widespread almost all over the world (let’s call them by names other than Brazilian, South African, and English) apparently lead to greater transmissibility of the virus, and perhaps in some cases to greater lethality. The dynamics of a new host’s viral invasion are not as elementary as they say, and hopefully. It all depends on many aspects of the interaction: for example, the mutations that have arisen and are now widespread almost all over the world (let’s call them by names other than Brazilian, South African, and English) apparently lead to greater transmissibility of the virus, and perhaps in some cases to greater lethality. The dynamics of a new host’s viral invasion are not as elementary as they say, and hopefully. It all depends on many aspects of the interaction: for example how a parasite is transmitted. If transmission occurs with effective methods that are not easily controlled by the victim, such as insects or droplets with a wide and fast spread, what interest does the virus have in being friendly?
And here another important aspect comes in if we look at a virus from the point of view of evolution. Everyone thinks of the virus as a single and univocal entity, traveling in the world of parasites as one man, exchanging information on what is best to do. And, again, it is believed that his supreme interest is the mythical survival of the species. But, as Mayr teaches, Darwin explained to us that species are made up of populations, and populations of individuals. Each of them does everything, selfishly, to be able to pass on their genome to subsequent generations. And if this fast and effective transmission occurs at the expense of other viruses and virus strains, so be it. Fewer competitors.wild type probably from China).
The Red Queen’s race to stay alive also occurs between strains and families of viruses, not just between us and them. Finally, the survival of the species is a supreme interest. of the species is one of those concepts that have dragged on from at least the 1950s, if not earlier, and that modern biology has tried to destroy with convincing theoretical explanations. Unfortunately, the idea keeps popping up like the heads of the Lernaean Hydra, and it’s almost impossible to eradicate.
Finally, why is it said that we must decrease the spread and presence of viruses, due to the danger of further mutations? And why is it claimed that some of them are derived from the presence of the virus in patients treated with antibodies? At first glance, it appears that the antibodies themselves cause the mutations. It is not so. Mutations (except some particularities of the genome) always occur, regardless of the environment in which these viruses live. These are mutations that lead to greater lethality, less aggression, a greater ability to spread or to resist the host’s immune system. The mutations themselves are then selected by the environment, not caused by the environment itself.
The antibodies act as a selective agent subsequently and exert evolutionary pressure on the viruses by positively selecting passing the mutations that allow the virus to escape from the antibodies. If there are many viruses around, because the spread has not been hindered and the populations or strains of viruses are numerous, the probability of mutations (of any kind) rises; for the simple reason that there are more viruses that mutate, not because more arise in response to the presence of antibodies. Or even that more mutations arise aimed at escaping the danger posed by antibodies. The need to decrease the number of viruses is thus only to prevent the emergence of other mutations.
These and other misunderstandings are not just theoretical whims of some evolutionist or geneticist dealing with viruses. They also have important consequences in communication and health policy measures. If it is said that sooner or later the virus becomes harmless the impulse is to stop wearing masks and to consider a vaccination campaign that is going to pieces well more than enough. Waiting for the virus to become good, and not hindering its spread by any means is the best way to set the table for an endemic, but certainly not friendly, presence of the virus.
