Sickle-cell a "beneficial mutation"??

gungasnake wrote:

Funny thing, every one of these "beneficial mutations" involves some sort of loss of function or capacity; in this case, having some normal function missing prevents AIDS from catching on.

Loss of CCR5 is not detrimental to all. Evolution does not necessarily imply a gain of function, something you fail to comprehend. It means any change that will be beneficial. If losing some function is beneficial then so be it.

Quote:

Problem is, you develop immunity to four or five diseases in such fashion, and your nose will fall off, your ears, your arms, legs, your ass......

I wish your ass would fall off. Then we wouldn't have to hear you talk such absolute nonsense.

Quote:

Likewise in the claims of microorganisms developing immunity to antibiotics via some such "beneficial mutation" in which information is lost. That's why doctors sometimes treat diseases with several antibiotics. The microbe loses so much information in evolving to deal with them, that it dies.

No. The doctors treat diseases with several antibiotics for the same reason the US military did carpet bombing in Afghanistan. You hit one place, sure you're likely to kill an Insurgent, but if you hit all the surrounding areas as well, you're more likely to kill them all.

It's not about causing them to mutate. It's about hitting them with everything you've got. Hitting them with so many different antibiotics, that you're bound to kill them with one of them.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
Funny thing, every one of these "beneficial mutations" involves some sort of loss of function or capacity; in this case, having some normal function missing prevents AIDS from catching on.

Loss of CCR5 is not detrimental to all. Evolution does not necessarily imply a gain of function, something you fail to comprehend. It means any change that will be beneficial. If losing some function is beneficial then so be it.

If the ONLY way you can gain anything from evolution is via loss of information, and that does appear to be the case, then the theory of evolution basically doesn't work. All you have is a theory of DEvolution.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

If the ONLY way you can gain anything from evolution is via loss of information, and that does appear to be the case, then the theory of evolution basically doesn't work. All you have is a theory of DEvolution.

You still don't get it, do you?

If its a mutation via loss of information, that's still evolution. It doesn't matter if we lose genes or gain genes, as long as its beneficial to us, its evolution. Or are you deliberately choosing not to understand?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

You still don't get it, do you?

YOU're the one not getting it. Going from a one-celled organism to humans and dogs and cats, which is what the "theory of evolution(TM)" is supposedly about, requires a GAIN in information content and complexity, and not a loss.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

You still don't get it, do you?

YOU're the one not getting it. Going from a one-celled organism to humans and dogs and cats, which is what the "theory of evolution(TM)" is supposedly about, requires a GAIN in information content and complexity, and not a loss.

You don't know much about evolution, do you?

Fine. If you want a gain of function mutation, then try this:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/1/46

I'm going in search for more and that means delving into PubMed and searching journal after journal article for the stuff you want. Just because you can't find a good example, doesn't mean there isn't one.

Or perhaps I should take the example of the others and leave this topic well alone. There's no use in trying to prove you wrong.

0 Replies

You're wasting your time Wolf, Gunga Din is politically opposed to the very concept of a theory of evolution. Nothing which you provide will change what passes for a mind at his house . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You're wasting your time Wolf, Gunga Din is politically opposed to the very concept of a theory of evolution. Nothing which you provide will change what passes for a mind at his house . . .

Thing is, I don't want him having the last word and I don't want him going away thinking he's "won" this "debate".

The problem with evolution, however, is that the anti-Evolutionists attack almost anything that supports evolution. So in order to counter their arguments, you have to have knowledge in geology, genetics, taxonomy and a whole wide range of other subjects that I can't quite remember the names of, in order to successfully argue against them.

That means it requires a whole load of us to counter one guy's arguments and preferably each one of us must have an expertise in one of the many fields said guy is attacking.

It's exhausting.

0 Replies

Its the functional equivalent of teching quantum theory to a parakeet. Set's right. gwanga is not hosting a full set of exons

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Chumly wrote:
And if I may ask, what is your point?

That the theory of evolution is a bunch of bullshit.

You are wrong. This is a PERFECT example of natural selection in action.

the sickle cells stop plasmodium from being able to replicate thus preventing the disease.

If an individual is homozygous for the recessive sickle cells, they shall have the chronic disease and will die young. But if an individual is hetrozygous for the normal cell and sickle then they shall have immunity but bu untouched by the disease. In this case Natural selection shall favour these people over those who do not have the recessive gene.

0 Replies

The problem is, that sickle cell is one of the two or three examples of a "beneficial mutation" anybody can name and, aside from the obvious fact that it does not lead to anything remotely resembling macroevolution, it amounts fo another way of having large numbers of people die.

Sickle cell is normally described as a genetic disorder.

Another way to look at it is that, if you're the chief of an African village, having large numbers of people lying around dead from sickle cell disease is basically not a good thing.

0 Replies

Hey gunga, if you're half dying from malaria, and half dying from sickle-cell, you're not dead yet, only dying, and that means you can have kids. Whereas, if you're dead from malaria or dead from sickle-cell anemia, you can't. Beneficial mutation my friend.

0 Replies

yes but if u look at the punnet square for a couple who are both hetrozygous for the recessive allele then u weill see it is a 2:1:1 probability (hetrozygous, homozygous for dominant trait, homozygous for recessive trait)

so there is only a 25% chance the individual will have homozygous recessive trait, ie, acute sickle cell an...

so it is a beneficial mutation thus natural selection acts in its favour. EVOLUTION in process.

EDIT: hi, im new

0 Replies

Free thought. You are absolutely correct and gunga has been so beaten overthe head with the matrices of sickling. He just stands with hios hands over his ears yelling NO NO NO.
PS noone really ever called the sickling gene a benie anyway.

0 Replies

Damn mutant allele's only interested in propagating itself...

0 Replies

The same can be said of doggies trapped in cars which are heating up in the bright sunlight . . .

0 Replies

Sickle-cell a "beneficial mutation"??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know