You, i think, have misunderstood. Being resistant to malaria IS beneficial, however it is NOT a beneficial mutation.
73 comments
Being resistant to malaria IS beneficial, however it is NOT a beneficial mutation.
Whatever it is you are smoking, I'll buy at least a pound!
C&S: Having a genetic mutation that makes one resitant to malaria is beneficial. Having a genetic mutation that makes one resistant to malaria is NOT beneficial.
This is like the written version of an out-of-body experience. Who needs drugs when you can just read stuff like this?
This quote is somewhat quote mined, actually. In context, the guy was trying to make the point that the malaria resistance is a side effect of the increased tendency among people of African descent to contract anemia.
Several people beat me to it, but I may as well respond anyway. The same mutation that gives resistance to malaria also leads to anemia.
Though if someone's living in an area where the risk of contracting malaria is high, then the benefits probably outweigh the disadvantages.
Elsewhere, it's most likely not a beneficial mutation.
The knots these morons will tie themselves into to trying to force reality to match their fairy story. Evolution happens, it's a fact and no amount of bone-headed, pig-ignorant blather will change that fact.
@Dexter
Actually it's Sickle Cell Trait which is when the person only gets half of the Gene, it increases resistance to Malaria without most of the side effects of Sickle Cell Disease. However people with it will still sometimes get some of the side effects. So it's not really a Benefit in the modern world.
Wow. The sickle-cell anemia explanation has failed horribly with this one. I somehow think C&S misunderstands as to who has actually misunderstood here.
@Rambler: Not so much. Remember, carriers don't show SCA symptoms unless they're at high altitudes or engaging in strenuous physical activity. Given the sedentary tendencies of most people today, SCA carriers aren't too bad off--it's people with both copies who actually have to worry.
A few gems from their rules:
Debate is allowed here. Keep the tone a loving one that can be learned from. It's about sharing thoughts and ideas, reasoning them out in light of scripture. Offer proof of your views with scripture and evidence but keep it in the light of Christ.
- [OK so far - meanwhile, in another sticky a few posts down]
Effective immediately, the leadership will enforce that this forum is to return the focus to Biblical Christian Apologetics and Evangelism.
Discussion of literal Biblical Creation Account is permitted only, not arguments against the literal Biblical Creation Account from Science, Philosophy, etc.
Please adjust your future posts accordingly or they will be deleted without further notification.
"You, i think, have misunderstood. Being resistant to malaria IS beneficial, however it is NOT a beneficial mutation."
Translation: "I'll say anything to try to keep from acknowledging that evolution could actually be valid."
I think they're referring to people heterozygous for the sickle cell gene (that's what it sounds like in the thread), which is obviously a big problem for people homozygous for the trait, but the gene likely persists because of the heterozygous advantage, since the disease is early onset. It is then technically both beneficial and harmful, in areas with lots of malaria.
You, i think, have misunderstood.
Oh, there is certainly a misunderstanding here, but it's all yours.
Being resistant to malaria IS beneficial
You think?
however it is NOT a beneficial mutation.
A species devolping a resistence to a pathogen where none existed before is , by it's very nature, both a mutation and beneficial. No matter how much or how vigorously you deny that fact you cannot ever make it untrue. Observable facts of reality are simply not subject to the whims of your opinion.
He's not entirely wrong here, this could just be a case of semantics gone awry (although I'm sure he's right for the wrong reasons).
Sickle cell anemia can hardly be considered a good thing.
Edit: didn't know about the both copies thing
This is not necessarily incorrect. Malarial resistance is a benefit to you, but a mutation that confers it need not be beneficial just because resistance is one of its effects.
For example, a mutation that made you immune to a dozen diseases, but also sterile, would reduce your fitness to 0. Game over, man! Game over!
In evolutionary terms, it is reproductive success that counts, not how healthy or long a life you lead. That a mutation confers a specific health benefit does not make the mutation beneficial; for that the mutation must increase your reproductive success, i.e. the benefits must outweight any costs.
So while the resistance is beneficial, the mutation that caused it need not be. Not if it has other, less beneign, effects.
Because a beneficial mutation is growing wings, or laser eyes or something?
X-men is not a documentary.
I know I already posted in this thread, but I need to correct myself. Cloud & Spikes may be wrong about some things, but this is horribly quote-mined. Whoever posted this needs to read more carefully/fully.
Wow, there are so many misinformed people on that site...
"now this is an example of how a single speices can change within the terms of it's not changing into a different animal. It is adapting, not evolving. they didn't gain the information for gills, they've had that, the species, probably because of a favorable mutation, are just adapting."
This mshake guy has no idea what adaptation and mutation are.
As long as the person gets the mutation from only one parent, the person enjoys substantial protection from malaria with rarely any problems. If he gets it from both, that can cause serious problems. In areas where there is malaria, the benefit of the mutation far outweighs the occasional problem. That's why the mutation is found among people from areas where malaria is rampant, such as western Africa, and not where malaria isn't a problem, such as Scandanavia. That's how natural selection works.
Wehpudicabok
"This reminds me of the one who said that mutation and natural selection were both perfectly valid, but evolution is bunk."
I believe his exact words were: "That isn't evolution, that's adaptation through random mutation and natural selection."
I'm still wondering if that guy wasn't being a Poe.
Is this supposed to make sense? 'Cause I was an honors biology student, and I don't get it. How can one be 'resistant' to malaria without a) a vaccine, b) prior exposure to the disease (meaning s/he was not resistant to begin with), or c) a mutation.
jennyb: Some do try to claim there's no such thing as mutations, but most creationists accept them. . . many of them just don't believe any of them can ever be beneficial*. Aaand many of the ones that do think some mutations can be beneficial don't think information is ever gained by the occurrence of mutations, so mutations are not significant in evolution, so evolution can't be as significant as it actually is.
I'm not sure if there are any creationists that accept that there are beneficial mutations and that some mutations result in a net gain of information in the genome. If there are, I wonder why they're still creationists.
*I think if they could look at this from a fitness standpoint (the organism survives and reproduces better than other organisms as a result of having it) instead of a human standpoint (it can cause disease, it's bad!), some minds might be changed.
I see your point that the mutation that confers malaria resistance has it's negative aspects. However, in Africa, malaria is a bigger problem that sickle cell anemia, so the mutations is beneficial. Groups for which it would not be beneficial (a.k.a. people who don't live in highly malaria-infected areas) rarely have the gene in question.
The comment about gaining information makes less sense. "Beneficial mutation" and "adding information" are two different concepts, not really intrinsically connected. Adding the informatioin contained on a third chromosome 21 is not beneficial: it causes (among other things) low muscle tone, mental retardation, and low ferlitity, all bad things evolution-wise. Similarly, ading a few extra nucleotides will cause just as many negative effects as taking a few away. Information does not cease to be information simply because it happens to code for defective red cells.
It's a mutation. It's beneficial. But it's not a beneficial mutation.
22 years of developing my brain, only to see it being broken beyond repair by 2 sentences :s
Its a mutation.
Its beneficial.
Its advantageous to those who have it, improving their odds of survival and reproduction in regions with malaria as compared to those without (though this may be reversed depending on how many young women get raped pregnant in the hospital when they're trying to get treated for it, but for the males its defintely an advantage for reproducing).
Therefore, it is a beneficial mutation, which will slowly spread if the offspring get it and aren't ... culled.
He's talking about sickle cell anaemia isn't he?
The mutation is only beneficial with the single recessive, not the double recessive, and even then, only really increases life span in malaria affected countries while its a hinderance anywhere else.
Edit: Sorry, I mean reduces the chance of dying.
@Rambler
That may be true, however given that the trait is prevailant in the population in malaria exposed areas, and that malaria is still one of the leading causes of death world wide; shows that despite the possible side effects it still protects the individual well enough for the mutation to become preailant in the population as those without resistance dont get to breed as frequently as those who have difficulty exerting themselves.
Unfortunately the fundie is right. Having the malarial resistant gene is a negative within a population because if both parents have the gene then there is a 25% chance that the offspring will have congenital sickle cell anaemia. Accordingly, in the evolutionary long run, the short term benefit of the mutation is outweighed where the gene passes to a significant proportion of the population.
PS. I am a full-on atheist and this is postgraduate genetics studies. I suspect that he has just lifted the comment from an article that he would not have understood.
Unfortunately the fundie is right. Having the malarial resistant gene is a negative within a population because if both parents have the gene then there is a 25% chance that the offspring will have congenital sickle cell anaemia. Accordingly, in the evolutionary long run, the short term benefit of the mutation is outweighed where the gene passes to a significant proportion of the population.
PS. I am a full-on atheist and this is postgraduate genetics studies. I suspect that he has just lifted the comment from an article that he would not have understood.
Unfortunately the fundie is right. Having the malarial resistant gene is a negative within a population because if both parents have the gene then there is a 25% chance that the offspring will have congenital sickle cell anaemia. Accordingly, in the evolutionary long run, the short term benefit of the mutation is outweighed where the gene passes to a significant proportion of the population.
PS. I am a full-on atheist and this is postgraduate genetics studies. I suspect that he has just lifted the comment from an article that he would not have understood.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.