Creationism vs Evolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1021

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Since I know we have at least one MD who participates in this thread I thought he and maybe some others might find this article interesting:

Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?

by Barney Maddox, M.D.

“Positive” Mutations

Biology textbooks in theory present positive and negative mutations to students as though these were commonplace and roughly equal in number. However, these books fail to inform students that unequivocally positive mutations are unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed (or are so rare as to be irrelevant).

There are prostitutes in some of the most AIDS-ridden parts of Africa that despite being regularly exposed to HIV don’t get infected. This is due to a mutation in a protein on their white blood cells that means the virus can’t get in. In this situation it can be described as a positive mutation. [/quote]

This was actually the first thing that came to my mind. I can’t be positive, but I believe it’s something along the lines of 4% of the population in certain areas have this mutation and are immune to HIV. Talk about a great mutation.

O’ course, they’re still carriers because it’s in their blood…

[quote]
However, the biology textbooks, when discussing mutation in evolution, only discuss the very rare “positive” mutation, like sickle cell anemia.

It’s the premier example of a point mutation disease and as a disease it can hardly be positive (unless you happen to also have the worse disease malaria).[/quote]

It is a disease, but it DOES confer a survival advantage in many parts of rural Africa, and thus could be considered positive IMHO.

One thing to note is that a mutation doesn’t really have to be positive, it just has to confer enough of an advantage that the genes are passed on. If you make it to mating time-- and others don’t (because they have, say, MALARIA)–then it’s done it’s job, and it can now kill you (by sickling and blocking off organs) without any ill effects on the species. So, positive from a survival standpoint doesn’t actually have to mean positive, or longer life. Just good enough to mate and pass on genes.

1022

Good news this morning: A bit more hope for Texas kids

A bill that would’ve permitted the ICR (Inbred Cretinic Retards) to avoid regulations and teach their delusions in Texas schools has been defeated.

1023

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
This was actually the first thing that came to my mind. I can’t be positive, but I believe it’s something along the lines of 4% of the population in certain areas have this mutation and are immune to HIV. Talk about a great mutation.

O’ course, they’re still carriers because it’s in their blood…[/quote]

Probably not for long though. If the virus can’t get into cells to be replicated then the few initial particles will be swept out of the blood and destroyed. Of course if they’re seeing several Johns a day they’re getting regular top-ups.

[quote]However, the biology textbooks, when discussing mutation in evolution, only discuss the very rare “positive” mutation, like sickle cell anemia.

It’s the premier example of a point mutation disease and as a disease it can hardly be positive (unless you happen to also have the worse disease malaria).

It is a disease, but it DOES confer a survival advantage in many parts of rural Africa, and thus could be considered positive IMHO.[/quote]

I think the argument is that it persists in the population because of the limited protection it gives against malaria, but still, having cells so damaged even a parasite can’t use them isn’t exactly a step forward. Might be a life-saver if you get malaria, but otherwise not.

You still need the special condition of only being a carrier too. This means it will never spread through the population like a truly advantageous gene, because carriers that mate will always have some children with the full blown disease. Since these children will die before reproductive age, in evolutionary terms it’s more like treading water.

[quote] So, positive from a survival standpoint doesn’t actually have to mean positive, or longer life. Just good enough to mate and pass on genes.
[/quote]

Still it’s an odd choice as a positive example, even if it’s in quotes.

1024

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
This was actually the first thing that came to my mind. I can’t be positive, but I believe it’s something along the lines of 4% of the population in certain areas have this mutation and are immune to HIV. Talk about a great mutation.

O’ course, they’re still carriers because it’s in their blood…

Probably not for long though. If the virus can’t get into cells to be replicated then the few initial particles will be swept out of the blood and destroyed. Of course if they’re seeing several Johns a day they’re getting regular top-ups.[/quote]

That’s kind of what I was going for.

[quote]
However, the biology textbooks, when discussing mutation in evolution, only discuss the very rare “positive” mutation, like sickle cell anemia.

It’s the premier example of a point mutation disease and as a disease it can hardly be positive (unless you happen to also have the worse disease malaria).

It is a disease, but it DOES confer a survival advantage in many parts of rural Africa, and thus could be considered positive IMHO.

I think the argument is that it persists in the population because of the limited protection it gives against malaria, but still, having cells so damaged even a parasite can’t use them isn’t exactly a step forward. Might be a life-saver if you get malaria, but otherwise not.

You still need the special condition of only being a carrier too. This means it will never spread through the population like a truly advantageous gene, because carriers that mate will always have some children with the full blown disease. Since these children will die before reproductive age, in evolutionary terms it’s more like treading water.[/quote]

Right. On the other hand if the whole population is dying from widespread malaria some thousands of years ago, it’s the one guy with the sickle gene that gets his genes passed on and allows survival. It pretty much depends on circumstances as to whether it’s positive, treading water, or deleterious (as in the USA today).

No doubt.

1025

[quote]pookie wrote:
Good news this morning: A bit more hope for Texas kids

A bill that would’ve permitted the ICR (Inbred Cretinic Retards) to avoid regulations and teach their delusions in Texas schools has been defeated.

[/quote]

Yeah I read that, good stuff. Also means all “degrees” awarded by them are worthless, which is only fair.

1027

OK Push lets get back to basics; I’ve routinely asked for solid evidence and you’ve routinely supplied me with nothing acceptable; however I will supply you with a very easy method of providing evidence for creationism;

I will also repeat calls for fossilised bunny rabbits in the pre-cambrian.

1031

Why is no one named so that his claims can be verified? Also loving paragraph 4, I have no idea how you can claim that creationism is scientific and post that with a straight face but I’m impressed.

EDIT: Responding to this article; "Where Do The Anti-Creationists Come From?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D. "

1036

Push you should really have realised by now that no “evolutionist” takes that site seriously. It’s a waste of time, go look at some real science.

EDIT: Actually either of those sites.

1040

Say flushy, do you even understand any of what you post?

If so, could you answer in your own words using short summaries? You don’t see people explaining evolution by pasting in 1,500 pages of text, do you?

It’s pretty odd that you always reply to questions with URL or paste-ins. Are you unable to explain anything in your own words? I can see giving a reference if someone asks for more info, but to just parrot a couple of cretinist sites is not very convincing.

Could it be that even the childishly simple ideas of Flood Geology are too complicated for you?