That’s my guess as well. If ID/creationists watched every mutation that happened in the human lineage starting with the common ancestor of humans and chimps, they would probably say that each and every mutation is deleterious even as humans evolved their bipedal gait and larger brains.
1 Like
LOL!
Hemochromatosis is an iron disorder in which the body simply loads too much iron. This action is genetic and the excess iron, if left untreated, can damage joints, organs, and eventually be fatal. [hemochromatosis.org]
In the case of the Black Death or the Neolithic period it would be interesting to see if anyone can show that hemochromatosis actually has enough benefit to outweigh the known detriments.
Does it?
In the case of antibiotic resistance for instance the resistance is often due to a defect that disables the pathway used by the antibiotic, But there is only so far you can go by breaking things; that’s devolution. Similarly this has been observed in Lenski’s LTEE. Rather than evolution creating new things we see it breaking or deleting existing genetic information. This is the wrong way for Darwinism but compatible with Creationism.
Yes they are beneficial to each species and that’s why God created them.
What are beneficial exactly? DNA differences? It would be a waste to keep producing genes to digest chitin for humans but it turns out we have one functional copy and three pseudogenes with shared errors between other primates. DNA differences are quite important and paying attention to deactivated genes is really important too:
3 Likes
We might need that gene soon:
Chapulines and jumiles for everyone!
1 Like
Since there are five variants and we still have one functioning copy, I think we’ll be okay!
I am asking you. If there was a mutation that broke an on/off switch but resulted in a beneficial change in brain size and function would you consider that a beneficial mutation?
It would seem that you would reject any change in DNA as being beneficial, no matter what it does. Am I wrong?
1 Like
So if the natural process of mutagenesis produced those mutations then those would be beneficial mutations, correct?
1 Like
Yes you are. I have already said that genetic defects can be beneficial in some circumstances. However neither adult lactose tolerance nor sickle cell trait result from new genetic material; both are the result of genetic defects. Your mistake is to conflate what happens at the genetic level with benefit/detriment at the phenotype level.
Absolutely right.
But centuries ago… if you were in it… the sickle mutation was a statistical blessing for the population… and there was no such thing as living without exposure to malaria.
This mutation arose in Africa, where malaria is very common.
1 Like
Very much so. Still number one in worldwide cause of death from infectious disease, I think. That’s why the Gates Foundation is working on it. I even had it, and therefore I can’t donate blood anymore. Also, I think Alpha and beta thalassemia from the Mediterranean region are adaptations to help in a similar way against malaria.
2 Likes
Yes, God bless the Gates Foundation!
2 Likes
Some areas have malaria, some don’t. There was and is such a thing as living without exposure to malaria.
Even in malaria prone areas the benefit of sickle cell is not a blessing as shown by it never reaching more than ~18% frequency in the population. That means 0.8^2=64% of the population do not carry the trait. It is of some benefit but not a blessing.
1 Like
How much did God affect evolution? I suppose that depends on how many wrong turns He took at the outset in setting it going and just how difficult He found it to foresee results. Perhaps He required no further inputs at all?
1 Like
Good point. Here is a map correlating some of the genetic mutations that increased in frequency in response to malaria pressure. One does not need them where there is no malaria. Have you enjoyed Survival of the Sickest yet? No pressure. Just really interesting. I think AIG would have No problem with this map or the book.
How much did God affect evolution?
Enough to make sure evolution continued and life did not die out in the universe? Yes.
Enough to make sure species were sufficiently challenged on the Earth, in order to develop more complex forms. Probably.
Enough to make sure language capable intelligence evolved in our particular species? Perhaps.
Enough to make sure we have the human form and shape? Unlikely.
Enough to say that all diseases exist for some higher purpose in God’s plan? No.
I have no doubt that God intended language capable intelligence to evolve, but he could have had many candidates for that development and thus did not require it for our particular species. Diversity and competition is a common enough pattern that I see no reason why this would not play a role.
This looks like the old choice between Deism and theism. I am a Theist. But, this does not mean God micromanaged, keeping control of everything. I think it highly likely that God delegated many tasks to the angels in addition to leaving us with considerable freedom to make our own choices.