A recent study (Ruiz-Pesini et al. 2004) of mtDNA has demonstrated that gene frequencies have changed over the last 50,000 years i.e. human populations have still been subject to evolution.
Some mutations in mtDNA may make aerobic respiration less efficient, so that the mitochondria generate more heat and less ATP. These mutations will be selected for if they are beneficial to the person carrying them - and they would certainly be advantageous for humans living in the cold climates that prevailed during the Ice Age.
Examination of the mtDNA from over 1,000 people has found that such a mutation is present in populations of Northern Europeans, East Asians, and Amerindians. Of those in the sample that live in Arctic regions, 75% had the mutation, which was also found in the 14% of the sample living in temperate zones. Some of the ancestors of these groups would have lived in Siberia, and all would have experienced the Ice Age's glacial conditions. However, the mutation is not found at all in people of African ancestry.
The study concludes that the correlation between habitat and presence of the beneficial mutation is evidence of positive selection for the changed gene sequence. That is, the mutation was selected for because those people who had them were able to generate more body heat in an extremely cold climate.
Great stuff. Re. the Y chromosome, it's predicted to dissapear completely within the next few million years. Its thought that the genes that confer maleness will eventually end up on another chromosome, and the Y chromosome will wither away and vanish completely.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
Famed paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey is giving no quarter to powerful evangelical church leaders who are pressing Kenya's national museum to relegate to a back room its world-famous collection of hominid fossils showing the evolution of humans' early ancestors.
Leakey called the churches' plans "the most outrageous comments I have ever heard."
He told The Daily Telegraph (London): "The National Museums of Kenya should be extremely strong in presenting a very forceful case for the evolutionary theory of the origins of mankind. The collection it holds is one of Kenya's very few global claims to fame and it must be forthright in defending its right to be at the forefront of this branch of science." Leakey was for years director of the museum and of Kenya's entire museum system.
The museum's collections include the most complete skeleton yet found of Homo erectus, the 1.7-million-year-old Turkana Boy unearthed by Leakey's team in 1984 near Lake Turkana in northern Kenya.
The museum also holds bones from several specimens of Australopithecus anamensis, believed to be the first hominid to walk upright, four million years ago. Together the artifacts amount to the clearest record yet discovered of the origins of Homo sapiens.
Leaders of Kenya's Pentecostal congregation, with six million adherents, want the human fossils de-emphasized.
"The Christian community here is very uncomfortable that Leakey and his group want their theories presented as fact," said Bishop Bonifes Adoyo, head of the largest Pentecostal church in Kenya, the Christ is the Answer Ministries.
"Our doctrine is not that we evolved from apes, and we have grave concerns that the museum wants to enhance the prominence of something presented as fact which is just one theory," the bishop said.
Bishop Adoyo said all the country's churches would unite to force the museum to change its focus when it reopens after eighteen months of renovations in June 2007. "We will write to them, we will call them, we will make sure our people know about this, and we will see what we can do to make our voice known," he said.
It was these comments Leakey termed outrageous. Calling members of the Pentecostal church fundamentalists, Leakey added: "Their theories are far, far from the mainstream on this. They cannot be allowed to meddle with what is the world's leading collection of these types of fossils."
For its part, the museum sounded like it was trying to walk a tightrope. It said it was in a "tricky situation" in trying to redesign its exhibition space for all kinds of visitors.
"We have a responsibility to present all our artifacts in the best way that we can so that everyone who sees them can gain a full understanding of their significance," said Ali Chege, public relations manager for the National Museums of Kenya. "But things can get tricky when you have religious beliefs on one side, and intellectuals, scientists, or researchers on the other, saying the opposite."
Great stuff. Re. the Y chromosome, it's predicted to dissapear completely within the next few million years. Its thought that the genes that confer maleness will eventually end up on another chromosome, and the Y chromosome will wither away and vanish completely.
Then we will see an increase in Rett's that's not good.
Personally I like have one X and one Y, but I guess we can't argue with evolution.
My question is how is evolution in humans possible without natural/sexual selection?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Then we will see an increase in Rett's that's not good.
Personally I like have one X and one Y, but I guess we can't argue with evolution.
My question is how is evolution in humans possible without natural/sexual selection?
We're talking several million years down the track. If humans are still around then, we will most likely have taken control of our own evolution by manipulating our own genome anyway. I don't think Rett's sydrome would be an issue anymore.
Natural and sexual selection still acts on humans. We all select partners to mate with. To put it simply, being ugly is a disadvantage when it comes to passing on your genetic material. As for natural selection pressures, think HIV, environment related cancers, changing diets and lifestyles. We may not be running from lions anymore, but there are always pressures on us that can affect our chances of surviving long enough to have kids and pass on our genes.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
We're talking several million years down the track. If humans are still around then, we will most likely have taken control of our own evolution by manipulating our own genome anyway. I don't think Rett's sydrome would be an issue anymore.
Natural and sexual selection still acts on humans. We all select partners to mate with. To put it simply, being ugly is a disadvantage when it comes to passing on your genetic material. As for natural selection pressures, think HIV, environment related cancers, changing diets and lifestyles. We may not be running from lions anymore, but there are always pressures on us that can affect our chances of surviving long enough to have kids and pass on our genes.
Yea, except AIDS and "environment related cancers" aren't genetically hereditary. HIV yes, but it's only one step to AIDS. I also think we will have these things cured within the next few million years. I mean, we are about one step from curing HIV.
It's difficult to predict how we will evolve.
Sexual selection, I'm not so sure, I hesitated to post it, but even ugly people get together.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Whitness testimony is only 40% accurate, people glorify and magnify their experiences. This is very well-known by the courts as they work closely with the scientific community. The only time whitness testimony is taken as fact is by a jury. However, whitness testimony alone isn't sufficient normally for a conviction. As Paul Zak (Neurobiologist) says "you really need like 5 or 6 witnesses making the same statement."
It's implied that to prove a witness account as 100% factual, there needs to be direct correlations between several witness testimonies. Those people must testify in a controlled environment, they cannot be put in a position to share stories.
If you've ever watched TV court shows, firsthand account is accepted all the time. It is taken as fact or not fact, dependent on the sense of truthfulness with which it is told. Key here is if someone goes into court and tells the truth about their experience, it is a fact. For example, if someone held me at gunpoint, and I state that in court, I am stating a fact. That my statement is factual holds true whether or not I am believed. This is because experience is fact. Oh, and if someone held me at gunpoint and I state it outside of court, say in a normal conversation, I am still stating a fact. This is in the sense that my experience is fact. Empirical fact, as a matter of fact. This is how basic empirics are.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
So whats the problem with evolution? It as as much as fact as earth is round and has been demostrated emperically by thousands of experiments and corroberated by many disciplines including palaeontology.
Oh, I completely agree. I don't have issues with evolution. I apologize if I've been confusing.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If you've ever watched TV court shows, firsthand account is accepted all the time. It is taken as fact or not fact, dependent on the sense of truthfulness with which it is told. Key here is if someone goes into court and tells the truth about their experience, it is a fact. For example, if someone held me at gunpoint, and I state that in court, I am stating a fact. That my statement is factual holds true whether or not I am believed. This is because experience is fact. Oh, and if someone held me at gunpoint and I state it outside of court, say in a normal conversation, I am still stating a fact. This is in the sense that my experience is fact. Empirical fact, as a matter of fact. This is how basic empirics are.
Angelica, that's not how it works.
I'm actually surprised that you believe that.
When anyone speaks from experience they are not stating fact. Even if the memory is vivid, it's not fact. It's only likely to be half-truth. It really doesn't matter what Court TV does, first of all it's a television show. You really need to talk to a neurobiologist.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"Another study looked at sixty-five cases of "erroneous criminal convictions of innocent people." In 45% of the cases, eyewitness mistakes were responsible (Borchard p. 367)."
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
When anyone speaks from experience they are not stating fact. Even if the memory is vivid, it's not fact. It's only likely to be half-truth. It really doesn't matter what Court TV does, first of all it's a television show. You really need to talk to a neurobiologist.
Pay attention: If I WAS HELD AT GUNPOINT (factually) and I state that I was held at gunpoint, I am stating a fact.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'll give you that most of the time a person stating "I was held at gunpoint" is probably right, but not always.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Really? Can you provide references? I'd love to read them. I doubt very much that you'd be able to observe any significant anatomical changes between us and people 2000 years ago. We may be taller, but I'd imagine its just because we eat better than they did. PS. hairstyles don't count as significant changes.
But yes. As far as I can tell. Evangelism = lunacy.
Actually there's an enormous amount of evidence to support our short-term development. Consider that we've been literate and keeping records for long before the time of Christ..
I read a story in the Arabian Knights the other day about a king's wife having orgies with slaves where she chose a certain well-endowed black man (by the way, these stories are old as hell if you didn't know). The liner notes via translation read that the translator heard that black men sometimes measured "nearly six inches in length!". If that's not Darwinism I don't know what is.
Yea, except AIDS and "environment related cancers" aren't genetically hereditary. HIV yes, but it's only one step to AIDS. I also think we will have these things cured within the next few million years. I mean, we are about one step from curing HIV.
It's difficult to predict how we will evolve.
Sexual selection, I'm not so sure, I hesitated to post it, but even ugly people get together.
The point is that our suceptibility to all kinds of diseases is affected by our genes. This includes infectious diseases like HIV, influenza etc, and non-infectious diseases like most cancers. As the world changes, there are always new pressures being applied to humans, and those who have a genetic advantage are more likely to pass those advantages on to the next generation.
Selection isn't black and white. Its too simplistic to think of natural selection that way. We prefer to think of dramatic examples of cataclysmic events that wipe out entire sections of a population, because then the change in the population is easy to visualise. In reality however, most selection pressures are small, as are their effects.
And yes, you're right that its difficult to predict how we will evolve. I really believe that we're only a few more generations away from really being in control of our own evolution. Sooner or later the first genetically modified humans will be born, and once that happens, even the sky probably won't be the limit on where we might end up.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
The point is that our suceptibility to all kinds of diseases is affected by our genes. This includes infectious diseases like HIV, influenza etc, and non-infectious diseases like most cancers. As the world changes, there are always new pressures being applied to humans, and those who have a genetic advantage are more likely to pass those advantages on to the next generation.
Selection isn't black and white. Its too simplistic to think of natural selection that way. We prefer to think of dramatic examples of cataclysmic events that wipe out entire sections of a population, because then the change in the population is easy to visualise. In reality however, most selection pressures are small, as are their effects.
And yes, you're right that its difficult to predict how we will evolve. I really believe that we're only a few more generations away from really being in control of our own evolution. Sooner or later the first genetically modified humans will be born, and once that happens, even the sky probably won't be the limit on where we might end up.
Hehe, well I'm a little confused why we can gentically modify drosophila but we can't in humans. Maybe it's ethical. I'm certainly not opposed to it.
I had wondered about our removing ourselves from evolution by curing or suspending disease. If a person is born with a genetic modification that they can adapt to, then they might pass it on. I know one example of a man having 100 kids, he and 50 of his kids developed colon cancer from a genetic trait. Though, I didn't do the proper math to determine if that was really threatening to our species, but I can imagine it might be.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Further: If I am held at gunpoint, and I observe and experience being held at gunpoint, this is empirical knowledge. I do not need you or a scientist there studying me in order for this to be empirical knowledge. This is knowledge I have observed and experienced, stemming from sensory input=empirical. It is different than me thinking abstractly or imagining being held at gunpoint.
"The term "empiricism" has a dual etymology. It comes from the Greek word εμπειρισμός, the Latin translation of which is experientia, from which we derive the word experience." --wikipedia. There is some pretty heavy philosophy on the use of empiricism on wikipedia--those crazy hippie, new age philosophers!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
measured "nearly six inches in length!". If that's not Darwinism I don't know what is.
Maybe the reputation of black guys is just unfounded?
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
I can't discuss this logically with you, because you don't understand the logic.
Since you seem to gloss over the facts, Ahnimus, with smokescreening, name calling, and degradation I wanted to present them in a straight-up manner. Maybe you will get my point. I'm guessing you'll gloss over it, though, and I can live with that.
In the end: If I am held at gunpoint, and I observe and experience being held at gunpoint, this is empirical knowledge. "The term "empiricism" has a dual etymology. It comes from the Greek word εμπειρισμός, the Latin translation of which is experientia, from which we derive the word experience." --wikipedia.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Further: If I am held at gunpoint, and I observe and experience being held at gunpoint, this is empirical knowledge. I do not need you or a scientist there studying me in order for this to be empirical knowledge. This is knowledge I have observed and experienced, stemming from sensory input=empirical. It is different than me thinking abstractly or imagining being held at gunpoint.
"The term "empiricism" has a dual etymology. It comes from the Greek word εμπειρισμός, the Latin translation of which is experientia, from which we derive the word experience." --wikipedia. There is some pretty heavy philosophy on the use of empiricism on wikipedia--those crazy hippie, new age philosophers!
A false memory is a memory of an event that did not happen or is a distortion of an event that did occur as determined by externally corroborated facts.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"It is common experience that human memory may be unreliable to some degree, whether by failing to remember at all or by remembering incorrectly.
Our sense of identity, of who we are and what we have done, is tied to our memories, and it can be disturbing to have those challenged."
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I find it kind of ironic that I was criticized for not making my own statements, but rather quoting facts. In the end, I have to quote facts to get my point across.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Since you seem to gloss over the facts, Ahnimus, with smokescreening, name calling, and degradation I wanted to present them in a straight-up manner. Maybe you will get my point. I'm guessing you'll gloss over it, though, and I can live with that.
In the end: If I am held at gunpoint, and I observe and experience being held at gunpoint, this is empirical knowledge. "The term "empiricism" has a dual etymology. It comes from the Greek word εμπειρισμός, the Latin translation of which is experientia, from which we derive the word experience." --wikipedia.
I find it kind of ironic that if I make a false statement the board jumps all over me. But since you've repeated this false statement countless times, only one or two people have challenged you. It may be some kind of indication then that no one besides you has challenged me on this.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Maybe the reputation of black guys is just unfounded?
I think that to be the case.
Although, I would argue that black people have better DNA statistically speaking. With the exception of sickle-cell anemia and a few others.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Although, I would argue that black people have better DNA statistically speaking. With the exception of sickle-cell anemia and a few others.
Better? For what?
And sickle-cell anaemia has its advantages too. Malaria resistance.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That is called Adaptation. Adaptation and Evolution, though related and sometimes interdependent, are not the same thing.
Are you suggesting that sickle-cell anemia is the result of adaptation and not evolution?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I suppose, but it is a hereditary trait, wouldn't that imply evolution?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Great stuff. Re. the Y chromosome, it's predicted to dissapear completely within the next few million years. Its thought that the genes that confer maleness will eventually end up on another chromosome, and the Y chromosome will wither away and vanish completely.
http://www.reproduction-online.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/4/497
-C Addison
what?
http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
Then we will see an increase in Rett's that's not good.
Personally I like have one X and one Y, but I guess we can't argue with evolution.
My question is how is evolution in humans possible without natural/sexual selection?
We're talking several million years down the track. If humans are still around then, we will most likely have taken control of our own evolution by manipulating our own genome anyway. I don't think Rett's sydrome would be an issue anymore.
Natural and sexual selection still acts on humans. We all select partners to mate with. To put it simply, being ugly is a disadvantage when it comes to passing on your genetic material. As for natural selection pressures, think HIV, environment related cancers, changing diets and lifestyles. We may not be running from lions anymore, but there are always pressures on us that can affect our chances of surviving long enough to have kids and pass on our genes.
-C Addison
Yea, except AIDS and "environment related cancers" aren't genetically hereditary. HIV yes, but it's only one step to AIDS. I also think we will have these things cured within the next few million years. I mean, we are about one step from curing HIV.
It's difficult to predict how we will evolve.
Sexual selection, I'm not so sure, I hesitated to post it, but even ugly people get together.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Angelica, that's not how it works.
I'm actually surprised that you believe that.
When anyone speaks from experience they are not stating fact. Even if the memory is vivid, it's not fact. It's only likely to be half-truth. It really doesn't matter what Court TV does, first of all it's a television show. You really need to talk to a neurobiologist.
"Another study looked at sixty-five cases of "erroneous criminal convictions of innocent people." In 45% of the cases, eyewitness mistakes were responsible (Borchard p. 367)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You would be better at identifying the weapon than the criminal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_focus
I'll give you that most of the time a person stating "I was held at gunpoint" is probably right, but not always.
I read a story in the Arabian Knights the other day about a king's wife having orgies with slaves where she chose a certain well-endowed black man (by the way, these stories are old as hell if you didn't know). The liner notes via translation read that the translator heard that black men sometimes measured "nearly six inches in length!". If that's not Darwinism I don't know what is.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
The point is that our suceptibility to all kinds of diseases is affected by our genes. This includes infectious diseases like HIV, influenza etc, and non-infectious diseases like most cancers. As the world changes, there are always new pressures being applied to humans, and those who have a genetic advantage are more likely to pass those advantages on to the next generation.
Selection isn't black and white. Its too simplistic to think of natural selection that way. We prefer to think of dramatic examples of cataclysmic events that wipe out entire sections of a population, because then the change in the population is easy to visualise. In reality however, most selection pressures are small, as are their effects.
And yes, you're right that its difficult to predict how we will evolve. I really believe that we're only a few more generations away from really being in control of our own evolution. Sooner or later the first genetically modified humans will be born, and once that happens, even the sky probably won't be the limit on where we might end up.
-C Addison
Hehe, well I'm a little confused why we can gentically modify drosophila but we can't in humans. Maybe it's ethical. I'm certainly not opposed to it.
I had wondered about our removing ourselves from evolution by curing or suspending disease. If a person is born with a genetic modification that they can adapt to, then they might pass it on. I know one example of a man having 100 kids, he and 50 of his kids developed colon cancer from a genetic trait. Though, I didn't do the proper math to determine if that was really threatening to our species, but I can imagine it might be.
Further: If I am held at gunpoint, and I observe and experience being held at gunpoint, this is empirical knowledge. I do not need you or a scientist there studying me in order for this to be empirical knowledge. This is knowledge I have observed and experienced, stemming from sensory input=empirical. It is different than me thinking abstractly or imagining being held at gunpoint.
"The term "empiricism" has a dual etymology. It comes from the Greek word εμπειρισμός, the Latin translation of which is experientia, from which we derive the word experience." --wikipedia. There is some pretty heavy philosophy on the use of empiricism on wikipedia--those crazy hippie, new age philosophers!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Maybe the reputation of black guys is just unfounded?
-C Addison
In the end: If I am held at gunpoint, and I observe and experience being held at gunpoint, this is empirical knowledge. "The term "empiricism" has a dual etymology. It comes from the Greek word εμπειρισμός, the Latin translation of which is experientia, from which we derive the word experience." --wikipedia.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory
A false memory is a memory of an event that did not happen or is a distortion of an event that did occur as determined by externally corroborated facts.
Our sense of identity, of who we are and what we have done, is tied to our memories, and it can be disturbing to have those challenged."
I find it kind of ironic that if I make a false statement the board jumps all over me. But since you've repeated this false statement countless times, only one or two people have challenged you. It may be some kind of indication then that no one besides you has challenged me on this.
I think that to be the case.
Although, I would argue that black people have better DNA statistically speaking. With the exception of sickle-cell anemia and a few others.
Better? For what?
And sickle-cell anaemia has its advantages too. Malaria resistance.
-C Addison
Well, yea, malaria resistance is the basis of the evolutionary change. Which is good in some places.
Ok, I apologize for quoting a textbook, I couldn't remember everything :(
Cystic fibrosis (CF)
1 in 2,500 Caucasian births; 1 in 15,000 African-American births.
Phenylketonuria (PKU)
1 in 10,000 Caucasian births; rare in children of African or Asian ancestry
Tay-Sachs disease
1 in 3,600 births to Jews of European descent and French Canadians
(Kuller, Cheschier, & Cefalo, 1996; Strachan & Read, 1996)
That's all
That is called Adaptation. Adaptation and Evolution, though related and sometimes interdependent, are not the same thing.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Are you suggesting that sickle-cell anemia is the result of adaptation and not evolution?
It's quite possible that it is neither.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I suppose, but it is a hereditary trait, wouldn't that imply evolution?
Environment plays a role, too. And when I say "environment" I mean the full spectrum.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.