Artificially Created and Reproducing Virus
You want some salt, pepper, and ketchup to go with that foot ????
If I remember correctly, sickle-cell anemia is a recessive gene. If a person receives one gene, he gets the benefit of increased resistance to malaria. If he is unfortunate enough to get both genes, the effects are not beneficial and lead to a young death.
So, having one SCA gene is beneficial, while having both is not.
SSA's predominance is due to it's beneficial effect. In regions where amlaria is pandemic, those with SSA survive. Folks with normal hemoglobin do not. They die.
You missed that in my first post. That means you're selectively ignoring the significance of variability between the genetic code of parents and progeny. The preponderance of a particular code for a species means that code is either essentially neutral, or beneficial. That means that fact it has a code at all, means it's a beneficial collection.
"If you can create life from non-living matter"
All life is composed of the arrangement of nonliving particles assembled in a particular way. Reverse engineering of life involves knowing and understanding the particulars of that assy. Actually creating life with a blueprint in hand proves nothing more than the bluprint is correct. Docs use the prints for parts and mechanisms on a regular basis to effect cures and fixes. It is science.
"Take the condition of sickle cell anemia."My favorite example of a beneficial mutation nowadays is the Apo-AI Milano mutation. This is found in a few people in a village outside of Milano, Italy. These people make a super-HDL cholesterol which scrubs their arteries free of plaques even when they have high cholesterol numbers. A synthesized form of this new, improved HDL recently went thru Stage II tests and stunned everybody. You can find links to news items regarding it here.You're using a genetic mutation that has negative consequences as an example to bolster an argument of evolution? Evolution by natural selection requires BENEFICIAL mutations. Find a clear case of actual genetic mutation (not the emergence or suppression of pre-existing genetic traits) that has a beneficial effect.
Another beneficial mutation (for which I am personally thankful) is lactose tolerance. Everybody assumes that lactose intolerance is the mutation, but the evidence strongly points to lactose intolerance being our default condition, and lactose tolerance being the more recent mutation.
You're using a genetic mutation that has negative consequences as an example to bolster an argument of evolution? Evolution by natural selection requires BENEFICIAL mutations.
You might want to try actually reading the post you were responding to. It specifically mentions:
Folks with SSA live much longer with malaria than folks with normal hemoglobin, because the parasite infested red blood cells of SSA victims don't plug the capillaries up like normal ones do.If "living much longer with malaria" isn't a benefit, what *would* you call it?
Furthermore, you're wrong when you say, "Evolution by natural selection requires BENEFICIAL mutations." That's the most common method, sure, but it's not "required". For example, evolution can proceed via genetic drift of neutral mutations with natural selection merely weeding out the harmful mutations.
Nor is "natural selection" the only driving force in evolution.
Straw man much?