“Descent with modification through natural selection” is faith based.

Sickle cell trait describes a condition in which a person has one abnormal allele of the hemoglobin beta gene (is heterozygous), but does not display the severe symptoms of sickle cell disease that occur in a person who has two copies of that allele (is homozygous). Those who are heterozygous for the sickle cell allele produce both normal and abnormal hemoglobin

Sickle cell disease is a blood disorder wherein there is a single amino acid substitution in the hemoglobin protein of the red blood cells, which causes these cells to assume a sickle shape, especially when under low oxygen tension. Sickling and sickle cell disease also confer some resistance to malaria parasitization of red blood cells, so that individuals with sickle-cell trait (heterozygotes) have a selective advantage in environments where malaria is present.

More simply, heterozygous individuals have some resistance to malaria and low incidence of Sickle Cell Disease. This is an advantageous position which promotes heterozygotes in the population. A large number of heterozygous individuals will result in consequent homozygous individuals who exhibit full-blown Sickle disease but nevertheless typically survive to reproduce, unlike children who die of malaria.
The same applies here.

Malaria is most common in the African region which accounts for 93% of infections and 94% of deaths. In 2018 that would be 212M infected and 381K dead or a 0.18% death rate. This region also accounts for 70% of the world's children with SCA, with approx 310K births per year. The SCA childhood survival rate in Africa is 10% for children without access to treatment, and 50% with access to treatment. Of the remainder, 10% will be dead by 23 and the life expectance for the remaining males is 38, and female is 42.
So allow me to do the math for you. Without access to healthcare, which is the majority of the African region, 10 out of 100 will live to see their 12th birthday, of those ten, nine will live to see their 23rd birthday, who will then begin die off, not surpassing 38 -42. With access to healthcare which the majority cannot afford to pay for [remember there is no free healthcare] 50 out of 100 will live to see their 12th birthday, of those fifty, forty-five will then begin to die off, not surpassing 38-42. The life expectancy in Sub-Saharan Africa is 62 years.

The difference between you and me is that you believe sickle cell disease is beneficial. It is as beneficial as malaria or cancer. All diseases are bad. Similar to arguing that hemophilia is good because it drastically reduces the risk of forming blood clots, which bring about stokes, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, heart attacks, etc

And this is not evidence of NS. At the most you have a mutation that brings about a terrible disease, that helps with another.
 
You conflate the sickle cell trait, with its one negative consequence.
Sickle Cell anemia only happens to .01% of all carriers of Sickle Cell trait.
100% of people with Sickle Cell trait, are protected against malaria.
But .01% of them get sickle cell anemia.
Its a beneficial trade off.
If it was not for the high mortality rate and short life expectancy of SCA patients it would be a beneficial trade-off. You are basically arguing one disease is better than another.
 
Stop stalling and evading. General terms are not ambiguous terms. First you complained that my terms were not found in nature. Then you admitted they were found in nature but wrongly claimed that general terms are not allowed in scientific modelling. Now that you've failed to support that bizarre claim you're back to blabbering about them not being found in nature again. D+M-thru-NS is the model. It is perfectly clear and simple, and all of the components are terms found in nature.
Here is your model explaining D+M=NS

Descent means that organisms replicate. Modification means that through sexual reproduction and mutations, the offspring are not identical to their parents. Natural selection refers to the fact that where there is competition for resources, not all offspring will be equally successful at reproducing and passing their genes on to the next generation.

Let's analyze

"organisms" alone are not found in nature. Specific organisms are such as cat, dog, tree, bird act.
'mutations' are not found in nature = specific mutations are.
'offspring' not found in nature, bear cub, joey, chihuahua pup is.
"parents" not found in nature, a walrus bull is.

Can you point to organism? No, you point to a cat, dog, tree, bird, etc.
Can you point to mutation? No, you point to sickle cell, carcinoma
Can you point to offspring? No, you point to bear cub, joey, chihuahua pup.
Can you point to parent? No, you point to walrus bull, cow, etc.

Now if go back, I wrote that general terms are allowed in science, they are not allowed in scientific models. I never wrote they were found in nature.

Repost = General terms are allowed in science, they are not allowed in scientific models.
 

Temujin

Active member
The same applies here.

Malaria is most common in the African region which accounts for 93% of infections and 94% of deaths. In 2018 that would be 212M infected and 381K dead or a 0.18% death rate. This region also accounts for 70% of the world's children with SCA, with approx 310K births per year. The SCA childhood survival rate in Africa is 10% for children without access to treatment, and 50% with access to treatment. Of the remainder, 10% will be dead by 23 and the life expectance for the remaining males is 38, and female is 42.
So allow me to do the math for you. Without access to healthcare, which is the majority of the African region, 10 out of 100 will live to see their 12th birthday, of those ten, nine will live to see their 23rd birthday, who will then begin die off, not surpassing 38 -42. With access to healthcare which the majority cannot afford to pay for [remember there is no free healthcare] 50 out of 100 will live to see their 12th birthday, of those fifty, forty-five will then begin to die off, not surpassing 38-42. The life expectancy in Sub-Saharan Africa is 62 years.

The difference between you and me is that you believe sickle cell disease is beneficial. It is as beneficial as malaria or cancer. All diseases are bad. Similar to arguing that hemophilia is good because it drastically reduces the risk of forming blood clots, which bring about stokes, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, heart attacks, etc

And this is not evidence of NS. At the most you have a mutation that brings about a terrible disease, that helps with another.
You don't bother to read what was said or think about what it means. Your "maths" is entirely spurious. You ignore the heterozygous individuals, who carry the Sickle Cell trait but don't have symptoms. Neither do they get malaria. They are the beneficiaries in this scenario. Sadly for them, a proportion of their children will be homozygous and will have Sickle Cell, but even so they out reproduce the non-carriers who get malaria.
 

Nouveau

Active member
Here is your model explaining D+M=NS

Descent means that organisms replicate. Modification means that through sexual reproduction and mutations, the offspring are not identical to their parents. Natural selection refers to the fact that where there is competition for resources, not all offspring will be equally successful at reproducing and passing their genes on to the next generation.

Let's analyze

"organisms" alone are not found in nature. Specific organisms are such as cat, dog, tree, bird act.
'mutations' are not found in nature = specific mutations are.
'offspring' not found in nature, bear cub, joey, chihuahua pup is.
"parents" not found in nature, a walrus bull is.

Can you point to organism? No, you point to a cat, dog, tree, bird, etc.
Can you point to mutation? No, you point to sickle cell, carcinoma
Can you point to offspring? No, you point to bear cub, joey, chihuahua pup.
Can you point to parent? No, you point to walrus bull, cow, etc.

Now if go back, I wrote that general terms are allowed in science, they are not allowed in scientific models. I never wrote they were found in nature.

Repost = General terms are allowed in science, they are not allowed in scientific models.
I already addressed this stupidity.

Again, show me a source that says general terms are not allowed in scientific models.
 

rossum

Active member
The difference between you and me is that you believe sickle cell disease is beneficial.
Sickle cell disease is not the same as the sickle cell mutation.

We are talking about two different variants of the haemoglobin gene here. Normal haemoglobin (HbA) and the sickle cell variant (HbS).

We each get one copy of the gene from our mother and one copy from our father. That gives three possible results: HbA-HbA, HbA-HbS and HbS-HbS. The A-A variant is not susceptible to sickle cell disease but is susceptible to malaria. The A-S variant is not susceptible to malaria and also not susceptible to sickle cell disease. The S-S variant is not susceptible to malaria but is susceptible to sickle cell disease. It is the A-S variant which keeps the HbS mutation in the population because people with the A-S combination are resistant to malaria (the S) and don't get sickle cell disease (the A).
 

Temujin

Active member
Sickle cell disease is not the same as the sickle cell mutation.

We are talking about two different variants of the haemoglobin gene here. Normal haemoglobin (HbA) and the sickle cell variant (HbS).

We each get one copy of the gene from our mother and one copy from our father. That gives three possible results: HbA-HbA, HbA-HbS and HbS-HbS. The A-A variant is not susceptible to sickle cell disease but is susceptible to malaria. The A-S variant is not susceptible to malaria and also not susceptible to sickle cell disease. The S-S variant is not susceptible to malaria but is susceptible to sickle cell disease. It is the A-S variant which keeps the HbS mutation in the population because people with the A-S combination are resistant to malaria (the S) and don't get sickle cell disease (the A).
A better explanation than mine, but he will brush both away for using "terms not found in nature", whatever that means.
 
"Allowed" is the wrong choice of words. "Accepted" is a better choice of words.
Now to your stupidity. Your own rebuttal supports this.

The first sentence from your Wikipedia source. ="Scientific modeling is a scientific activity, the aim of which is to make a particular part or feature of the world easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize, or simulate by referencing it to existing and usually commonly accepted knowledge.
 
Sickle cell disease is not the same as the sickle cell mutation.

We are talking about two different variants of the haemoglobin gene here. Normal haemoglobin (HbA) and the sickle cell variant (HbS).

We each get one copy of the gene from our mother and one copy from our father. That gives three possible results: HbA-HbA, HbA-HbS and HbS-HbS. The A-A variant is not susceptible to sickle cell disease but is susceptible to malaria. The A-S variant is not susceptible to malaria and also not susceptible to sickle cell disease. The S-S variant is not susceptible to malaria but is susceptible to sickle cell disease. It is the A-S variant which keeps the HbS mutation in the population because people with the A-S combination are resistant to malaria (the S) and don't get sickle cell disease (the A).
I am aware of carrying the Sickle Cell trait and having Sickle Cell Dx. If both parents are A-S each offspring will have a 25% possibility of being A-A, 25% possibility of being S-S, and a 50% possibility of being A-S. In addition, there exist several other combinations that result in a small percentage of patients who have changes to the hemoglobin gene that limits the amount of oxygen RBC can carry. Does any of this change the fact that SCA is a horrible disease? And because it is a horrible disease, carrying the trait is not an advantage but a curse.

Do you agree with the following = hemophilia is good because it drastically reduces the risk of forming blood clots, which brings about strokes, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, heart attacks, etc.
 
A better explanation than mine, but he will brush both away for using "terms not found in nature", whatever that means.
You do not have a clue as to what a term found in nature is. Allow me to do your homework.

The highlighted are terms found in nature.
We each get one copy of the gene from our mother and one copy from our father. That gives three possible results: HbA-HbA, HbA-HbS and HbS-HbS. The A-A variant is not susceptible to sickle cell disease but is susceptible to malaria. The A-S variant is not susceptible to malaria and also not susceptible to sickle cell disease. The S-S variant is not susceptible to malaria but is susceptible to sickle cell disease. It is the A-S variant which keeps the HbS mutation in the population because people with the A-S combination are resistant to malaria (the S) and don't get sickle cell disease (the A).

Why? Because they are found in nature, you, Rossum, I can point to it, unlike descent with modification through NS which only exist in the imagination of the Darwinist.
 

Nouveau

Active member
"Allowed" is the wrong choice of words. "Accepted" is a better choice of words.
Now to your stupidity. Your own rebuttal supports this.

The first sentence from your Wikipedia source. ="Scientific modeling is a scientific activity, the aim of which is to make a particular part or feature of the world easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize, or simulate by referencing it to existing and usually commonly accepted knowledge.
No part of that Wikipedia page says anything about general terms not being allowed in scientific models.

Try again.
 

Nouveau

Active member
You do not have a clue as to what a term found in nature is.
Neither do you, apparently. As you keep refusing to define what you mean.
You gave 'parent' as an example of a term not found in nature, but we certainly can point at a parent.
Elsewhere you seem to think that a term has to be quantifiable to count, but that has nothing to do with what one can point at.
You seem deeply confused as to what you are even talking about.
 

Temujin

Active member
You do not have a clue as to what a term found in nature is. Allow me to do your homework.

The highlighted are terms found in nature.
We each get one copy of the gene from our mother and one copy from our father. That gives three possible results: HbA-HbA, HbA-HbS and HbS-HbS. The A-A variant is not susceptible to sickle cell disease but is susceptible to malaria. The A-S variant is not susceptible to malaria and also not susceptible to sickle cell disease. The S-S variant is not susceptible to malaria but is susceptible to sickle cell disease. It is the A-S variant which keeps the HbS mutation in the population because people with the A-S combination are resistant to malaria (the S) and don't get sickle cell disease (the A).

Why? Because they are found in nature, you, Rossum, I can point to it, unlike descent with modification through NS which only exist in the imagination of the Darwinist.
I note that you are unable to answer the point in rossum 's quote.

What is the definition of "terms found in nature"? Don't just give supposed examples. Give us a definition. Otherwise the cynical would assume that you are just arbitrarily forbidding certain terminology in order to protect an untenable position.
 

rossum

Active member
Does any of this change the fact that SCA is a horrible disease? And because it is a horrible disease, carrying the trait is not an advantage but a curse.
It is, but so is malaria. Heterozygotes with the A-S combination can avoid both, which is a definite advantage in malarial areas. Yes that mutation has disadvantages, but the disadvantages are outweighed by the advantages in malarial areas. Outside those areas then HbS is a disadvantage.

Do you agree with the following = hemophilia is good because it drastically reduces the risk of forming blood clots, which brings about strokes, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, heart attacks, etc.
In this case the disadvantages outweigh the advantages so overall the various haemophilia mutations are disadvantageous.

Natural selection balances advantages and disadvantages in the prevailing environment.
 

Mr Laurier

Active member
If it was not for the high mortality rate and short life expectancy of SCA patients it would be a beneficial trade-off. You are basically arguing one disease is better than another.
Actualy, I'm not. Sickle cell anemia only happens to fewer than .1% of people with the sickle cell trait.
Imunity for malaria, with a less than 1 in 1,000 chance of side effects... is a pretty good deal.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
There is nothing "upward" or benign about evolution. It is just a natural phenomenon involving the replication of inherited characteristics. It has no more moral sense than a tornado or a volcanic eruption. There is a species of octopus where the first act of the new-born is to devour their mother. The life cycle of parasitic wasps, indeed most parasites, is horrifyingly unpleasant. Yet it works to ensure that the inherited characteristics continue to be passed on. Sickle cell works to suppress malarial symptoms, so it persists.
Just casual labeling without lick of science.

You don't understand biology. Regurgitated talking points.

There is not a scientist living today that understands macroevolution.
 

Temujin

Active member
Just casual labeling without lick of science.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it untrue.

You don't understand biology. Regurgitated talking points.
See above. Any person with any medical knowledge or understanding would recognise the evolutionary advantages of Sickle Cell trait.

There is not a scientist living today that understands macroevolution.
Very true, as every single scientist living today recognises "macro-evolutionism" to be a fatuous "get-out-of-jail card" invented by creationists unable to deny the fact of actual evolution. The division of micro-evolution and macro-evolutionism is spurious and is not regarded by either biology or the scientists who study it.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
You don't bother to read what was said or think about what it means. Your "maths" is entirely spurious. You ignore the heterozygous individuals, who carry the Sickle Cell trait but don't have symptoms. Neither do they get malaria. They are the beneficiaries in this scenario. Sadly for them, a proportion of their children will be homozygous and will have Sickle Cell, but even so they out reproduce the non-carriers who get malaria.
You are a medical outsider. You have never seen a painful case of priapism from sickle cell anemia in surgery. So you have to run to wickie to get a response.
 
Top