I definitely disagree with that.For instance, I believe there's an allele which is now very common in Africa, which was unknown a few decades ago, which confers a much greater protection against malaria.
(,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 15:20,
archived)
yesin the 'developed' world there are less extreem selection processes, the most prevelant diseases, diabetes, heart attack etc, dont typically prevent reproduction, so more resistant genes cant be selected for
(
wjh31,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 15:30,
archived)
that'd besickle cell
if you're a carrier of the gene then you're protected against malaria, however if you've got two copies of it you've got an incredibly painful (and terminal if i remember correctly) blood disease, it's not a great mutation to have.
although, i get the point that the developing world isn't benefiting from the advancement of the human race, but i'd say that aid agencies and civil wars are still preventing evolution
(,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 15:41,
archived)
if you're a carrier of the gene then you're protected against malaria, however if you've got two copies of it you've got an incredibly painful (and terminal if i remember correctly) blood disease, it's not a great mutation to have.
although, i get the point that the developing world isn't benefiting from the advancement of the human race, but i'd say that aid agencies and civil wars are still preventing evolution
No, it's not sickle cell.That's been around for a long time. There's a new allele that's more effective against malaria and has no known bad side effect.
Edit: oh, and the blood disease you refer to is sickle cell anaemia.
(,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 17:20,
archived)
Edit: oh, and the blood disease you refer to is sickle cell anaemia.