 
|
 Return to the Guestbook |
| |
Guest |
Comments |
Date |
|
| |
Kyle
|
Alright Matt; willing to take on those odds for yourself? (50% probability of survival based on a defective/potentially fatal mutation that could pass on to your offspring if the genetic combination happens to favour the expression in full force of the ailment in question) Again, gaining a detrimental to delay an equally deadly or lesser condition is not quite macro or decidedly “beneficial”, to say the least. Ever notice that to get anywhere in this philosophical scheme, you have to run the risk of deathon the razor’s edge of genetic “chance”? Care to play those odds? Natural selection would take out the less fit or weak in several generations of this condition, hence the focus on how sickle cell anemia doesn’t fare very well as far as survivability oddsare concerned. This scenario has nonetheless been “Darwinized” to convince many of its effectiveness as a “beneficial in effect”, despite its obvious end conclusion after so many generations of proliferation in the genepool. |
3/24/2003 2:59:42 AM |
|
|
|
|
