it just shows how intricate and complex gene regulatory networks are.
I meant multiple independent mutations in the same gene which causes cystic fibrosis. This shows multiple events where the mutation came about and is leading to a negative selection pressure without dying out within a couple of generations like you mentioned it would.
I am not understanding how those stats support your point. People are living longer with cystic fibrosis because of modern treatment techniques not because of a positive evolutionary change to their genome.
Yes with the principles of natural selection there is going to be a increase in the number of people with the cystic fibrosis gene since more are living to reproduce but as a result it leaves their decedents weaker not stronger genetically.
That was my point exactly. The multiple mutations of the same gene that lead to conditions such as cystic fibrosis are not neutral. They cause an alteration on the phenotype (the condition). If it were not for the advances in medical science, as the stats show with life expentacy at 14 in the 80s, such mutated genomes would hardly be able to reproduce. Hence, natural selection would (in a great enough generation span) take care of it. In the end it's a numbers game influenced by factors we don't clearly understand, yet.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree with the principles of natural selection. Whether they are enough to create macro-evolution of organs and appendages is actually up for debate and not proven.
I think that I mainly just took exception to the
Comment since it assumes that conserved mutations are only going to be positive. And then by your definition are no longer neutral genetic drift rather positive mutations so you can't say that genetic drift is positive.
Just curious if you recognize the faith aspect of natural selection that you hold there?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit