Yeah, this article looked pretty interesting, but I wonder how much media-hype is involved here?
Two parts of the article I found interesting:
quote:
In the mother, one copy of the gene is mutated and the other is normal; the boy has two mutated copies. One almost definitely came from his father, but no information about him has been disclosed. The mutation is very rare in people.
The boy is healthy now, but doctors worry he could eventually suffer heart or other health problems.
I suppose only time will tell if this mutations has no ill effects, but if it doesn't, how will this affect that old creationist argument? The one that goes:
"We have never witnessed a mutation that was beneficial to the organism..."
I also wonder if he is really the first person to have this mutation. From the article it appears his mother and father both have a copy of the mutated gene; he has two copies. It's possible he's not unique (which goes back to my media hype question), even the article refers to the mutation as 'rare,' not unique.