If two people with the Sickle Cell gene procreate, then the progeny will be affected by the full blown disease. Therefore, the immunity will be bred out of existence when more, and more people populate. Where's the ambiguity in that?
NJ,
It's fundamental mistakes like this that is making it almost impossible for you to understand genetics and to understand the theory of evolution (not neccesarily accept it but to understand it) you need to take some time to learn basic genetics.
If two people each of whom only has one chromosome with the sickle cell gene mate the odds are 1 in 4 (there may be somethings that modify those odds, I will confess my genetic knowledge is growing dated) that a child will get both genes and thus develope sickle cell anemia. The odds are again 1 in 4 that the child won't get copies of the sickle cell gene at all and so can't pass them along, and 50/50 that it will carry one gene.
I don't enjoy the math part but you can't just skip over it with "extremely unlikelys". How likely is it to win the Powerball lottery? How many people have won the lottery?
But the clincher is, a beneficial mutation is so rare, and so sparingly understood, that the liklihood of it propagating a mcaroevolutionary method is extremely unlikely even in one population, let alone, all of them. I then went on to say that all mutations are deemed 'harmful' to the body and that the body treats all mutations as detrimental. DNA repair exists for a reason. I'm not sure what you are even arguing against.
In terms of genetics the genes we are concerned about are the egg and sperm cells. Mutations elsewhere are not going to be transmitted to offspring.
It is beginning to sound to me like you are trying to argue away evolution without first understanding basic genetics and all I see you doing is creating a mixed up muddle. I don't mean this as an unfriendly criticism but as serious advice: learn about genetics and how it works and how it's studied.
lfen
™ Version 4.2
