The December 22, 2003, edition of New Scientist magazine carried an article called "Evolving with the Enemy." The article related the familiar relationship between certain people"s resistance to malaria and a mutation that affects the haemoglobin molecule, and went on to engage in evolutionist comments regarding this.
The December 22, 2003, edition of New Scientist magazine carried an article called "Evolving with the Enemy." The article related the familiar relationship between certain people"s resistance to malaria and a mutation that affects the haemoglobin molecule, and went on to engage in evolutionist comments regarding this.
This mutation which affects the structure of haemoglobin causes sickle-cell anaemia and thalassemia in human beings, but also provides protection against malaria infection. Emphasising this acquisition of protection, evolutionists suggest that the mutation in question is "beneficial" and fall into the error that they can cite it as an example of genetic data enhancing mutations, which Darwinism requires but has never been able to find.
The fact is, however, that the mutation in question does not increase genetic information, because it does not provide human beings with a new gene or protein, but actually damages them by leading to anaemia. The harm done by this mutation, which leads to serious and even deadly diseases in the body, causes death due to malnutrition of various organs and tissues in the body, and can spread by being transmitted to subsequent generations, is evident. However, evolutionists ignore all these facts and interpret the partial protection against malaria the illness provides as a "gift" of evolution. This is of course a most ridiculous interpretation. In the light of that logic one might claim that people born blind from birth will never have to drive cars and that the risk they face from dying in car accidents is thus significantly reduced. According to that irrational logic being born blind could even be regarded as a genetic gift. That viewpoint is just as illogical as evolutionists" comments regarding "beneficial mutation" in terms of sickle-cell anaemia.
Detailed information is provided in New Scientist about the structure of the mutation in question, its effects and the scientific process that led to its discovery. None of these, however, constitute evidence of "evolution" (in other words macro-evolution) in the sense envisaged by Darwinism.
In the same article, it was also stated that as well as the haemoglobin mutation other mutations could provide protection against various illnesses, and resistance to HIV virus was cited as an example of this. As in the haemoglobin mutation, this is also a phenomenon which does not increase genetic information and therefore constitutes no evidence for claims of evolution.
The striking point in the article is the way that New Scientist reports that the efforts of Darwinist scientists to come up with an evolutionary account of all illnesses starting from such mutations stem from a lack of evidence:
Recently, some researchers have attempted to interpret many, if not all, human diseases in evolutionary terms, and the new field of "evolutionary medicine" has appeared. . . This is highly speculative and based on little or no evidence at present.
This lack of evidence actually applies to the entire theory of evolution, not just "evolutionary medicine."
We trust that New Scientist will see this and will select the articles to appear in its pages accordingly.
