3 ms·
But aren't you describing a statistical side effect? It's not as though this mutation imparts a 100% chance of having sickle cell anemia. If 87.5% (carriers a
by nkozyra 9y ago
But aren't you describing a statistical side effect? It's not as though this mutation imparts a 100% chance of having sickle cell anemia. If 87.5% (carriers and non carriers) survive significantly longer due to malaria resistance and 12.5% lack that extended lifespan due to anemia, isn't it still an advantage overall?
- Lordarminius 9y agodeleted
- nkozyra 9y agoWhat I'm saying is even if it was 100% infant mortality, the statistical odds of getting it still leaves the malarial resistance as a genetic advantage.
- Lordarminius 9y agoSorry. I don't get your point. Assuming 100% mortality, how could there possibly be an advantage if the genes of the afflicted cannot be propagated ?
- tysonzni 9y agoPeople who have sickle cell anemia still have a life expectancy of years (>40 in US). On the other hand, getting malaria usually means you mortality is measured in days not years. Everyone has a "100% mortality" but the window of survival differs between diseases.
- nkozyra 9y agoBecause not every person with the mutation gets sickle cell anemia. There is essentially a genetic burn rate that is less than the fitness imparted via malarial resistance.