Did you not just read my mention about areas w malaria is unheard of? What good is a "beneficial" sickle cell is such an area. Do you wish it upon your family in any case?
Did you not read the detailed descriptions of how mutations work? While some mutations are undoubtedly and always "bad", most mutations are neutral, while some mutations are "good" in one environment and "bad" in another. So it is with sickle cell.
Mutations that generate sickle cell have occured on multiple occassions. When they occured to populations that did not have malaria they were bad mutations. Natural selection weeded those mutations out of the population over a few generations. Where malaria was prevalent those mutations proved
on balance to be beneficial to the population and became more common. In that environment these mutations were "good" mutations.
Eradicate malaria in that area, or move the population to somewhere that malaria does not exist and the mutations are now a disadvantage, they are now "bad" mutations. This is not rocket science.
Would I wish sickle cell on my family
in any case? It seems that my extended family, if they live in a malaria prone area, will stand a better chance of avoiding an early death, or greatly compromised health if they have sickle cell. The statistics on this are quite clear. Yes, I would vote for the option that gave them the better chance of life and of a healthy life. I am at a loss to understand why you choose the option that puts them at greater risk. It seems perverse, so I have to imagine you still don't understand the principle.
