As for your response linking Mendel’s patterns of inheritance to mutations, I would suggest that textbook Mendelian inheritance is more a matter of recessive and dominate genes, and the role of mutations in this case appears to be marginal.

Why do I think it to be true, and quite the opposite of what you’ve implied? Firstly, the stability or recoverability, of the species system in question relies on information being retained, not tossed out. For instance, how does one go about proving that a favorable arrangement of genes was at one time “new” information, without simultaneously disproving the very genetic principles that have kept the genes ‘in the family’ for all these generations? “Blending”, you see, was part of the original Darwinian hypothesis. And the fact that ancestors with the gene which breaks down cholesterol didn’t produce an “intermediate form”, representing both the parent carrying the gene and the parent who did not, shows exactly why Mendelian genetics is a better approach for a systematic biology over Darwinian evolution. Iow–they are not even the same thing.

All such things considered, if we all do happen to be mutants, (as you’ve implied) and no one person is not a mutant, then how does one disprove said hypothesis? There’s just no means for a falsification mechanism if ALL members of this community, and we, are mutants.

regards..

In a broader sense, we are all mutants. The DNA in our sex cells is constantly being modified by chemical mutagens like mercury and natural radiation sources like cosmic rays and many other reasons. The children who spring from these modified sex cells are literally all mutants but most of the time the effects of having a single modified gene is either invisible or tragically visible as some form of birth defect. The Apo is like a genetic winning lottery ticket – it is the rare instance where something good comes of the mutation. Evolution is based on the accumulation of such rare good mutations over generations and is the primary reason sex is worth all the trouble it causes in our lives.

Finally, thanks for your comment, “…tolerate cholesterol well…” because it shows a misconception on your part that trying to rectify uncovered a hazy area in my own area of understanding as well which I’ve since thought through. People don’t just “tolerate” cholesterol as something that only shows up uninvited in their bodies from stuff they eat. It is actually a hormone that is manufactured by the human body and is used as a building block in the manufacture of other hormones, such as testosterone. The way it gets into our food is that the animals we eat manufacture it for use in their bodies, and we tend to eat the parts of their bodies where their cholesterol concentrates, which throws off the balance of cholesterol we make for ourselves. That’s why I made my comment about French Fries, which are high in cholesterol only because they are cooked in animal fats high in cholesterol. There’s no reason why the gene for this new “mutant” cholesterol couldn’t be inserted into a genetically engineered potato. Fries made from such a potato would then contain cholesterol from two sources – the cooking fat (bad) and the inserted gene (good). Then our fixation with eating French fries could provide us all with a daily supply of this Apo-based cholesterol that would singlehandedly end heart disease in America. Pass the catsup.