Skip to comments.Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution
Posted on 12/10/2006 2:44:11 PM PST by Alter Kaker
click here to read article
I'm getting sentimental for the old street fights we used to have here.
From the info I've seen, milk naturally contains little Vit D...that's why it is fortified..though I suppose it would help supplement other things in the diet.
However little there is, you can use it.
No, error catastrophe is definable and the human genome is very close if not in reproductive error catastrophe.
"If the offspring have on the average one harmful mutation each, then the population will degenerate; this is called "error catastrophe." This puts a bound on how many non-neutral mutations can occur per generation. It cannot be much more than about one per generation, and in fact, it must be significantly less, since most non-neutral mutations are harmful."
"In man, the mutation rate per generation is high, the variability generated in the population is comparatively low, and most mutations are fixed by drift rather than selection. The variants of a gene are in general more deleterious than in E. coli. There is a discrepancy in the published mutation rates: the rate of mutation fixations in human populations is twice or four times higher than the individual rate of mutation production, a feature which is not consistent with current population genetics models."
"Observation suggests mutation rates are actually alarmingly high. Since mutations are harmful this means that error catastrophe is probably approaching for many species. One of the signs of genetic deterioration is infertility. Several studies have suggested that human infertility is increasing at 1.5% per annum. Infertility in some creatures (such as the Everglades alligator, and the Florida panther) is close to crisis point. If observed mutation rates are extrapolated back into the past one reaches the conclusion that life cannot have existed on earth for very long. If observed rates are projected into the future one must conclude that life does not have many centuries left. Observed mutation rates suggest that life is a short-term phenomenon."
A mutation is harmful or not harmful depending on how you look at it.
No I am not. I so stated. The gene for lactase is present and functional. A mutation does not "disable" that gene in the condition that we are discussing. What is "disabled" is the switching off of that gene. This gives the possessor of that mutation the ability to keep digesting the lactose later on in life. If you had read the article which I had posted you would also have realized that was mentioned in this.
Olds and Sibley (2003) characterized the functional role of the C/T(-13910) and G/A(-22018) (601806.0002) polymorphisms in regulating lactase gene transcription. Human intestinal cells were transfected with variant/promoter-reporter constructs and assayed for promoter activity. A 200-bp region surrounding the -13910C variant, associated with lactase nonpersistence, resulted in a 2.2-fold increase in lactase promoter activity. The -13910T variant, associated with lactase persistence, resulted in an even greater increase. The DNA sequence of the C/T(-13910) variants differentially interacted with intestinal cell nuclear proteins. The authors concluded that the DNA region of the C/T(-13910) lactase persistence/nonpersistence variant functions in vitro as a cis element capable of enhancing differential transcriptional activation of the lactase promoter.
Au contraire, it is not 'returned'. It never left in those individual genomes where the shut-down sequence is disabled.
You did not understand what I stated, because you are merely repeating what I stated. The quotes I put around the words I post are there for a reason.
What we are dealing with here is a complex system
Exactly my point. Look at my post 79. You are considering the situation as in figure one. I am explaining that the situation is like that in figure 3.
No, that's DEvolution!!!!!
Please read the links in my post 135. Adults possess the lactase gene. It is switched off. I'm not arguing that adults don't have lactase persistance. I'm stating that it was "computed" and not an accident.
The only thing that is evolving is evolution itself. Not a month goes by without reading some "New" B S.
"Who created the creator?"
Those kind of questions will always be with us. I believe that our creator has always been. I can't explain how this can be. No one can. We all just either take it on faith, one way or the other, or we just plain ignore the whole question. Personally, I take it on faith that our creator has always been, and always will be. Some things will never be revealed in our lives.
Yes, I know that. That's why I said the 'shut-down' sequence is disabled. The article I posted said that the change was in a regulatory site located close to the lac gene. I never said it was the lac gene.
"Exactly my point. Look at my post 79. You are considering the situation as in figure one. I am explaining that the situation is like that in figure 3."
And my point is that breakdowns in complex systems (including regulatory systems) are loss-of-function mutations that cannot be used to support evolution. IF, AND, and THEN operands are signs of intelligent-design in a complex system.
Except that I do not consider it loss of function, that is my point. Look at post 79 and the logic example given for the E. Coli metabolism of lactose. The reason I do not consider the situation a loss of function is that the process is evidently a contingency of the total "program" that metabolizes lactose. If the mutation had destroyed or created the "gene"(for an expressed protein) for the metabolism of lactose, the loss or gain of function would be more meaningful.
The darwinists are getting about as desperate as the researchers throwing millions of dollars at the futile search for the "gay gene". It's a terrible thing with science gets politicized.
When someone asks a question like this, it becomes easy to see why a simplistic mythological tale of how the Gods created the world and man is easier to believe than a fairly uncomplicated theory. Who wouldn't want things to be easily explained?
To answer the question: They didn't domesticate damn milk cows, they domesticated cattle to slaughter and eat. This was easier than running them down when they were hungry. How hard do you think it would have been to see that those big old calves were drinking from udders just like our tiny little humans were drinking from boobs? Next thing you know, they are trying it out themselves, giving their children lower mortality rates. It really isn't that hard to figure out.
It's stupid stuff like this that makes people want to go and vote for Democrats anyway. No wonder they think Republicans are stupid and that they are enlightened. It's just the same as how Christians disdain the Greek and Norse mythologies who also seek to explain creation with their own silly stories.
BTW, our most ancient sentient forebears, Homo Habilis, probably figured out the trick of catching a cow or ewe, hobbling its hind legs, and getting a free drink.
Could be even earlier.
But the trick is we didn't need to see the calf to know what to do ~ we are BORN with that information.
And the reason I do consider the situation a loss of function is because the 'program' was evidently designed to be able to continue to function even as it deteriorates. Fault-tolerance is built-in. That would be a 'contingency' to you.
As we all know, 'programs' have 'programmers' and fault-tolerance doesn't just appear out of the aether.
I guess you consider your lights are "broken" when you place the ON/OFF switch in the OFF position. ;-)
More accurately, I consider the lights to be broken when the OFF switch doesn't work and the lights stay in the ON position, yes.
What makes you think that?
There are references to goat's milk, true, but there are also many references to sheeps milk and to camel's milk. And there are many references to milk in which the type is not specified. It's clear that they raised cows and calves. It's not reasonable to think that they didn't drink the milk thereof.
Gen 18:7... Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk?
Interesting. Then you are apparently stating that the system is not an intelligent system just a broken one. In your case, I would say your switch was broken and the lights were fine, but whatever.
No, I am saying that the lactose-tolerance system in humans *is* an intelligently-designed system that has a broken switch.
You should be calling it a lactose intolerant system in that case. It is a lactose intolerant system with a broken switch which results in tolerance. I am stating it is a lactose metabolizing system which is normally switched off in the adult, but through environmental influences is switched back on. It may look like a mistake, but it is computed and the "mutation" is targeted, thus the appearance of convergent evolution in the isolated populations.
That's fine. Whatever works for you.
"I am stating it is a lactose metabolizing system which is normally switched off in the adult, but through environmental influences is switched back on. It may look like a mistake, but it is computed and the "mutation" is targeted, thus the appearance of convergent evolution in the isolated populations."
Yes, an IF, AND, THEN system that 'designed' itself independent of the properties of the matter it consists of. Never observed but always assumed.
You seem to have all the qualifications to be a star evolution scientist: arrogance, a healthy imagination (that will take you far in evolution theory!), and total disdain for skepticism. All bow down before Evolutia, the god of our prophet Darwin. All dissenters, be damned! OK, so they'd already domesticated cattle some 4000-6000 years before this gene supposedly became a dominant one, for purposes other than milk. But didn't they have to all start drinking the milk, for such a selection to occur? Or does that gene just activate, or not activate, the lactase producing cells, at random, and these folks were lucky enough to start drinking the milk while the gene was active? Picture all these cattle raising people, they figure out that calves, teat sucking a cow, is as good as babies, teat sucking the maternal breast, and BINGO, the idea takes root. Now, they don't have this gene activated yet... or do they? OK, half and half? Ten to one? One out of a thousand? Anyway, they all drink it, and either half, or one-tenth, or one-thousandth of them DON'T get the GI trots... so they all keep drinking it, procreate better, and outproduce the non-activators. Well, you got me. I'm just a real rube to be skeptical here. Maybe it was selected by... the whole group drinking milk, and the vast majority, who couldn't digest lactose, crapping themselves to death? Man, what was I thinking? Of course, I'm just a registered nurse, and a medical laboratory tech, so I must be a scientific ignoramus.