Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution
New York Times ^ | 10 December 2006 | Nicholas Wade

Posted on 12/10/2006 2:44:11 PM PST by Alter Kaker

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-179 next last
To: Alter Kaker

If it's 3000 years ago, why does the Bible describe Canaan as a "land flowing with milk and honey"? Doesn't that quotation predate 1000 BC?


41 posted on 12/10/2006 7:30:56 PM PST by TenthAmendmentChampion (Pray for our President and for our heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Migraine
Now, at last, I know what "The lacteal fluid extracted from the female of the bovine species is highly prolific to the Nth degree", was referencing...

Hey mister, how is the cow???

42 posted on 12/10/2006 7:42:56 PM PST by USMA '71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

Selective breeding is evolution, but it isn't Darwinian evolution, because the selection is artificial and isn't natural.


43 posted on 12/10/2006 7:54:30 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

What what?


44 posted on 12/10/2006 8:18:09 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: TenthAmendmentChampion
If it's 3000 years ago, why does the Bible describe Canaan as a "land flowing with milk and honey"? Doesn't that quotation predate 1000 BC?

The milk in the Bible is goat's milk, which is much easier to digest than cow's milk.

45 posted on 12/10/2006 8:20:56 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Most interesting.


46 posted on 12/10/2006 8:24:07 PM PST by Ciexyz (Satisfied owner of a 2007 Toyota Corolla.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; AndrewC; ..


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debate and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution debate - from the young-earth creationist perspective.
To to get on or off this list (currently the premier list for creation/evolution news!), freep-mail me:
Add me / Remove me



Still human beings, with a mutation acting on what's already there. This isn't anything that helps out neodarwinian evolution at all.
47 posted on 12/10/2006 8:36:07 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger ("I am here to fight evil and exchange good-natured barbs." - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
natural selection would have favored anyone with a mutation that kept the lactose gene switched on.
Natural selection (better known as ramdom variation)would not favor anyone it selects, and how would it know to select milk drinkers. Natural selection is a random act that brings everything back to the average.

Such a mutation is known to have arisen among an early cattle-raising people,
All right which one of them was there because they have the key to long life. Known to have is a definitive statement that can not be made there is know way scientifically to prove that a mutation happened and when.

But the 3000 year thing is close to Biblical flood time of around 4500 years when God told man to eat meat.
48 posted on 12/10/2006 8:49:20 PM PST by Creationist ( Evolution created it all from nothing in 15 billion years. Thats' not religious faith?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Recombinant DNA technology will shortly produce an animal that looks like a cat on the outside but tastes like chicken on the inside.

Of course, there will be a few detours. Like an animal that looks like a chicken on the outside but tastes like cat on the inside.

49 posted on 12/10/2006 9:07:26 PM PST by Erasmus (Go to Sebastopol and Crimea River.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

OK, just one question: Why did our ancestors bother to domesticate milk cows, when they couldn't digest the milk in the first place? Did they know that some day, they would become lactose tolerant? If this is evolution, wouldn't that mean our ancestors had to be drinking milk, as adults, for a long time, in the hope that some day their children, or grandchildren, etc, would mutate that gene? Wow, our ancestors were VERY forward thinking.


50 posted on 12/10/2006 10:09:25 PM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

"I don't believe anybody's ever claimed cats turn into birds or lizards turn into zebras."

No, nothing that crazy, they just claim that prokaryotes turned into humans. You're right to point out how delusional any poster is if they joke about how lizards turned into zebras. Clearly, it was dinosaurs that turned into zebras. There, now we've straightened out that problem.


51 posted on 12/10/2006 10:16:18 PM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: labette

Human tastes are not necessarily shared by animals. For instance, goats like the taste of poison ivy.


52 posted on 12/10/2006 10:26:49 PM PST by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon Liberty, it is essential to examine principles, - -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

I guess that's why they can't duplicate Darwinism in the lab--cause that wouldn't be natch'rl.


53 posted on 12/11/2006 3:53:10 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: jim35
Why did our ancestors bother to domesticate milk cows, when they couldn't digest the milk in the first place?

1. Presumably they didn't originally domesticate cattle for milk, they domesticated them for meat.

2. As has already been noted, early humans could digest milk products, just not raw milk -- cheese and butter and fermented milk (tastes nasty but will keep you alive) were always edible.

54 posted on 12/11/2006 7:18:36 AM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: jim35
No, nothing that crazy, they just claim that prokaryotes turned into humans.

And it only took 3.5 billion years, too. Nobody pretends that a prokaryote will grow two arms and two legs over night and graduate from the Harvard Law School. Your incredulousness stems from a poverty of vision on your part, not from any problem with evolutionary theory.

55 posted on 12/11/2006 7:22:43 AM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

OK, lessee if I've got this right: humans, who already had domesticated cattle for meat, cheese, butter and fermented milk, selected a gene that would allow them to digest whole cow milk, in order to have better nutrition, by being around milk. Not drinking it after a certain age, just by being around it. And this tolerance for that dairy product, unlike those other dairy products, made them candidates for survival, while those who... didn't stand close enough to the whole milk... died before reproducing. It makes perfect sense. Those creationist idiots will probably make fun of that logic.


56 posted on 12/11/2006 7:29:09 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Creationist
Natural selection (better known as ramdom variation)

No, natural selection isn't random variation. You're confusing mutation (which sometimes occurs because of random variation) with natural selection, which is something altogether different.

would not favor anyone it selects, and how would it know to select milk drinkers.

On the contrary, if milk drinkers were better nourished than their non-milk drinking neighbors, then they would be more likely to survive to reproductive maturity and natural selection would certainly favor them.

Natural selection is a random act that brings everything back to the average.

You got it backwards. Better genes tend to survive. If someone has mutated genes that increase their chances of survival over the average, natural selection will favor them.

how would it know to select milk drinkers

It doesn't. People who are better nourished are more likely to survive. People who can drink milk are more likely to be well nourished. That's natural selection.

. But the 3000 year thing is close to Biblical flood time of around 4500 years when God told man to eat meat.

Did you read the article? There were at least two independent mutations. One that allowed East Africans to drink milk, about 3000 years ago. An earlier mutation allowed Northern Europeans to drink milk, 6000 years ago. You are really a one-track record --- you'll read your creation myth into anything. If you were a contestant on Jeopardy, I suspect every answer would be "What is the Noahic flood."

57 posted on 12/11/2006 7:34:23 AM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

"Your incredulousness stems from a poverty of vision on your part, not from any problem with evolutionary theory."

Yep, it's my own inability to accept the impossible that makes me so stubborn. It couldn't be that evolution can never answer the big questions, like how did life form from inanimate matter? I'll tell you what. You get all your PhD's together, gather up all the water, oxygen, nutrients, and anything else you want, all of it inanimate, and make a single-celled form of life, then give me a call.


58 posted on 12/11/2006 7:34:44 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

It's very easy to spot evidence of recent human evolution. Some humans evolved...the rest remained democrats.


59 posted on 12/11/2006 7:36:21 AM PST by TruthWillWin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jim35
OK, lessee if I've got this right: humans, who already had domesticated cattle for meat, cheese, butter and fermented milk, selected a gene that would allow them to digest whole cow milk, in order to have better nutrition, by being around milk.

Humans didn't do anything. A mutation just happened in an individual, and the offspring of that individual were able to receive better nutrition than the offspring of other individuals without the mutation.

Standing close to whole milk didn't do anything -- the mutation would have occured in any event. However, in a culture without cattle, the mutation would have not been beneficial and would have conferred no benefit on individuals with the mutated gene. In that circumstance, the gene would have probably disappeared. Selection is what favors a particular random mutation within a given environemnt.

60 posted on 12/11/2006 7:41:41 AM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-179 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson