Posted on 12/10/2006 2:44:11 PM PST by Alter Kaker
Not true. People may have the gene that allows them digest lactose as children, but if you lock a man without the mutation that in a room with nothing but milk, he'll never be able to digest it no matter how long you leave him there, no matter how great the need. A mutation has to occur.
People keep calling it a mutation. Why is that? I am thinking the concept of recessive genes may be a mitigating factor here, coupled with previous rarity of the gene.
IOW, this article is opinion.
"They're trying to find themselves an audience. Their deductions need applause." - Genesis: The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway.
No need. It won't matter if your eyes are closed...
It's an additional food source in a famine. Being able to drink milk could easily be the the difference between life and death.
>>If evolution takes place on the small scale, then clearly something (again I'm picturing God with a big OFF button of the color of your choice) actively intervenes to stop it after a certain point.<<
I disagree. We are not talking about speciation here. We are only talking about natural selection and evolution of the "population" as a unit, not the individual members of the population. No evolution took place here in that sense.
Your statement also assumes that any evidence of small scale evolution ipso-facto proves large scale evolution. It doesn't. It only implies it or, more precicely, leads some to infer it. It is opinion, which is fine. We all have one. But when it is discussed as proven fact by some (not suggesting you did it here though), it causes others to bristle.
No, he can't, but what if this happens with his grandchildren:
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461547549_761564762_-1_1/Recessive_Gene_Transmission.html
Seems that 'evolution' went through an awful lot of trouble building the 'childhood lactose tolerance with subsequent switch-off' system when it is such an obvious 'advantage' not to have it.
It was "snake root" and was responsible for the death of many of the early settlers in the Midwest including Abe Lincoln's mother.
I fail to understand how the evidence is convincing that the genes followed diligently such a commonsense assumption that after weaning, the enzyme would be no longer needed and then made unavailable.
Humans consume many things that are not perfectly digestible without any great ill effect.
The domestication of mammal herds makes available a source of excess milk but by itself doesn't prove that the enzyme had remained switched off thousands of years before.
Absolutely true, I gave you a specific example. And a mutation is a change. What do you think turning something on or off is? It is a change. Here is the composition of HUMAN breast milk.
Major nutrients. Lactose, 5.5-6.0g/dL, is the most constant nutrient in human milk (Table I). Its concentration in breast milk is not affected by maternal nutrition. Proteins amount to about 0.9g/dL in mature milk.[12]Recent studies comparing the impact of nutrition on lactation in industrialized and developing countries suggest that neither maternal diet nor body composition affects milk protein level.[1] However, limited data from earlier studies seem to indicate that short-term, high-protein diets can increase the protein and nonprotein nitrogen content of human milk,[13] while limiting maternal food intake can lead to lower milk protein levels.[13-15]
Lactose tolerance is the mutation.
Lactose intolerance is the normal biological system.
"However, certain human populations have undergone a mutation on chromosome 2 which results in a bypass of the common shutdown in lactase production, allowing members of these populations to continue consumption of fresh milk and other milk products throughout their lives."
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Lactose_intolerance
Lactose tolerance is just a normal 'loss-of-function' mutation. Nothing supporting evolution here.
Wow, an actual reasoned response. OK, that makes sense. Believe it or not, I have no problem with that part. A certain trait, already present, becomes dominant among one group when they are able to procreate more successfully than the other group. Just for the sake of info, how do these researchers know when this took place? It seems to me that knowing when a particular gene moderator became the dominant expressed trait in any group, has to be, well... questionable?
I don't tolerate high amounts of alcohol like I used to. Am I evolving?
I don't think so. Mother's milk is lactose rich. The ability to metabolize the sugar is innate. Look at the computation example for E. Coli. It is in my post 79.
Do you know how long 3.5 billion years is? Can anyone really grasp such a huge number? I can't accept evolution as fact because there is no proof that it's fact. There are tons of fossils, lots of evidence of what happened, with some pretty good evidence of when it happened, but practically nothing but raw speculation, ever changing, about how it happened. Creation is an obvious answer; if a thing exists, it must have been created. We know that hydrogen didn't evolve, that it was somehow created. We know that sub-atomic particles didn't evolve, that they were created. We know that all the evo theories of how life began have never been recreated in any lab, despite some very earnest tries. Things that exist were somehow created. That leads me to believe that there is a creator. This simple logic has yet to be intelligently refuted by evolution apologists. Tell me how the first bits of life came about. Then show me your proof. Tell me why, if simple organisms can spontaneously pop into existence, that more complex organisms can't also pop into existence? How do you know that species didn't just show up, whole and unevolving, all at once? For all science knows, our creator is still creating different species, all the time. The evidence for evolution fits this perfectly. And you wonder why folks question your theories.
'La bonne cuisine est la base du véritable bonheur.' - Auguste Escoffier
(Good food is the foundation of genuine happiness.)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Since evolution is generally considered in the context of speciation I don't think you can call selective breeding "evolution" unless you can cite a case where selective breeding has actually resulted in a new species that cannot interbreed with its ancestral stock.
"Even American Indians regularly milked wild bison"
Can you link to a source. I have a hard time envisioning anyone getting close to a 2000 lb wild animal (with a baby since otherwise she wouldn't be lactating) and milking it.
I'm genuinely curious, I grew up on the Great Plains and have never heard this before. Maybe I can learn something new....
Who created the creator? After all, if something exists, it must have a creator.
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.