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

This makes a lot of intuitive sense. It's remarkable how well they've been able to pinpoint this specific evolutionary event.
1 posted on 12/10/2006 2:44:14 PM PST by Alter Kaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last
To: Alter Kaker

Why, the lactase must be active in every milksot and in every sucker.


2 posted on 12/10/2006 2:49:07 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alter Kaker
the Funnel Beaker culture

Wiped out by a tragic lab accident if I'm not mistaken.

3 posted on 12/10/2006 2:50:56 PM PST by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alter Kaker

3000 years ago? What has evolution done for us lately?


4 posted on 12/10/2006 2:56:09 PM PST by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alter Kaker

Lactose tolerance falls a little short of deriving a new species, but those Darwinists will take what they can get.

I, for one, can see how human development of tolerance for lactose demonstrates a process by which humans could have easily developed from single cell organisms. How could I have ever had any doubts.


5 posted on 12/10/2006 3:01:12 PM PST by vetsvette (Bring Him Back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alter Kaker

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...


7 posted on 12/10/2006 3:06:10 PM PST by Migraine (...diversity is great (until it happens to you)...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alter Kaker
Oh, my!

I drank lots of milk as a kid without any problem. In recent years, it's a risky endeavor.

Does this mean I'm devolving??!

8 posted on 12/10/2006 3:09:37 PM PST by labette (Give love to many and trust to few. Always paddle your own canoe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alter Kaker

All I can say is 'MOOOOOOOOOOOO'.


12 posted on 12/10/2006 3:28:34 PM PST by layman (Card Carrying Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alter Kaker

Wake me up when I develop X-ray vision


20 posted on 12/10/2006 4:04:08 PM PST by TheRedSoxWinThePennant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alter Kaker
But when cattle were first domesticated 9,000 years ago and people later started to consume their milk as well as their meat, natural selection would have favored anyone with a mutation that kept the lactase gene switched on.

Why would 'natural selection' favor someone who could drink milk?

25 posted on 12/10/2006 4:39:34 PM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alter Kaker

There is a significant amount of genetic variation between different etnic groups of humans. Blonde hair and blue eyes were and are a favorable mutation for northern European populations. Why? The paler complexion is more favorable to the absorption of UV light, needed for Vitamin D production.

However, for populations living in tropical regions, a dark skin is a favorable genetic variation. Why? For protection against much higher levels of UV light.

When the gene for sicle cell anemia is heterozygous, the gene offers some protection against malaria. However, when the individual is homozygous for the trait, the person develops sicle cell anemia, a potentially fatal disease.

In general, populations from Northern Europe, cary the gene variation for digesting lactose. The European populations had a greater need for milk, to supply the needed nutrients for producting vitamin D. However, populations from tropical regions had less need for the ability to consume milk, because they receive a lot more sunlight.


27 posted on 12/10/2006 4:41:04 PM PST by punster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alter Kaker

YEC INTREP


38 posted on 12/10/2006 6:01:00 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alter Kaker

Sigh. Is it also evolution when farmers select out sheep for their capacity to "twin" and double his production? It sure didn't take 3K years to manage that...


40 posted on 12/10/2006 6:46:34 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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: 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: 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

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: Alter Kaker

This is a sample of the kind of evolution very few will argue with. Although I don't know that the word "mutation" would be accurate. All people are slightly different in some ways. If something happened in our environment that favored people less than 5 feet tall, the population would shrink in height in a few generations. If something happened to suddenly favor those over 6' in height, the general population would increase again in height in a few generations.

It is not evolution of the individual members of the populateion that is happening. It is simply a change in the numbers of a particular subgroup that was always there - and still is. It just became the dominant group.

Same thing here. If something happened to our environment that suddenly made it deadly to adults that could digest milk, in a few generations, the general population would again be unable to digest milk.

This isn't the type of evolution that stirs the fun debates here. ;)


63 posted on 12/11/2006 7:49:01 AM PST by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alter Kaker

That would be MICROGenetic alterations. Evolution doesn't exist, happen or be reality.


69 posted on 12/11/2006 8:04:34 AM PST by Doc Savage ("You couldn't tame me, but you taught me.................")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alter Kaker

Gosh. At this rate, in a gazillion years or so, we're all probably gonna be milk cows!

Hey! Does that mean it turns out that the Hindus were right?!

/s (added for the benefit of those lacking a sarcasm detector...)


76 posted on 12/11/2006 8:29:27 AM PST by EternalVigilance (It's up to you to save the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

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