Slashdot Mirror
Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution
The New York Times is running a Sunday article regarding new evidence about 'recent' human evolution. A research team at the University of Maryland has done some work looking at the rise of lactose tolerance in the human populations of Africa. From the article: "The principal mutation, found among Nilo-Saharan-speaking ethnic groups of Kenya and Tanzania, arose 2,700 to 6,800 years ago, according to genetic estimates, Dr. Tishkoff's group is to report in the journal Nature Genetics on Monday. This fits well with archaeological evidence suggesting that pastoral peoples from the north reached northern Kenya about 4,500 years ago and southern Kenya and Tanzania 3,300 years ago ... Genetic evidence shows that the mutations conferred an enormous selective advantage on their owners, enabling them to leave almost 10 times as many descendants as people without them. The mutations have created 'one of the strongest genetic signatures of natural selection yet reported in humans,' the researchers write. "
But evolution didn't happen surely! Jebus put us here just like this! The fossils are lies I tell you!
I never get used to these constant resurrections
I'm lactose intolerant, so what?
Slashdot readers long ago mutated a tolerance to dupes, trolls and reading TFA...
biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
I'm intolerant to a lot of things, lactose isn't one of them
Nah.... too easy.
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
You are simply lower on the evolutionary scale. But many of us already knew or suspected that of you.
It lets another species do the hard work of converting grass to usable nutrients. Milk is a great source of calcium, with helps keep bones strong.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
"Humans that couldnt drink milk found something else to eat." Not to nit pick but when my fridge is out of milk I don't start eating a potatoe, I find something else to DRINK
I for one welcome our new milk drinking overlords.. Dunno if it's a slow news day or not, but this striking piece of news really is quite dull. Although admittedly, if true, it's fascinating to speculate as to what other evolutionary changes have occurred only in the last few thousand years, but ultimately evolution is something which happens over millions of years, so it's unlikely to see any other real notes / changes in my lifetime.
"Recent"?
I believe that atheists did exist before Bush started talking to God.
Ah. First I was ready to dismiss this on the count of it being irrelevant. But now as I think of it, I can clearly see why being lactose-tolerant is of utter (- haha) importance.
For example, if Adam & Eve were the only parents why are people so different?
How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark? If there were just 2 of the animals (dogs for instance) why are they so different now?
What about humans on the Ark, were they forced to inbreed for a second time to populate?
Also, we may not have the ability to actually observe Macro Evolution, but Micro Evolution has been evident for some time now. We have documented proof that Americans have gotten taller for instance.
So when you have small changes over a small period of time, is believing that over a large period of time you could have large changes really that unreasonable?
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
So, 6801 years ago is right out ...
This has been covered in much more detail in the weekly documentary "Heroes". In addition to the abilities recorded in TFA people can: fly; warp space and time and heal.
Remember, if it wasn't for the brave efforts of these "Heroes", the cheerleader might not have been saved, and the world would be doomed.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
So I read the article and it sounded like there was never a time they could point to and say 'here's when the mutation occured'. Instead they stated when the mutation started to have an effect on the population by weeding out those without the mutation.
So I'd say natural selection happened as recently as ~5000 years ago, not evolution. But maybe TFA didn't explain everything.
dan quayle - is that you? ;-)
I realize that this is popular press and all, but why is mutation always mentioned, but crossover, never so?
Generally speaking, mutation is almost always fatal, crossover is almost never so. Crossover keeps you "in the genome", where mutation is just as likely to kick you out of it. My own theory is that mutation is the driver behind speciation, while crossover is the driver behind evolution.
I've run lots of GAs with mutation turned off, letting crossover do all the work. Crossover, not mutation, is what lets a population do that slow walk/hillclimb, over time, through the genetic landscape.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
She's NOT topless!
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
It is actually advertising prostitution, if you want to sleep with this lady, she works Saturdays and Wednesdays from 12 pm to 9pm(though it seems you have to get there by 8 to use her) at the "Soapland lovers" place in Tokyo, Taito-ku, 4-21-3(how streets are addressed in Japan) at Chitsuka(I'm not 100% sure on the name).
Monstar L
Didn't we see human evolution pretty close to home? But only backwards;).
The best planning can be done after the project completes.
Don't feel bad. Apparently Pandas are no longer endangered. I think it's high time we cooked a few of them up to see how they settle. With bamboo shoots and sweet and sour sauce. :) /posting without karma bonus cuz this is sooo off topic
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
"The survival advantage was so powerful perhaps because those with the mutations not only gained extra energy from lactose but also, in drought conditions, would have benefited from the water in milk. People who were lactose-intolerant could have risked losing water from diarrhea, Dr. Tishkoff said."
still seems suspect to me, i guess the ones that tolerated lactose were also more promiscuous, less picky. OR maybe its simply because lets face it: who wants to have sex with someone with diarrhea??? not this guy.
or maybe its what they said, and they were healthier and produced more children, and/or lived longer.
All I can find is their list of publications and their 'Homeland Security' website. Apparently UM is very 'prepares' - or they've just made a bunch of lists with staff people's names on them.
www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
Being able to digest milk can be incredibly valuable in an environment where protein and many other nutrients present in milk are scarce (a fair assumption regarding conditions a couple of thousand years back).
But yes, of course smarts can pay off to various degrees in Darwinian terms too, depending on what niche you are looking to fill.
Because you're far more likely to survive the couple of millenia between domesticating cattle and making your first gun if you can tolerate lactose.
This may be the case today, but many peoples in Africa subsist almost entirely off of milk and goat blood. I'm sure this was true five millenia ago as well.
If you are lactose intolerant, you are far less likely to lead a healthy life when almost half your diet consists of milk. It isn't like much of Africa is a limitless plain of abundance.
Be careful, you are dangerously close to saying you DON'T think Jehovah made the world 6000 years ago, and you think humans "evolved" instead of being sprung, fully-developed from the Word of God.
Oh, and don't forget where women came from.
I keep hearing that "evolutionism" or "Darwinism" is just another religion and that there's no real proof of it.
This IS God's own USA after all.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Mmmm... I think saying "I really don't think" is quite honest of you, although it is already painfully obvious to most of us here.
Humans originally didn't have the enzymes to digest cow lactose; why should they? It serves no purpose in a hunter-gatherers genome.
Most infants can digest lactose well enough to get by as they are expressing genes at that age to aid in the digestion of human milk, but by age 5 cow milk normally makes a lactose intolerent person puke mucus.
Occasionally through mutation some did have the right enzymes to digest cow lactose through adulthood, but as humans did not keep cows those people had no advantage over other people without the mutation, so the mutation was lost as it had no benefit.
When humans started to keep cows they had access to a new food source, milk.
This would have been used to feed infants to replace or suppliment the mother's milk, probably as part of the weaning process.
As those infants grew older those with tolerence to lactose had access to a renewable food resource denied to those who were intolerent to lactose. Those lactose intolerent infants whose parents kept feeding them milk would have been sickly and malnourished.
There would be such a big ebenfit to lactose tolerence that somethng called 'runaway evolution' took place. It's a bit like how mudskippers evolved; if ten fish of a species in a river survive a drought survive because of x charecteristics only they (in that species) have, after that drought all members of that species have x characteristic.
Similarly with human lactose tolerance the stronger, better fed, healthier members of the population with lactose tolerence would have had way more offspring then those who didn't have the genes for it, and those offsrping would fare better.
If 5% increase in genetic transfer through natural selection can make a new characteristic spread throughout a population in less than 200 generations, think how more quickly one with a much higher advantage might spread.
Guns are part of an extended phenotype, and are NOT subject to genetic transmission. Idiot.
If you had read the summary closer, you would have noticed that lactose-tolerant people have 10x the sex you have. Get two milk-drinkers together, and they have 100x the sex you do. Now, that's something I'd be interested in if I were you.
"Humans that couldnt drink milk found something else to eat." - no they didn't they died, and thats the whole fucking point moron.
You've obviously never been in a starvation situation have you? Well for most of their lives, most of your ancestor were...this is why: being able to drink milk as opposed to dying is an advantage. If you could metabolise rocks it would be a good thing.. Are you lactose intolerent? Maybe you're afraid you've been left behind?? Don't worry I've Celiacs in the family so we're a bit behind as well...
Touch the monolith, monkey boy.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
The Nilo-Saharan-speaking ethnic groups of Kenya and Tanzania were put on earth to test our faith in God.
I believe this line of reasoning to be mistaken to some degree - evolution of man and squirrel alike indeed continued apace until ~approx 100 000 years ago, when modern man first left Africa and the laws of evolution ceased to apply to humans, due to the plasticity of spandrels. Hence, positing evolution of humanity is incorrect in timespans extending much further back than a mere 6000 years. After this no evolution whatsoever has taken place among humans, and therefore the article referenced above must be incorrect.
o ry-Ancestors/dp/1594200793
8 .htm
It is hard to determine if this study and many other recent similar ones implying recent evolution in humans are driven by mere ignorance or if more sinister motives are at work. The author referenced here, one Nicholas Wade, is notable for engaging in ideologically dubious activities, such as his recent book "Before the Dawn". He must be watched closely, or his dangerous line of thinking might be allowed to spread among the easily manipulated masses.
Prof. Beata Brattenschlick
Dept. of Deconstruction, University of Copenhagen
References:
"Before the Dawn":
http://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Recovering-Hist
"Breakthrough in human genetics":
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N2220502
Can't we all just get along? Just because someone is born without...
.
.
.
.
.
... wait for it ...
.
.
.
.
.
... toes doesn't mean we have to be intolerant!
It's really simple, drinking milk or not really had no influence on human evolution
Says YOU. Tell me, what is it that babies were supposed to drink 6000 years ago? Formula? Diet Coke?
The problem is that you're looking at this in the wrong context. You're seeing it as an adult, and you're thinking about cow milk.
The leading cause of death for infants less than 100 years ago in developed nations (and STILL the leading killer today in underdeveloped countries) was diarrhea. How do you get diarrhea? Hmm, lactose intolerance causes - guess? Diarrhea. Baby can't drink breast milk, so you give it something else - something more likely to be contaminated with diarrhea causing viruses. Net result? More diarrhea.
Who cares if an adult - who has probably already reproduced (this is before birth control remember) dies of diarrhea? Those genes have already been passed on. The important factor here is all those dead babies who never got old enough to pass their genes on. Lactose intolerance has played a MAJOR part in this.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Does she lactate? Just trying to stay on topic.
These examples include Tom Cruise, K-Fed and Rob Malda.
Erm. You're confusing general lactose intolerance with adult lactose intolerance.
General lactose intolerance is a bad thing. Any mammal that doesn't tolerate lactose while still nursing is in very deep doodoo. It's a mutation that'll basically kick you out of the gene pool immediately.
Adult lactose intolerance is, for most mammals, a normal thing (which is why you shouldn't give milk to cats/hedgehogs/etc). Adult mammals aren't supposed to seek out sources of milk, for obvious reasons, which is why the production of lactase usually stops once the mammal is old enough to eat real food. Of course, this mechanism evolved loooong before humans got the idea of domesticating goats/sheep/cattle and use the milk of a completely different species to supplement their diet. This made a mechanism that would have been faulty (adult mammal that tolerates lactose) suddenly become a genetic advantage.
Milk is generally THOUGHT to be a good source of calcium, but in fact is not: http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/MILKDOC.HTM
The information in the above source seems reasonable enough, and well-backed with scientific reports. Please read it, I assure it is worth it.
It's really simple, drinking milk or not really had no influence on human evolution. Humans that couldnt drink milk found something else to eat.
Yeah, because 6000 years ago you could just go down to 7-11 and grab a burrito, right genius? Fact is that you have two populations - one that can eat the enormously nutritious, high-calorie food that comes out of this cow/goat/wildebeast over here, and one population that can't. Guess which one dies first when famine hits, or the grain crop spoils?
Most evolutionary advantages are slight and happen over time. In this case, you have people living in rather arid conditions, some of whom live a whole lot better because they can drink milk. Not hard to figure out, really.
They point is that they often couldn't. Check populations such as the African's Masaï tribe, cows are their lifeline and most of their diet is composed of milk and dairy products and cow blood (for warriors). A masaï suffering from adult lactose intolerance wouldn't reach puberty.
No it didn't, guns haven't yet generated any new evolutionary path. If you one day discover bullets-resistant humans then they may be favored by natural selection, until then guns have no major influence on the human evolutionary path.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
Convergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe
A SNP in the gene encoding lactase (LCT) (C/T-13910) is associated with the ability to digest milk as adults (lactase persistence) in Europeans, but the genetic basis of lactase persistence in Africans was previously unknown. We conducted a genotype-phenotype association study in 470 Tanzanians, Kenyans and Sudanese and identified three SNPs (G/C-14010, T/G-13915 and C/G-13907) that are associated with lactase persistence and that have derived alleles that significantly enhance transcription from the LCT promoter in vitro. These SNPs originated on different haplotype backgrounds from the European C/T-13910 SNP and from each other. Genotyping across a 3-Mb region demonstrated haplotype homozygosity extending >2.0 Mb on chromosomes carrying C-14010, consistent with a selective sweep over the past 7,000 years. These data provide a marked example of convergent evolution due to strong selective pressure resulting from shared cultural traits--animal domestication and adult milk consumption.
You can get it fron Nature Genetics if you have institutional access.
If you want to know why Lactose tolerance is a big deal read this (mainly because it's a nice example of Gene-Culture co-evolution).
--Simon
henry -- the human evolution news relay
- About only 2% of Swedes are lactose intolerant.
- About 20-60% of Africans are lactose intolerant.
I can personally see a much stronger signature of these genetic traits in Scandinavia? Is the difference that this evolution was not "recent"? Because surely it has to be some form of natural selection causing this in Scandinavia too, perhaps trigged earlier for some reason?
Some useful links:
- Lactose intolerance by human groups.
- World map with lactose intolerance distribution.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
If there is a step-by-step path from point A to point B, we have something plausible.
The problems come in when there is a system which step-by-step scenarios are implausible. I and others would say that is unreasonable.
If you have a system that requires a bunch of things to happen before any natural selection advantage is given, I would find that unreasonable.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
In the beginning there was MS Word.
Later came Virgin Records.
Jebus has been touring the metropolitan Nebraska area, but their first attempt at a radio single , "Jebus Loves You", hasn't on past the town of Willow Corners.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
NB: This is an example of adaption, not speciation. Speciation has been observed before, and is thus not truly a theory. Only the most boneheaded of creationist would disagree with adaption since it is not incompatible with even strict creationism. What is controversial (according to some crazoids, at least), is the idea that one species gives rise to another (speciation) like humans having an ancestor that was an ape. The idea that black moths can become white in a generation or that humans can become able to drink milk is NOT what the creation/evolution 'debate' is about.
I think we should be clear here, what they are discussing is natural variation within a single species, not an evolution from one species to another.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
I guess you're talking about the one species where the males keep lots of childlike mannerisms even after reaching physical maturity, like tantrums, the obsession with toys and sources of milk, and crawling, toddling and babbling (after consuming too much alcohol). Touché.
I am getting my PhD in statistical genetics. Does lactose tolerance reflect a lack of civilized sources of food? Northern Europeans and Nilo-Saharans were relative latecomers to civilized life. As recently as a thousand years ago, Northern Europeans were still a bunch of cannibals running around with stone axes, and drank milk from animals. In East Asia, Mongolians are lactose-tolerant, but they were less civilized than other countries in the region which acquired agriculture thousands of years ago. Similarly, Westerners are alcohol-tolerant because they did not know how to boil water to sterilize it until about 150 years ago, so they added alcohol to their water all the time. Incidentally, genetics do not tell the whole story. Lactose tolerance is also affected by gut flora. Lactose intolerance is increasing in Western countries as bacterial diversity in our environment is decreasing from excessive hygiene. Many differences in phenotype between different ethnic groups, long assumed to be genetic in origin, have turned out not to be so. As Japanese nutrition standards have improved, their average height is now taller than some European countries. African-Americans were long assumed to be genetically more susceptible to cardiovascular diseases, but white Russians in Finland have rates of cardiovascular disease far higher than African-Americans. Race-based susceptibility to diabetes is also under question -- groups such as Pima Indians with high diabetes rates also eat huge amounts of fry bread and other unhealthy foods.
I for one welcome our new loctose-tolerant overloards.
Execpt that it's too late, it already happend.
FRA: STFU GTFO
Then God said, Ye man, Adam, thou shalt be tolerant of milk into your adulthood. He said it some 5000 years ago. Precise date calculated by that Bishop in England. See? finally science is catching up to our ability to twist the scriptures to say whatever we want it to say.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Yeah I wish I would've been hit with this mutation, I had a glass of eggnog yesterday and.. ugh.
Because, as we all know, history repeats it self. I am going to predict that some time in the far future somebody will post an article on what ever takes up where
Inevitably somebody else will ask:
Why does natural selection favor lead resistance and bullet proof skin?
To which some other wiseass will answer:
Because you're far more likely to survive the couple of millenia between domesticating developing the gun and builting your first man portable phaser weapon.
Suck on that, creationists!
Is it in a place where the altelnative sources to milk - for water and nutrition are scarce?
FRA: STFU GTFO
Shall we rephrase that without the inflammatory semi-racism:
by this logic in 2000 people can say that having different shades of skin color was a genetic mutation that offered people with such skin a significant advantage in certain environments. As a result, people with darker skin became more prevalent in tropical regions where the darker pigmentation helped protect them against melanoma, whilst those with lighter skins became more prevalent in northern regions as the lighter skin helped them not get rickets. None of which has anything to do with getting infected with HIV.
henry -- the human evolution news relay
Shouldn't we instead spend our money researching AIDS or something far more practical? Honestly, there's no reason in trying to prove evolution when you could be putting your knowledge and technical skills to much better use. I think the very existence of this study is unfair to the Africans it observes, primarily because these people could be helped in so many ways, but instead we choose to analyze them.
In addition to all that, why are we assuming that evolution is true from the start? Did anyone observe the statistics involving mingling between the two comparative regions? What about the amount of milk imported or consumed on a yearly basis? Are those facts ignored in order to make room for our evolutionary theory? If that's the case, doesn't that make this entire study false?
Oh, and to the guy who posted that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute: what the heck? A lot of people disobey the Bible before they come to Christ, and when they do come to Christ, they stop (or avoid, we're not all perfect) practicing those sins. Mary Magdalene didn't become a prostitute after she met Christ, so why would it be acceptable to become a prostitute? That's a poor example to use for convincing people that prostitution is okay. It isn't okay to sell yourself for money, and if you believe the Bible (and actually read it, and don't go off on a tangent about how the Bible could be translated in so many ways, because if it was to be translated in those ways, wouldn't God have made it obvious which translation was to be used?), it says that prostitution is sinful.
Natural selection is not news, nor proof of evolution. These people are still people. If someone "evolves" into something completely different and incompatible with humans, that would be news.
In Soviet Russia, lactose evolves tolerance for YOU!
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Mohinder discovers a new hero with the ability to digest lactose!! Will he be able to save him from Sylar?
[Insert pithy quote here]
Says YOU. Tell me, what is it that babies were supposed to drink 6000 years ago? Formula? Diet Coke?
Breast milk, either from their mother or from another woman. A quote from the History of Breastfeeding:
"In the early years of the human species, breastfeeding was as common as it was for other mammals feeding their young. There were no alternative foods for the infants, and the mother, along with other lactating females, would have no choice but to breastfeed the children. This process is still seen in many developing countries and is known as shared breastfeeding."
It's very rare for a baby to be intolerant to the lactose in its mother's milk (see Myth 21 at this page), and as another poster pointed out, babies that couldn't digest human milk didn't live very long.
The leading cause of death for infants less than 100 years ago in developed nations (and STILL the leading killer today in underdeveloped countries) was diarrhea. How do you get diarrhea? Hmm, lactose intolerance causes - guess? Diarrhea. Baby can't drink breast milk, so you give it something else - something more likely to be contaminated with diarrhea causing viruses. Net result? More diarrhea.
Until fairly recently in the history of human beings, if babies didn't get breast milk from their mothers, they were usually nursed by another lactating woman (see wet nurse). Although breast milk substitutes were already available in the mid-1800s (see a history of baby formula here) it was only about in the 1940s, when women were needed in the workforce, that the use of baby formula really became widespread. Incidentally, one major way babies get diarrhea in developing countries today is from drinking formula mixed with contaminated water. Breast milk is definitely a safer alternative.
Humans have recently (in the evolutionary time scale) started doing something that few (if any) other mammals do: drinking the milk of another animal. The fact that adult humans are developing a better tolerance for lactose is quite significant.
In the case of north western Europe (Scandinavians et al.) the severe winter may have acted as the arid climate of the Masaï. If your harvested crops didn't last the winter, and you couldn't tolerate that cup of milk, you were at risk. Other cultures in the north may not have had that strong link to cow/goat farming and therefore never received this lactose tolerance.
While the dickheads in here scream about evolution, they miss the biggest political fallout from this: Drinking milk is good for you. Suck it, Peta.
Close. Try Senzoku, since it's in Taitoku. 4-21-3 doesn't have anything to do with streets, though. It's the 3rd building of the 21st block of the 4th district of Taitoku. Buildings, blocks and districts aren't numbered in any particular order, so the numbers are pretty meaningless without a map.
Not at all. The lactose tolerance was of direct benefit. Lighter skin neither produced the only egress north nor provides any protection against the virus. This leaves your little skreed as nothing more than an attempted racist slam. Regionalist as well, as darker skinned individuals are not destined to suffer the same devestation as in Africa.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
It's very rare for a baby to be intolerant to the lactose in its mother's milk (see Myth 21 at this page),
I don't know what you call "very rare":
The prevalence of lactase deficiency and lactose intolerance in Chinese children of different ages. Yang Y,He M, Cui H, Bian L, Wang Z. Chin Med J (Engl). 2000 Dec;113(12):1129-32.
Institute of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, Beijing 100050, China.
OBJECTIVE: To determine lactose metabolism and lactase activity in Chinese children of different ages, prevalence of lactase deficiency (LD), and lactose intolerance (LI). METHODS: All 1168 healthy subjects between 3 and 13 years were recruited from schools in four large cities in China. They were screened by a 25 g lactose tolerance test. Some subjects were challenged with 50 g milk powder on different days. Both indicators, the expiratory H2 concentration and intolerance symptoms, were analyzed. RESULTS: LD occurred in 38.5% of children in the 3-5 year age group, and 87% of the 7-8 year and 11-13 year old groups. The age of occurrence for LD may be at 7-8 years among Chinese children. The prevalence of LI among Chinese children was 12.2% at age 3-5 years, 33.1% at age 7-8 years, and 30.5% at age 11-13 years, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that LD is very common in Chinese children from these four cities. LD and LI have a dose dependent response: lactose absorption and symptoms are based on lactase activity. The relationship between breast feeding history (or the history of cow milk intake) and lactase activity among Chinese children has not been established.
PMID: 11776151 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
I don't have time to look for more.
I agree that lactose intolerance becomes more prevalent with increasing age, and a nursing newborn has only a very small chance of having this problem. However I would argue that it is more common than you think, especially among certain populations (asians, hispanics). I could also argue that a 30% prevalence in a population not old enough to breed yet (under 13) is quite a common problem (Diabetes mellitus only has between 6-12% prevalence depending on the population's ethnicity) and could have had a significant evolutionary impact before the arrival of civilization.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
"Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
I read the article, I'm not the Breast Surgery Chief but I do have a fairly solid background in biology. The thing that made my bullshit meter go into the red is when he tried to discredit pasteurization. Also, he uses very weak arguments and then doesn't back them up. You can't just say milk has bacteria, bacteria makes people sick, therefore milk is bad ... it's simply too broad a brush to use in biological terms. If you want to talk about scary stuff, look at all the recent fecal coliform contaminated vegetables in this county. If this author took a stance on that subject, it would read like this: fertilizer and reclaimed water used to irrigate vegetable fields contain fecal coliforms, fecal coliforms make people sick, therefore vegetables are bad. Disconnected facts do not an argument make.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
The article you quoted does not mention babies. If anything, it mentions toddlers. By the age 3, kids should have started to eat solids (and be able to walk, and talk). In fact, it's not unusual for them to stop nursing before they're two years old.
No, seriously. Getting rid of lactose intolerance was is only relevant for pastoralists. So it mainly happend in Central Asia (and probably spreading from there to Europe) and parts of Africa.
Yeah, and we're talking about Africa here, so what's your point? It's not surprising that this gene arose in areas that could, you know, actually benefit from milk?
The Chinese and Japanese for example did and do rather well with a majority of the population being intolerant to lactose.
There's obviously more than one way to gain an advantage, and a lack of dairy cattle in Japan might have played a role there.
If something is an advantage or not is highly dependent on the context. There is no absolute better/worse. Evolution is not a way to perfection.
Who are you debating this with? This isn't philospohy class. Who ever mentioned absolutism or perfection?
All you needed was a reference to germs in that last sentence and you would have the name of an excellent book on the topic. I suspect it might not be a coincidence though.
Guns, Germs and Steel - Jared Diamond
Glenn
The Smrt way to trade CFDs on the ASX
Someone is feeling a heavy dose tonight.
... when the Evolution deniers, pro intelligent design promoters say all their nonsense?
Peopl like you are either too shy or too few.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I mean it, that was beautiful. I wish more people were like this....
I might not be as bitter about the whole religion thing if people were.
Sigh....
Woos? It's not crazy people on the fringes. You really are sadly uncommon as far as I can tell....
Perhaps in modern societies there are more ways to compensate for it (just go to the supermarket, lots of food). Still, you probably had to invest some time into working out a proper diet for you etc. Time other people could have spent to improve other skills and get an advantage over you.
seems you didnt get the post. I was talking about things people can infer about today in the future based on data that exists they will see millions of black people with HIV in africa and then nearby in europe, far fewer where the only difference being skin color.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Not so much. Despite milk marketing propaganda, higher milk consuption actually seems to be correlated with higher risk of osteoporosis.
Why? Protien. Consuming animal protein causes the blood to become slightly acidic; to balance the pH, your body pulls calcium from the bones (which function not just to keep you from being a blob, but as mineral storehouses).
There seems to be a move afoot to fortify milk with extra calcium to compensate, but more and more people are coming to realize that cow's milk just should not play a significant role in the human diet.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
No sound thinking person will deny natural selection as a real and verifiable influence in the world.
This includes Christians and non-Christians. I'm the former.
The fallacy this article is guilty of is not bad science so much as bad conclusions.
Lactose tolerance is obviously a trait that would be selected for against lactose intolerance. However, this is an example of MICRO-evolution. Not MACRO-evolution.
You can't prove one by the other. They are absolutely different. There is no reproductive isolation, no change in species...we simply have people with one genetic trait living in greater proportion to those with another. Same reason you don't find too many indigenous tribes of blond haired, blue eyed people in Africa.
This does not prove or even support the premise of macro-evolution.
Another thing to remember, there are still plenty of lactose intolerant people around. These findings hardly represent a general improvement to the human species. It is simply people having a higher chance of living with one trait than another.
Our gene pool is the same. There is no improvement. There is no macro-evolution.
So we should all agree, right? YAY.
Clifton
clifgriffin > blog
it's not the christian religion itself that irks me... what drives me crazy about christianity is the sense of entitlement that it creates in it's followers. i'm not usually one to go off on religion, especially someone as progressive in their thinking as you... but even your words smack of good old christian entitlement. that's the problem i have with christianity.
christians can spout off all they want about how they have been persecuted and excluded and whatever and feel entitled to point that out to us all, much like you have here. i don't know where you live, but here in midwestern america there is chirstianity plastered all over every flat surface, and we all just accept it... and yet that's still not enough. you still feel entitled to share your chistianity with us, as if we had forgotten for a moment that christianity is alive and well in america.
looking past the kooks and the bible thumpers, to the average rank and file christian, there is still that that self rightous sense of entitlement. the extremist rehetoric no longer phases me, in fact i much prefer it because it's so easy to tune out. but that subtle sense of entitlement, present in so much of american culture, always rings in my ears.
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
Anyone seen a cheerleader around? Or maybe strange Japanese dudes? Come on man, we're running out of time!
A computer makes it possible to do, in half an hour, tasks which were completely unnecessary to do before.
And so I thought/think that I don't agree with your response to my ancestor poster:
The people could have changed their way of living (their culture) but in this case they didn't. That's what we have to understand and that's not plain biology/evolution.
You are right that it's not that simple as your parent poster suggested but I felt you underestimated the agency of the people 6000 years ago. If you didn't, fine. Then let's go and bash the simplicity of your parent poster ;-)
"Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
"For example, if Adam & Eve were the only parents why are people so different?"
t m
I believe that they were not the only parents. It looks like to me that the creation events of the first chapter of Genesis are a separate event from the creation spoken out in the second chapter. If, as I believe, this is true, it would very well explained how Cain could have met his wife.
The humans from the first chapters of Genisis were the hunter-gatherers while the creation of the man in the second chapter was hte beginning of agriculture.
"How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark? If there were just 2 of the animals (dogs for instance) why are they so different now?"
The actual Hebrew word that is translated to Earth is eretz. Eretz means land or soil. Was it the entire planet that was flooded, or was it the entire land (in that area)? Many cultures totally unrelated to Judeaism and Christianity have records of the Flood. It is obvious that the Flood was a major world event, and to me it looks like the flood covered the entire land (in that area).
"What about humans on the Ark, were they forced to inbreed for a second time to populate?"
Maybe.
"Also, we may not have the ability to actually observe Macro Evolution, but Micro Evolution has been evident for some time now. We have documented proof that Americans have gotten taller for instance."
Americans have gotten taller, and when conditions are right, Americans can become shorter as well. Evolution, natural selection, or whatever you want to call it is a mechanical process, nothing more. There are switches with this program that allow certain features to be turned on and off as conditions warrrant. Software crackers also manipulate these switches to affect the behaviour of a program (by switching of registration screens, etc). Computer scientists are in some cases designing programs so that these types of switches can be easily activated and deactivated by other processes in order to try to cause programs to self improve.
The point is that I have seen physical evidence, historical evidence, and linguistic evidence, and archealogical evidence of Biblical truth as well as fossil evidence of the mechanical process of evolution. Much of both evidence goes against what many mainstream Christian BELIEVE, but it does not go against what the original (Biblical) scriptures ACTUALLY SAY. Am I a Christian? no, I am not. I am a Messianic Jew. I also resent the anti-creator bias that is displayed in slashdot as well as many (not all) scientific circles.
Just as there is physucal evidence of the mechanical process of evolution, there is also physical evidence of Biblical authenticity.
Look at http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/sodomfound.h
Long before scientists stated (and proved) that the heavens are expanding, the Bible has stated this fact (Job 9:8, Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, as well as many others). I could go on and on about many pieces of evidence, however this evidence is not really hidden. One can find references to most of it online. Yes, I fully expect that this post will be modded down and labelled as flaim bait (typical). However I post such information so that people will get to see a broader view and diverse opinions.
Who are you debating this with? This isn't philospohy class. Who ever mentioned absolutism or perfection?
I offer a devil's advocate service. For a mere $100, I'll argue for the strawman position you are skilfully demolishing for 10 posts, and then admit you've changed my mind. But since you misspelled 'philosophy', you're clearly not worth debating.
Special offers this month:
Free spelling flames, insults and ad hominems!
Just $10/post to continue any argument!
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
It doesn't, NS isn't a conscious process, it doesn't "favor" anything.
It's just that, in a not-so-distant past, people who could absorb dairies had a higher chance of survival during famines and such (because they didn't have to slaughter the cattle outright), therefore had a higher chance to reproduce and spread their lactase-tolerance to the next generation.
6000 years ago, in some parts of the world, lactase tolerance was a survival advantage. That's all there is to it.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
"in 2000" is not in the future, its 6 years in the past. Maybe a calendar would help?
Which won't show the kind of evolutionary advantage you suggest; you'll note that Europe still, lower HIV incidence or not, has a lower, not higher, rate of natural population increase than Africa. Individually, white skin may seem to be or be linked to an advantage in the modern world, by evolutionary standards, not so much.
Adaption has been observed before. Not speciation.
Speciatian has been observed also
Also, you said that "Only the most boneheaded of creationist would disagree with adaption...". Are you unaware that the vast majority of creationists -- at least those who are vocal on the subject -- would, in fact, satisfy that criteria of 'bone-headedness'?
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Cause the most objective site to reference is 'milksucks.com'
I'll stick to searching 'pubmed.org' for "milk, osteoporosis" and seeing the randomized control trials, thank you.
No, it's debilitating stomach cramps, then extreme flatulence followed by diarrhea.
It's natural selection resulting in the adaptaion of favorable traits among a particular population.
See the wiki definition of Human Evolution.
By this logic in 1994, people can say that living in hot climate results in social behavior that results in selecting government that is too corrupt to allow prosperous economy, thereby resulting in unprotected sex being the only way to get through the day. Ergo: lack of light skin leads to staying in hot climate, which leads to people acting funny, which leads to supressive government, which leads to bored people, which leads to HIV infection. Evolve light skin or you get AIDS.
OTOH by 1988, people will figure out that the above theory is really stretching it, because they'll realize that people with light skin obstain from unprotected sex because they heard they're supposed to die of cancer instead of AIDS. "Why should I bother contracting HIV when I already have a guarantee that I can get melanoma?"
By 1982, this stupidity should all be sorted out.
You are a Christian? Have you read your Bible? Show me where it says anything about Mary Magdalene being a prostitute.
Frankly, I've always thought people should be more tolerant of lactose.
Not that this will shut her up or anything, but it's a nice on to lab at her with the next pie.
Nah! That's the argument for Beano, not LactAid. Sheesh. I hate it when people get their science all messed up.
That is all.
I think I've figured out the cruical difference between Creationists and Evolutionists.
Creationists support a static view of the human body and believe it has always retained the same form and structure.
They admire the current form of the human body with all of its prefections and don't want to imagine it in a "lesser" state.
Evolutionists support a dynamic view of the human body, where it has changed over time.
They admire the adaptions that allowed it to adapt to changing environments. They note the deficencies of the human body and work to discover how it can be improved and how/why it came to be.
I don't know how/why we are intelligent enough to concieve of a God and/or evolution but I'm more inclined to believe the arguments of the evolutionists because:
a) they have more evidence
b) they have the power to change my environment in a real physical manner (think drugs that defeat natural germs, etc...) where the creationists can only offer faith and comfort.
c) the mind's imagination is an extremely powerful force for making the imaginary seem real.
I admire static beauty but admit that all things change. We grow up, we grow older, eventually we will die. Buildings are worn down, they are destroyed/fall down, and new ones are built. Same for trees, plants, seashores, forests, etc.
Hopefully, our children will learn from our mistakes and change themselves/their environments so their children can live happier lives.
Cheers
Ben
Except that when it comes to war, being physically the largest is no longer a deciding factor. Once the war is over, anyone survivors that breed, get to pass on their genetic code, including any mutations. While you may argue that the gun hasn't been around long enough to have any significant impact on our genetic code, it no doubt will.
There was an article in the LA Time Magazine called West that talked about Raw Milk. That is it talked about milk that was not pasteurized. It mentions that there are enzymes naturally occurring in milk that allow people to digest milk. That means that the ability to tolerate Lactose is not a very big deal since people thousands of years ago presumably were not pasteurizing milk.
Nothing but FUD!
This story is totally fake. Lactose intolerance isn't actually a real affliction/illness or whatever you want to call it. It was originally concieved by the International Orchard Proprieters Association. It was part of their campaign to topple milk as the number one healthy beverage in the world. To date there are no confirmed cases of lactose intoelerance. People merely think they're lactose intolerance because of a phony medical paper made up by the IOPA's pr department. The document stated that patients suffered stomach aches and discomfort after eating three gallons of ice cream, thus leading to the conclusion that they must have some intolerance to the lactic acid in the ice cream, and by extension ALL dairy products. Which when you think about it doesn't make any sense, since if people were allergic to lactic acid they'd be dead, seeing as how it's used constantly by your muscles. Anyhow, the document sent shockwaves across the world. Overnight thousands of cases of 'lactose intolerance' were reported by authorities. Juice sales skyrocketed. Suddenly people began to say 'Who needs milk? Juice tastes better anyway'. This nearly killed the milk industry as we know it. However, the Oganization of Milk Exporting Countries had developed a new 'wonder drug' that they hoped would help put a stop to lactose intolerance. It was chocolate milk. For the most part it had worked. People stopped worrying about lactose intolerance and embraced chocolate milk. However the damage had already been done, and the IOAP had taken a huge share of the beverage market away from OMEC. You still hear about people putting juice on their cornflakes in the morning.
It wouldn't suprise me if this new finding is an attempt by OMEC to take back some of the market it had previously lost.
I don't own a snook, and if I did I wouldn't leave it cocked.
How the hell is that even remotely related with my post?
So what? Modern warfare usually slaughters anything in its way, there's no known genetic trait making you immune to shrapnels or lead bullets in the head, so no specific mutation will be favoured often an other except by sheer chance/randomness.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
I agree with what some here have said in that this is natural selection and not evolution. Natural selection leads to evolution according to the theory. (I stress the word THEORY) The existance of natural selection alone does not prove the theory. Furthermore, for this to truly be considered "evolution" then a lactose intolerant individual would no longer be able to mate with a tolerant one as the two would be a different species.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Seriously. Isn't it shocking how some people see evolutionary processes? Like it's some great beast pushing things along?
To them, picture it like this:
There's this game, with this system of rules. There are players in this game. They have different attributes, chosen initially at random, but every 'generation', each player mates with another to generate offspring. Those players who die before the generation, get to control one of the offspring in the next generation (the number of offspring is always equal to the number of players, the 'twinned' offspring are chosen at random). The offspring have a combination of their parent's attributes, plus variation at 1%.
After a few generations, you'll find, the players all have characters that were far better suited to the game than their 'ancestors'. Of course, the rules can change; it is a game after all. When the rules change, the characters now have attributes that are suited to a world very different to the new one. Sure, after a few generations, they'll be back in place, but chances are a few key things will stay the same. Say they developed ultra-hard skin in the first world; they may just keep it, despite, say, the speed disadvantage, because it still keeps them from dying (even if it make them look like idiots).
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Parent is implying that guns removed the "genetic advantage" of the strong and powerful warrior types who could be killed by the common peasant with a gun.
He neglected to factor in that the former warriors used their family relations to get into politics, and they found ways to screw over the common man without running him thru with 2 feet of metal!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
If you look at history, a lack of potable water has been a huge problem. In many cases I would bet that the milk had less microbes in it than the water.
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
I just wanted to add a note on the milk digression, I suppose. There are huge nutritional differences between pasteurized and raw milk, in terms of health benefits to humans. The live enzymes present in raw milk (phosphatase for cascium absorbtion, lipase for fat digestion, lactase/-ose, galactase/-ose, catalase, diastase, peroxidase, etc) are destroyed to a large extent by the pasteurization process. In raw milk, all 22 amino acids are present as well, whereas in pasteurized milk, the polypeptides lysine and tyrosine are changed by the heating process such that they are not as easily metabolized (meaning your body can't use the proteins as readily or as easily). Vitamins A, F, E, and D are lost to a large degree by the heating process as well, as is Vitamin C (though to a lesser degree). B6 and B12 are pretty much destroyed all together. Also, raw milk is seriously tasty. If you ever to a taste comparison, there's really no contest. It's a full, earthy flavor, whereas the flavors of pasteurized milk and milk products are shallow and less complex. Obviously, drinking raw milk has its risks. It's important to know where your raw milk is coming from and the process by which it's being produced. If the cows are fed what cows are supposed to be fed (grass, pasture plants, etc) and if the conditions on the farm are clean and natural (no anti-biotics, no hormones, no cows being fed other cows, no over-crowding), there shouldn't be a problem with pathogenic bacteria in the raw milk and it should be safe for human consumption. The beneficial bacteria, as the dominant culture, will prevent the growth of harmful bacteria (whereas in pasteurized milk, a sterile medium, there is no active culture of good bacteria to prevent bad bacteria growth). Going to the farm yourself is the best bet, although there are many states in which it's illegal for farms to sell raw milk due to the risks involved with sub-par milk production (factory farms, etc) and so raw milk purchases, even at all-natural organic farms, have to be made rather on the down low. It's good, though, for people to be involved more in their food, to know where it's coming from, to take an active role in their health and diet through awareness of the production process and its results. Also, a last thought: I don't think that relying on milk as a sole source of calcium would be good, but then, relying on any one thing for nutrition is probably not wise. Moderation and diversity are most likely the best routes to take. Go team Human.
crap, I suck at the formatting
Please don't be offended, but your post clearly shows you have a child like understanding of science. You are unwittingly commiting a fallacy of equivocation. From wikipedia:
"In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation."
So for something to attain the status of scientfic theory it must have been tested rigorously, be able to make predictions and be observable. Theory is as close to "truth" as you can get in science. Hypothesis is a closer analog to the common usage of theory.
Also if you are interested you read why evolution is a fact and a theory
Rev Cat
Any trait not needed will be eroded by random mutations until it no longer functions.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
You are missing the hubris that dictates you are super special in the universe and were created by an all powerful and all loving god who will burn you in hell forever for not believing in special creation.
There is so much rubbish in your post, I don't even know where to start. First off, your post is a very Christian-centric accusation against religion. Christianity isn't the only religion out there. Second, most of the abuses you mention are directed at a specific form of Christianity, Catholicism and they all occurred when the Catholic Church was more than just a religion, it was a political power. So,it would seem to support the argument of using religion for personal and political gain is the problem, not religion in and of itself.
As for forcing women to have babies, since prior to the early 60s, there really wasn't effective birth control, it seems that religious and non-religious types were having lots of babies. Here I just thought that prior to the industrial revolution, people had a lot of babies, because they needed a lot of help on the farm or the factory. I didn't know it was a secret conspiracy to get converts.
It seems like your rant and anger are really is directed at the Catholic Church and/or G*d. Since we live in a tolerant religious society, you're welcome to those feelings. But please, don't assume that Christianity is the only religion and that the whole world agrees with you.
Hmm.. Linking to a obciously biased source which doesn't link to any data (fabricated or otherwise) to support it's claims. I think you really should be modded down a few times.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Culling out publications from obviously biases sources such as the "Journal of Dairy Science", can you find a randomized controled trial showing that unfortified dairy products have a protective impact on osteoporosis?
Such a result would be surprising given the findings of a study published in the American Journal of Public Health which followed 77,761 women and found no protective impact of dairy products on fractures.
A PubMed search will find this meta-analyis from Pediatrics on osteoporosis, or this article on the increased risk for prostate cancer from dairy consumption from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. This study from the same journal notes "Over the years, doubts have arisen concerning the use of milk as a calcium source in the prevention of osteoporosis, particularly because of potential offsetting effects of protein and phosphorus." This letter in that same journal points out that living in countries with a high dairy consumption is a risk factor for osteoporosis.
This page from PCRM give citations to several studies on the health impact of dairy consumption.
See also this analysis in Public Health Nutrition which states, "Regarding associations relating the consumption of dairy products with chronic diseases, in Western societies consumption of dairy products has traditionally been linked to cardiovascular diseases (arteriosclerosis) and osteoporosis owing to their saturated fatty acids and calcium content, respectively. While the association between saturated fat intake and risk of arteriosclerosis is well established, the association between calcium from dairy products, together with vitamin D, and osteoporosis is less clear."
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
The information in the above source seems reasonable enough, and well-backed with scientific reports. Please read it, I assure it is worth it. So I've read this article, and all I can say is -- what complete crap! He draws conclusions with no evidence (I guess his say-so that he "read 500 scientific studies" is enough -- unreferenced studies, I might add.). How would I summarize the articles? They were only slightly less than horrifying. First of all, none of the authors spoke of cow's milk as an excellent food, free of side effects and the "perfect food" as we have been led to believe by the industry. The main focus of the published reports seems to be on intestinal colic, intestinal irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions in infants and children as well as infections such as salmonella. Wow, open right up with the scare tactics! Because we know in the countries where people drink a lot of milk, all of these things are epidemic! Note that he didn't say that milk caused these problems but inferred it by saying that they were the focus of the unsourced studies he allegedly read. Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and interesting group to study. Here we are limited to speculation and indirect evidences, but the bony remains available for our study are remarkable. There is no doubt whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great strength, muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this), and total absence of advanced osteoporosis. And if you feel that these people are not important for us to study, consider that today our genes are programming our bodies in almost exactly the same way as our ancestors of 50,000 to 100,000 years ago. The last I heard, our ancestors of 50,000 - 100,000 years ago did not commonly live for 30+ years. This is the typical minimum age for onset of osteoporosis. Consider for a moment, if it was possible, to drink the milk of a mammal other than a cow, let's say a rat. Or perhaps the milk of a dog would be more to your liking. Possibly some horse milk or cat milk. Do you get the idea? Well, I'm not serious about this, except to suggest that human milk is for human infants, dogs' milk is for pups, cows' milk is for calves, cats' milk is for kittens, and so forth. Clearly, this is the way nature intends it. Just use your own good judgement on this one. That's the way to do it. Make a comparison designed to get an emotional reaction, then reinforce that reaction. That's scientific. It seems that the public is uneasy about this product and in one survey 43 per cent felt that growth hormone treated milk represented a health risk Source? Oh, wait, he doesn't have one. And I'm sorry, is he citing a public survey in a 'scientific' paper?
Oh, and what kind of scientific discourse would be complete without anecdotal evidence?
I had one patient who did exactly that. He had no obvious vices. He didn't smoke or drink, he didn't eat meat, his diet and lifestyle was nearly a perfectly health promoting one; but he had a passion. You guessed it, he loved rich ice cream. A pint of the richest would be a lean day's ration for him. On many occasions he would eat an entire quart - and yes there were some cookies and other pastries. Good ice cream deserves this after all. He seemed to be in good health despite some expected "middle age spread" when he had a devastating stroke which left him paralyzed, miserable and helpless, and he had additional strokes and died several years later never having left a hospital or rehabilitation unit. Was he old? I don't think so. He was in his 50s.So don't drink milk for health.
Wow. Here's a surprise. Guy eats like crap his whole life -- ice cream, mind you, not milk, and not in reasonable quantity -- and then dies from it. Blame milk! (Literally. Very next line. )Otherwise easily translated as: "...until the cows come home." *ducking the flying vegetables*
Thank you very much, I'll be here all week. While you're visiting Chez André, please remember to try the veal. The chef has been working hard at perfecting that dish for almost 6000 years, now.
Give a man a match: warm him for an instant. Douse him in petrol and set him aflame: warm him for the rest of his life.
From reading the article, it seems that humans are lactose tolerant early on. And then the ability shuts off. Lactose tolerant people lost the ability to shut down that ability. So it seems something stopped working.
That's a lot less impressive than a mutation which added the ability to consume lactose.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Excellent comment, quite incisive.
What's really amazing to think about is that human culture, ultimately individual human behavior, is what's predominantly causing the changes in our own genetic code in the modern era. We're causing our own evolution, however unintentionally.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
your formatting may be off, but want you wrote made sense.
You got your point across at any rate.
Thanks for the insight.
Sean D.
"Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
there's no known genetic trait making you immune to shrapnels or lead bullets in the head, so no specific mutation will be favoured often an other except by sheer chance/randomness.
Intelligence is a genetic trait, isn't it? Using your brain to avoid getting into a situation where you will be placed on the front line seems like it would be favorable.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
There is so much rubbish in your post, I don't even know where to start.
Yet you're unable to point out any... Odd that.
Second, most of the abuses you mention are directed at a specific form of Christianity, Catholicism and they all occurred when the Catholic Church was more than just a religion, it was a political power.
Well, the Catholic Church was Christianity while it was being spread by the sword, so, you're still not pointing out anything inaccurate. Of course, the Salem witch trials and various other atrocities were, of course, the Catholics.... Oh wait, it wasn't. So not only are you failing to point out anything inaccurate about my poist, you're making blatantly false statements.
Of course, the fact that the Catholic Church became a political power backs up my point entirely, not yours.
If you actually study the history, the Christian faith was created by the Catholic Church. The various ridiculous matters of dogma were created as a way to declare a different political group as heretics and murder them. That is how Catholic dogma got where it is, but it's also how the New Testament was created so every Christian church uses the same politically motivated, selectively edited and often completely made up crap.
As for forcing women to have babies, since prior to the early 60s, there really wasn't effective birth control, it seems that religious and non-religious types were having lots of babies. Here I just thought that prior to the industrial revolution, people had a lot of babies, because they needed a lot of help on the farm or the factory. I didn't know it was a secret conspiracy to get converts.
It's no secret. It was quite clear out in the open. It's not only religions who pull that one though. It's typical of warlike societies.
Of course, birth control and abortion have existed for a long time contrary to the false statement you made.
Trying to eliminate those options is how the church has and still does force women to have babies.
Damn, just look at the atrocity that is Vatican policy in Africa. Oh wait, Catholics. Well, for other Christians, jsut look at how the lunatic contingent in America has shaped our policies on reproductive freedom.
Hell, the only nations we're in agreement on "moral" issues are extremist islamic countries.
It seems like your rant and anger are really is directed at the Catholic Church and/or G*d.
No, my "rant" was directed at the blatant falsehoods in the OP.
. Since we live in a tolerant religious society, you're welcome to those feelings.
Wow, are you allergic to making honest statements?
Since we live in a tolerant *secular* society, I'm welcome to those feelings.
You might notice that the seperation of church and state is the one thing that most made America stand out when it was founded, right? Democracy and Republics were both already very old when America was founded.
I'm welcome to those feelings *in spite* of the religious community. You might notice that they are fighting tooth and nail to destroy exactly that if you actually looked around a little.
But please, don't assume that Christianity is the only religion and that the whole world agrees with you.
I assume nothing of the sort.
Well, to fill in the missing bit, living in crowded, dirty conditions builds up people's immunity to disease. The important one here is cowpox, a close relative of smallpox. Cowpox is pretty harmless to humans, but catching it gives you an immunity to smallpox.
Why it is that so many who call themselves "Christian" devote so much of their religious study to looking for an "out clause" - going over the old testament with a fine-toothed comb in search of obscure and disconnected justifications for prejudice and greed?
Christianity by definition means following the teachings of Christ. It is about practicing tolerance and love, for all mankind. Jesus would be really pissed at some of the linguistic gymnastics going on these days.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
turning on a pre-existing gene via hormones, or spread of existing gene is not molecules-to-man evolution.
Only "biased" in the sense that choosing facts over advertising messages is a bias. (You'll notice that the dairy industy puts their claims on TV and in print, where they're only loosely regulated by the FTC, not on milk cartons where they'd be subject to stricter FDA regulations. )
I admit to grabbing the first source at hand and assuming that most people had at least heard of the notion that milk isn't a healthy food. If you want some links to research, see my post here .
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
If you actually study the history, the Christian faith was created by the Catholic Church.
Uh? What? Reading the Da Vinci code doesn't count as studying history.
meh
Well, it looks like you can have both after all!
My patience is infinite, my time is not.
Sorry, but if you are making a statement based on anecdotal evidence, it's up to you to provide the proof of the theory. Yes, anecdotally people who have smoked have sometimes lived a long time, but smoking still causes cancer. A story, even a verifiably true one, is not proof. People from a century ago drank raw milk, but they also died of infectious diseases far more often and earlier than most modern societies now. Which would kind of argue that safety from germs might trump whatever benefits raw milk may have had. Amazing how an article on an interesting scientific on genetics brings out the anti-milk, or anti-pasturized milk, or whatever else kind of semi-science crusade people are on based on web site anecdotes.
This does not have to do with evolution, nor does it support the imagination.
This is very recent prehistory. If the Arabs were slave trading 1000 years ago in Zimbabwe, it isn't difficult to imagine significant incursions into Kenya several thousand years ago. And I believe the vikings, for instance, were reasonably shipworthy even in the bronze age.
But, apparently, if there are three distinct and unique gene locations that promoted tolerance in different populations, we should be able to dispense with speculations like that before we begin. And that's what I find interesting about the article.
>>> It's important to know where your raw milk is coming from and the process by which it's being produced.
No doubt. Now I didn't RTFA (gasp!) but this being East Africa you'll recall that oftentimes that milk is mixed with raw blood. Would you really be worried about where the milk came from?
In the series "Tribe" with Bruce Parry (IIRC) he visited with some of these tribes - he had the honour of being served with a stick of blood clots gained by stirring the milk/blood mix (candy-floss style!). Yum!
If you actually study the history, the Christian faith was created by the Catholic Church.
Uh? What? Reading the Da Vinci code doesn't count as studying history.
I'm well aware of that fact. The Da Vinci code did more to back up Christianity than to hurt it anyhow, which is pretty funny.
Perhaps if you're such a history expert, you'd care to point me to one single credible scrap of historical evidence that there ever even was such a person as Jesus?
No? Thought not.
Back to the original point, perhaps you can name some other group than the Catholic Church that creeated Christianity?
They selected and edited the books that would become the New Testament to push political goals. What more do you need to invent a religion?
I'll try to keep it short:
though anti abortion I don't feel I can make the choices for others
Well, I'm anti theft, extortion, and murder! Should those also be made legal? You just don't recognize abortion as infanticide (read: murder of a human), do you.
what do you think Mary Magdalene was???: She was repentant and demon free. The latter implying that prostitution and demonic activity go hand in hand.
Did you know that if, today, you went and tried to translate the original Genesis story into English today it could have 4 or more meanings?
Obviously there is some consensus on the current meaning, otherwise the criticism would ring down through the ages, if not by someone in the 'Christian' West, certainly by non-Christian detractors who have come into enough contact with them over the centuries. Not only so, but reading-level fluency of Hebrew and Koine Greek used to be required for Protestant ministers; that makes for a lot of eyes examining those works and translations and making sure it's accurate.
In light of the above, you really seem more of the 'nominal' sort en contra a real Christian.
I'm well aware of that fact. The Da Vinci code did more to back up Christianity than to hurt it anyhow, which is pretty funny.
I'd disagree with that. An anecdote, my sister in law read the Da Vinci code and her immediate comment was this it made her doubt the accuracy of the bible. The Da Vinci code is written in the style of historical fiction, where the facts of the book are correct, however an event or person is inserted into the context. The Da Vinci code is fiction on fiction, but people read it as fact. FWIW I think everyone should test their beliefs however they should no test it on the basis of fiction.
Perhaps if you're such a history expert, you'd care to point me to one single credible scrap of historical evidence that there ever even was such a person as Jesus?
No? Thought not.
This is slashdot, but I believe it is customary let others answer the questions you ask. Also I never said I was an expert. Anway...
First off the gospels are credible historical evidence for the existance of Jesus. They are 4 independant accounts of his existance. In addition there are surviving fragments or full copies of the gospels dating from the 2nd and 3rd centuries (example). You'll have to excuse the web reference, I've just spent half an hour hunting for a book on this.
In addition there is corroborating historical evidence from contemporary historians (eg Josephus).
Back to the original point, perhaps you can name some other group than the Catholic Church that creeated Christianity?
This is a difficult question to answer, equally your question about who created the "christian faith". Which christian faith? What do you mean by Christianity? Catholic? Orthodox? Protestant?
I'd certainly say that the Catholic church has had a larger influence on the church institutions we have today.
They selected and edited the books that would become the New Testament to push political goals. What more do you need to invent a religion?
Ha ha, so you do get your historical evidence from the Da Vinci code.
Quick history lesson. The catholic church was a splinter formed from the Byzantine church, now the orthodox church. This occurred in 1054. The canon of scripture was formalised around 300AD. So the Catholic church had nothing to do with it. In addition the religion existed before 300AD.
If you really want to learn about why we have the bible as it stands today, read "The Canon of Scripture". However from your comment it appears you would prefer to keep your current views, regardless of the evidence.
meh
You are far more likely to get laid and thus preserve your gene stock, if you don't fart constantly, like lactose intolerants do in cattle raising societies.
My fiance is lactose intolerent; I was being deliberately vauge ;-)
That would be the Maasai, with under a million people, not a huge culture, so 'oftentimes' is a stretch. Raw milk is drunk by billions, however.
Fresh blood out of healthy living cattle should be better than safe, anyway, it's incredibly healthy for those adapted to it.
Damn those pesky terrorists
I'd disagree with that. An anecdote, my sister in law read the Da Vinci code and her immediate comment was this it made her doubt the accuracy of the bible.
Which really does nothing to address my point. The Bible is inaccurate. That's no big surprise to anybody (well, loony fundies aside, but they're not really known for either sanity or common sense).
What the daVinci Code does though, is propogagte the silly myth that there even was a Jesus. If it went for the historically accurate picture, then that would have been a far more negative picture of the state of Christianity.
The Da Vinci code is fiction on fiction, but people read it as fact. FWIW I think everyone should test their beliefs however they should no test it on the basis of fiction.
Wow, that's truly dizzying.
People should question their fictional fantasies, but not do it on the basis of fiction.
If that was even possible, it would certainly be interesting to try.
First off the gospels are credible historical evidence for the existance of Jesus.,/i>
Nonsense. Circular reasoning in the first place.
In the second place, they are nothing of the sort.
Who wrote them? Oh yeah, nobody knows. They do know it wasn't contemporary with the supposed lifetime of Jesus.
They are 4 independant accounts of his existance.
Wow, amazing. It's like never before have stories circulated in the world. It's almost as if the biblical flood story wasn't a blatant ripoff of Gilgamesh.
Perhaps you should look into the origin of those myths and how they predate the supposed birth of Jesus by a century.
Seriously now. A *little* bit of research would do you good. Repeating half truths and flat out lies is just silly.
In addition there is corroborating historical evidence from contemporary historians (eg Josephus).
So I ask for *credible* evidence and you respond with a circular argument and then this. In the first place, there is nothing from "historians". There is one item from one historian "Josephus" as you said, but had you done any research whatsoever (no, checking fundie sites obviously does not count as they are pathological liars) you would know that the passage from the Josephus document is a thoroughly debunked forgery.
Look, it's obvious that you do not know a damn thing about the subject. You have a belief and you want to try to justify it.
I understand that you desperately need for this to be true, but sorry, reality does not need to bend itself to be what you want it to be.
This is a difficult question to answer, equally your question about who created the "christian faith". Which christian faith? What do you mean by Christianity? Catholic? Orthodox? Protestant?
The New Testament.
If you really want to learn about why we have the bible as it stands today, read "The Canon of Scripture". However from your comment it appears you would prefer to keep your current views, regardless of the evidence.
What's clear is that you will buy into whatever allows you to keep your delusions.
I have no preconcieved notions, and no need to prove or disprove anything. The facts are all on my side though.
When you repeat silly lies like the Josephus nonsense, you demonstrate that you don't care one bit for what's actually true and just seek to prop up your delusional needs.
Sorry to have to break it to you.
It is becoming quite irritating for me whenever "scientists" trot out an instance of natural selection as proof of evolution. To be clear, there is absolutely no controversy over the concept of the survival of the fittest. Every rational being accepts that concept, even those who ascribe to the most conservative religions. Confusing natural selection with evolution does nothing but confuse the argument.
Please, the next time someone wishes to prove evolution, show that a series of random genetic mutations in a complex organism creates multiple instances of a new, viable living species that is no longer able to interbreed with the original species. Don't show how one variation of a species survives better than a different variation. That proves nothing.
Which really does nothing to address my point. The Bible is inaccurate.
This is a claim for which you have provided no proof.
Wow, that's truly dizzying.
People should question their fictional fantasies, but not do it on the basis of fiction.
Nice work twisting my words. I am saying that people should not question what they believe to be true based on fiction.
Wow, amazing. It's like never before have stories circulated in the world. It's almost as if the biblical flood story wasn't a blatant ripoff of Gilgamesh.
What does that have to do with anything? There is a lot in the Genesis that is similar to contemporary stories. The Geneis creation story is very similar (with important changes, largely the removal of muliple gods and the replacement with one God).
Perhaps you should look into the origin of those myths and how they predate the supposed birth of Jesus by a century.
Seriously now. A *little* bit of research would do you good. Repeating half truths and flat out lies is just silly.
And once again you think I have not done that research.
So I ask for *credible* evidence and you respond with a circular argument and then this. In the first place, there is nothing from "historians". There is one item from one historian "Josephus" as you said, but had you done any research whatsoever (no, checking fundie sites obviously does not count as they are pathological liars) you would know that the passage from the Josephus document is a thoroughly debunked forgery.
Why is this a circular argument? There are strong reasons why the gospels have credibility. One is that there are early manuscripts (which I mentioned), and manuscripts up til today that satisfy historians that the gospels we have today are original or very close to. In other words the "church" has not doctored them.
Secondly there are methods historians apply to texts such as these to test the authenticity. I'd list them out but I don't think you are really listening.
As for the Josephus quote, could you substantiate that please.
Look, it's obvious that you do not know a damn thing about the subject. You have a belief and you want to try to justify it.
I understand that you desperately need for this to be true, but sorry, reality does not need to bend itself to be what you want it to be.
What's clear is that you will buy into whatever allows you to keep your delusions.
I have no preconcieved notions, and no need to prove or disprove anything. The facts are all on my side though.
When you repeat silly lies like the Josephus nonsense, you demonstrate that you don't care one bit for what's actually true and just seek to prop up your delusional needs.
Sorry to have to break it to you.
Hey thanks. I love being called an idiot and a liar by someone who claims in the face of all historical evidence and all credible historians that the person of Jesus never existed.
On that note, Christians are often called closed minded and unwilling to listen to facts. They are sometimes said to be insulting and condesending in the way they express themselves. Throughout these comments you have been insulting, closed minded and pretty much everything Christians are accused of. Even if you are right (and I accept the possibility) your manner makes me disinclined to continue the discussion. You don't think you have to argue "fair" with Christians? Ad hom and unsubstantiated claims are fair game because Christians deserve it?
meh
This is a claim for which you have provided no proof.
Wow, just wow. How much proof do you need? Seriously.
Nice work twisting my words. I am saying that people should not question what they believe to be true based on fiction.
Well, you're saying they should not question what they believe based on facts either. Logically, it follows that you believe people shouldn't question their beliefs.
What does that have to do with anything? There is a lot in the Genesis that is similar to contemporary stories. The Geneis creation story is very similar (with important changes, largely the removal of muliple gods and the replacement with one God).
What it has to do with anything is that you're trying to claim that the existence of some old manuscripts is proof that a person mentioned in said manuscripts existed. Therefore, the fact that the myths being recounted in the manuscripts predate the "person" who is supposed to have been an actual character in said myths is entirely relevant.
Your point there is entirely equivalent to finding a copy of the Iliad written a hundred years after Homer died and claiming that that is proof that Achilles existed 100 years after the time of Homer.
The problem with that attempt at reasoning is that not only do we have no proof that there ever really was an Achilles, but even if there was such a person, he didn't live at the time you'd conclude he did.
And once again you think I have not done that research.
Why is this a circular argument? There are strong reasons why the gospels have credibility. One is that there are early manuscripts (which I mentioned), and manuscripts up til today that satisfy historians that the gospels we have today are original or very close to. In other words the "church" has not doctored them.
I didn't say that the church (or anybody for that matter) doctored them. The previous point, that the stories were far older which you just admitted to knowing (or at least very strongly implied as much) proves that to be false.
They can't really be the originals, now can they?
Secondly there are methods historians apply to texts such as these to test the authenticity. I'd list them out but I don't think you are really listening.
You keep making the same silly mistakes.
Nobody is saying that when whoever wrote the particular documents in question that they were later altered.
What I am saying is that the authors are unknown and were not contemporary with the supposed lifetime of Jesus.
Further, the stories they were telling were older even than that.
As for the Josephus quote, could you substantiate that please.
Since you're the one clinging desperately on to it as your sole hope of finding any evidence whatsoever for your viewpoint don't you think you owe it to yourself to spend 5 minuted checking it out instead of blindly swallowing nonsense spouted by whoe3ver sold you that line of crap?
However, just so you can pick out some trivial meaningless detail to use as an excuse to ignore the whole subject, here's one link.
Hey thanks. I love being called an idiot and a liar by someone who claims in the face of all historical evidence and all credible historians that the person of Jesus never existed.
Well, when you keep pretending that "no historical evidence whatsoever and no credible historians" means "all historical evidence and all credible historians", how can you expect any decent person to treat you as anything but an idiot and liar?
When you continue to repeat idiotic lies, you *are* an idiotic liar.
Don't blame me, that's just how it works.
Throughout these comments you have been insulting, closed minded and pretty much everything Christians are accused of.
I'm not closed minded at all. The thing is that I have researched these issues, and so I *know* that you
Some would be good. You still haven't provided any.
No I am not saying that.
Look I can't be bothered to read the rest of your comment. You are not arguing based on facts, you are arguing on emotion. I see no point in aruging any further. Go argue with your strawman, that seems to be what you really want to do.
meh
Vague, or incorrect?
"Ill" is vague; "Puke mucus" is incorrect.
Otherwise easily translated as: "...until the cows come home." Right, because the environment is constant and creatures never migrate. In three words: sickle cell anaemia.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
I'll tell that to my fiance, she'll be most relieved to know the vomit exiting her body when she accidentally consumes cow lactose is a figment of her poor ickle imagination. Or rather 'íncorrect', LOL.
Some would be good. You still haven't provided any.
Like I said, if you can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes researching something, you really shouldn't bother piping in on the subject. It's not like it's hard to find contradictions and inaccuracies throughout the bible.
You want to believe that it's magically true so you refuse to put in any effort to be informed on the issues.
Not a big deal to me, but you really should try to be honest about it.
Look I can't be bothered to read the rest of your comment. You are not arguing based on facts, you are arguing on emotion. I see no point in aruging any further. Go argue with your strawman, that seems to be what you really want to do.
By which you mean that you're not happy with the facts and so prefer remaining in denial of reality.
Your choice, but don't bother piping up on subjects you refuse to learn anything about. You just look silly.
>>> Fresh blood out of healthy living cattle
m l
OK. I don't think it's just the Masai; the Nandi for example and the Suri and Hamar that were featured in the "Tribes" series. But I guess that your point probably still stands.
I'd have thought "healthy" cattle would be quite hard to come by.
----
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tribe/tribes/hamar/index.sht
I've never seen a baby allergic to breast milk. I'm lactose intolerant but not to that degree.
Show me some evidence that there are babies that can't drink breastmilk because I find that difficult to believe.
It does cause diarrhea but I don't know of babies dying of it either. The people I know who were lactose intolerant as children, did not die of diarrhea. Obviuosly people managed otherwise the gene would not have spread so fast.