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. "
Nah.... too easy.
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
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
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.
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
Unfortunately this will prove to be an evolutionary dead end, as these genes will never be passed on.
Home fucking is killing prostitution.
And it gets modded up.. As insightful at that.. :( Sigh. Note to the OP i don't have anything against you but I wish you wouldn't generalize. Feel free to make fun of the "crazies". It's okay. But don't bring Jesus into stuff like this. He didn't say anything about this kind of thing! His whole existance on this Earth was to set an example as to how we should behave and to give our lives meaning.
I think this is an awesome find. Cool. I look forward to more. Guess what I'm a Christian and obviously believe in Jesus.
As I post in all these threads: I'm for gay marriage, pro choice (though anti abortion I don't feel I can make the choices for others), for legal gambling (we don't live in a theocracy), pro legalized drugs and prostitution (what do you think Mary Magdalene was???) etc.
Slashdot would be a wonderful place if we could lose all the religion bashing.
People on the fringes don't speak for all of us. I don't try to force my views on others. I interest my friends in learning more about my views by: being nice to them and treating them well, and listening when they have problems and trying to help them out whenever I can.
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? The Bible you read is the most *probable* meaning but it is NOT the only meaning that Moses could have intended when writing it.
Seriously, evolution happens all around us. We know. However, it doesn't necessarily mean God didn't put us here, or any of that Jazz. In fact the two don't really have anything to do with each other at all. The fossil record DOES show species just "appearing" as if they were just created. It also indicates that the Earth is very old. So what? That just indicates that: we have more stuff to figure out about our world. We discover stuff that was previously unkown all the time. Cool. I believe God gave us our mind so we could do as much as we can do understand the world around us. Are we always going to be right? No. But that doesn't mean you are a "dirty sinner" or something if you are.
Humans don't have a full understanding of everything. I'm cool with that. I look forward to learning more about evolution. As we learn more and more about the detail of the universe I think it shows us more and more about how awesome God is for putting it into place.
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
Didn't we see human evolution pretty close to home? But only backwards;).
The best planning can be done after the project completes.
significant figures. I would say that "2700-6800" signifies certainty between 2650 and 6850 years ago, with slightly less (but consistent) certainty that it is between 2750 and 6750 years ago.
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.
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.
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;
Alright that wasn't a very good analogy, but I hope you get the point: In evolution, the average trends in the gene pool are what are considered rather than a specific instance of change. (IANAEB (I'm not an evolutionary biologist), so please correct me if I'm wrong)
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
You're far too reasonable, I don't think you'll like it here.
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
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.
Which women?
Eve, lilith (who was obviously evil because she considerd herself an equal of man) or the other one that adam saw being created and was too disgusted to go near after realising she was made of meat.
Or the other tribes the kane and able encountered during their wanderings?
Oh you never bothered to read the Kabbalah? Maybe you ought to check the orignal source material...
There are 2 kinds of people that have read the bible: those that have understood it, and christians.
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.
You've got some troubles with irony now don't you?
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
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
I think you missed what I was saying. Natural selection by itself is not evolution. If you have a species with many different traits and some outside influence makes some of those traits more desirable while others less so, the dying out of the less desirable traits is not evolution. No new trait has been introduced into the gene pool. It's not evolution anymore than if some freak disease killed off all the green eyed people in the world.
So, 5000 years ago natural selection occurred. But the gene that allowed the digestion of lactose may have been around for millions of years, before we were even human.
Evolution is the combination of the mutation that created the gene and the natural selection that made for the proliferation of the gene. But that process may have to include a time span of millions of years, from the creation of the gene to the domestication of animals, not just ~5000 years ago.
- 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!
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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.
Because the very existence of religion creates extremism, and if you want evidence of this then, well, you've got basically the whole of human existence to choose from. More moderate people like you perpetrate the myth that religion can be balanced and forward thinking and therefore religion is allowed to continue existing. In fact for this simple reason alone you are more dangerous than the extremists and however deluded they might be you are more so. To them you are the public face, they are the necessary guards of the core values. And in a sense they are right, you have deluded yourself into believing in a god who is kind, just and fair when your own texts say that there was a lot of 'fire and brimstone' behind him. The true face of religion is divided in half, like that Batman villain, with one half being a serene, kind and gentle visage and the other half a snarling beast. But make no mistake, they are the same entity.
Two tears in a bucket. Motherfuck it.
I for one welcome our new loctose-tolerant overloards.
Execpt that it's too late, it already happend.
FRA: STFU GTFO
"Feel free to make fun of the "crazies". It's okay. But don't bring Jesus into stuff like this."
Ummm, technically he only invoked "Jebus". I dunno about you, but in my alphabet "b" and "s" are different letters. Maybe he was intentionally doing this to avoid offending anyone reasonable who does believe in Jesus?
"Slashdot would be a wonderful place if we could lose all the religion bashing."
And the world could be a wonderful place if groups of people identified predominantly by their religion would stop bashing everyone and everything else, too.
"People on the fringes don't speak for all of us."
No, but they speak the loudest. So all us non-religious types hear is fuckwit fundamentalists complaining about violent video games in the army, opposing evolutionary marriage and banning gays.
" I don't try to force my views on others. I interest my friends in learning more about my views by: being nice to them and treating them well, and listening when they have problems and trying to help them out whenever I can."
Then well done - you're pursuing the only path that stands a chance of really converting anyone with more than two brain-cells to rub together.
If it helps, try the following:
s/christian/fuckwit fundamentalist christians/
s/religion/what's done in the name of religion by fuckwits/
I'm pretty sure that's the mental shorthand of most reasonable people on Slashdot - religion has done very good things, but these days most of the good things are shouted down by the constant media-whoring of the lunatic fringe.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
There are no passages in the Bible that "very clearly condemn homosexuality" as each passage can be interpreted in several different ways, as the parent suggested. You will also find most of those passages up for debate are from the Old Testament, which isn't from the teachings of Jesus. You will find much in the New Testament that directly contradicts the Old Testament.
So if I read you correctly, he's not a Christian worthy of your disdain because he bothers to think for himself (as the New Testament suggests he should) and not simply "obey the word"? That's very tolerant of you.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
In Soviet Russia, lactose evolves tolerance for YOU!
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
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.
I'm not the original poster, but as I seem to have similar opinions, I'll bite.
First off, the law in the Bible has always been for the people of God. In the Old Testament, that was the Jews. After Jesus, it expanded to include Christians. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that non-believers should be made to follow the law (In the OT, the Jews were told to kill certain unbelievers, and in the NT Christians are called to convert them, but they're never told to force them to follow the law). Biblically, you don't get saved by following the law (or rather, you would, but nobody ever manages to keep it 100%). You get saved by following Jesus. Going around forcing people who don't follow Jesus to act as if they did accomplishes nothing except to get them really annoyed. It's not going to save anyone, and it's counterproductive.
Since, as the grandparent said, we don't live in a theocracy, the government should not necessarily be bound to obey the laws of God. I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I believe the government shouldn't be making laws about morality. Governments should make laws to provide for the security and freedom of its citizens - anything else is (or should be) out of its scope. If it's an issue of morality, then it should be in the hands of the church (as the rules of the church apply only to its followers). So allow gay marriages - as long as you don't force me to partake in one, or force my church to officially sanction it. Allow prostitution and drug use - as long as you don't force me to foot the bill to treat the addicts, or allow people to use being "under the influence" as a means to escape their actions. These are consensual activities, and are issues purely of morality, and should not be prohibited by the government. As long as the government doesn't stop me practicing my religion, it should allow everyone else to do whatever they like, as long as it does not significantly impact other's freedom or security.
On the other hand, things like murder, rape and theft have an impact on the citizen's freedoms and security. The government should forbid them. The current abortion debate (and the therepeutic cloning debate) are essentially a definitions debate, determining when a developing human should be given the same protections as a fully developed human.
As an aside, Mary Magdalene wasn't a prostitute - Rahab was though, and she was judged as righteous. Not because of her profession, but in spite of it. The Bible isn't defending prostitution as a moral choice, it's saying nobody (including prostitutes) is beyond redemption.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Yes, and the reason why is simple: religion is un-reason (and often anti-reason). Therefore, it obliterates the only common grounds that humans can find among each other.
In a world of reason, there are facts, evidence, and proof, with which we can (in principle) persuade each other to converge on a single, objective knowledge... and hence, there is no need to kill each other.
Without reason, it's just your feelings/assertion/faith/whim/tradition versus mine, and there is no mechanism for synchronizing the two databases... so, may the biggest club win.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
If you read TFA, you would notice that its not the loss of the ability to consume lactose, it was the gaining of the ability to consume lactose. And evolution works both ways, both in the loss of detrimental traits (like the loss of creating melatonin in populations closer to the poles) and the spread of positive traits like from this article.
If you believe there is natural selection, and you don't believe in determinism, you are left with evolution as the only "guiding" (evolution has no goal other than survival so calling it guiding is a bit strong) force.
Clones are people two.
Great argument. "Religion is evil, if you want proof, look at history!" Nice as rhetoric, lousy as an argument. I could just as easily say "Patriotism is evil, just look at the history of international conflict!" Or I could say "Trade as evil, look how many wars have started over trade issues!" I can't find a batman villain to compare you to though, you've got me there.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
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.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that non-believers should be made to follow the law
Correct, it doesn't. It says they'll go to hell.
Biblically, you don't get saved by following the law (or rather, you would, but nobody ever manages to keep it 100%). You get saved by following Jesus.
According to your group's interpretation of the collection of literary works that comprise the christian 'bible'. The original authors (the real ones - you know the jews whose 'spiritual' inheritance christians claim a part of) of the vast majority of those literary works (the OT) would disagree with that interpretation to say the very least. Quote the NT to them all you want - they don't believe it is the 'word of god' in the way you do, and they wrote all the parts that christians interpret as validating the divine nature of jesus.
And, for the open minded parent poster above, the christian 'bible' clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination (Lev. 18:22), for which you get to go to hell (Rom. 1:26-28). And I have to wonder, what is gay marriage without gay sex? Don't get me wrong, I applaud such open mindedness, but if you're a christian who believes that every word in the English christian bible was explicitly arranged by god, its pretty hard to reconcile open mindedness about such issues with the 'word of god'.
If it's an issue of morality, then it should be in the hands of the church (as the rules of the church apply only to its followers).
So, if you're not a member of a church, then you're free?
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
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.
Unfortunately, this statement is indistinguishable from, "If you have a system that requires a bunch of things to happen before it is indisputably obvious to me personally that any natural selection advantage is given, I would find that unreasonable."
So the question is: does your inability to see the advantage in something constitute evidence against evolution by variation and natural selection? Obviously not. Scientific truth is independent of your abilities.
To give your position any scientific strength you need to specify what measure of advange you are going to apply, so that everyone can apply the same measure of advantage. Also, you need to make clear what you are arguing for. Obviously no one sane believes that evolution by variation and natural selection has no role whatsoever in the diversity of life. To deny that would be to deny the factual basis of the bulk of chemistry and physics on top of biology. So undoubtedly any measure of advantage will reveal many cases where evolution has taken place.
You presumeably believe that in some cases there will be an increase in the diversity of life that is not accompanied by any selective advantage. Thus, you will have proven that evolution is true and correct in a limited domain--this is the normal process of scientific development. Newtonian physics is not wrong, just limited to a given domain. Likewise, no one who understands what evolution is thinks that it will ever be replaced as one of the primary explanation for the diversity of life. There are simply too many cases where all the transitional forms have been found and documented for that to happen.
But in the case where you find conserved non-advantageous characteristics, what would you do next in terms of figuring out the cause of that process? Certainly you cannot invoke "God does it", because by invoking ideas of advantage and so on you are speaking in scientific terms, and it would be completely dishonest to pull that kind of bait-and-switch. So what do you think might drive evolution in cases where variation and natural selection does not?
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
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
More moderate people like you perpetrate the myth that religion can be balanced and forward thinking and therefore religion is allowed to continue existing.
It seems that yours is the extremist approach, not those that follow some sort of religion. It is always amazing that people with religion are required to tolerate those without, but those without religion don't have to do the same.
you have deluded yourself into believing in a god who is kind, just and fair when your own texts say that there was a lot of 'fire and brimstone' behind him.
That would be a correct statement if you only focus on the Hebrew Scriptures and leave out the Christian or New Testament ones. But, then again, the Christian ones re-interpreted the message and meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures and the 'fire and brimstone' wasn't part of it, but love and forgiveness was.
The real question is why does any time an evolution discussion come up, Slashdot turns into a religion bashing discussion. Even for the relatively small group of world-wide Christians that are fundamentalists and hold to the biblical account of creation, most do not.
I would have really thought the Slashdot discussion would have focused on the claim that these two groups of people evolved in a relatively short time and relatively recently. That would seem to beg the question of evolved from what? Where they not homo sapiens before this evoloution? Are they not homo sapiens now? If they were homo sapiens both before and after this genetic trait occurred, then technically, evolution hasn't occurred, just adaptation. You would think researchers would be more precise with their language.
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.
Secondly, something that many people forget is that the Old Testament is, quite honestly, a Jewish book. In order to be Christian, you don't have to follow the Old Testament; you have to follow JESUS.
Not really, it you read Matt 5:17-19. But, if you choose to interpret Luke 16:16, Eph 2:15, & Rom 7:6 literally, then no, you don't have to follow the OT.
As for claiming that the entire group of Christians has a specific stance on the Bible is particularly naive.
Believing that the bible - any part - is a canon of god or god's instructions on how to live is what's actually naive. Pick any christian sect, and they canonize some part of the bible to fit their tastes. That's just trying to translate personal preferences into divine will - something nearly all christian sects have in common (along with a slew of other religions). That was actually the underlying point.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
"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.
/ducks tomato
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
You mean the century during which, along with the previous one, every advanced democracy adopted policies directly inspired by socialism, and the ones in which people are happier with the performance of their government generally were the ones that adopted more "socialist" policies than other advanced democracies?
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.
Blind patriotism and trade without conscience *are* "evil", in the "they cause human misery" sense of the word.
Those without religion do not purport to have any kind of 'authority' over others, unless it's based on reason.
From Thomas Hardy to the Beatles to Dogma there are a million examples in the last century alone of religious people being intolerant of anything which even hints at atheism, or mocks/insults their religion. I have no idea how you've managed to construe it as the other way round except, perhaps, in the very small world of slashdot users.
Stupid people think it's cool. Smart people thinks it's a joke; also cool.
But it teaches little Joe that the way to resolve your problems is through violence.
Prove it. Give me just one scientific study that hasn't been debunked which shows a causal link between video games and violent behaviour. And no, your own gut feelings and those of your military friend do not apply.
Look, your long exposition is very well written and, I'm sure, well-meaning, but to coin an over-used term, it's nothing but "truthiness". The fact is, there are no well-constructed studies that demonstrate the link you claim. Much like the Birthday Paradox, human instinct is really shitty at dealing with things like this, hence why the scientific method exists. And, thus far, the scientific method disproves your beliefs.
not all myths are about deities, just listen to any left-winger talking about the virtues of socialism and you'll wonder if he has ever learned anything about the past century's history
Now who's being religious?
Score: -1, Doesn't understand the difference between Stalinist Communism and Socialism
Seriously, you obviously have no idea. Look at the Socialist countries of Europe, and see how they're performing better than the US. See how their crime rates are usually lower, how their healthcare is usually better, how more people vote, less poverty, etc. etc. etc. Why are you so poorly informed about other countries? It makes you look a wee bit foolish when your indoctrinations come clashing up against reality. It's not your fault, most likely an influential family member also had the wrong end of the stick and kindly imparted that knowledge to you when you were too young to realise adults get things wrong. Either that or a communist stole your girlfriend when you were at college. Either way, you're not arguing from logic :)
Are you a chemist? Would you value a chemist who still believed in phlogistion theory because an old book says it's true?
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
You're subscribing to a common misconception of 'evolution'. Evolution is not the process of "bettering", where there's some ultimate "perfect" form. It's just a process of change. A disease which kills everyone with green eyes will select against people with green eyes and green eyes will disappear from the gene pool. That's evolution in action - the gene pool has changed. If the "green eye" gene is linked to something that is important, like the "digest milk" gene, it probably won't be eliminated entirely and if the disease is eradicated green eye color will resurface.
Remember, individuals don't evolve. *Populations* evolve, when pressures (there are more mechanisms than natural selection at work, too) cause certain traits to be selected for or against. Negative pressure is still pressure.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
It's only prejudiced because of what you substituted in. Replace "Black people" with "utter loonies" and it'd be fair comment.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
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.
Hm.
I think somehow, this is sarcastic. I'm no expert, though.
Anyways, a mutation to generate an enzyme to breakdown a common compound that is chemically similar to another compound we produce ourselves (ie: glucose), is a far smaller jump in the genetic map than, say, a mutation that would generate a chelation molecule specifically designed to capture lead, while simultaneously producing exotic polymers that weave themselves throughout your skin.
Not to say it couldn't happen, but mutation A is far more likely than mutation B.
Though, at least half of mutation B would very likely exist if, say, all of humanity were exposed to levels of lead sufficient to kill off the population after 15 years of exposure. That is to say, higher than was consumed by the Romans (in the form of Lead (II) Acetate from wine served from lead casks); they regularly lived 30 years or more.
Thing is, we're well aware of the dangers of Lead; even if it somehow found its way into all our water, we'd pretty quickly notice and take action to filter it out. The same applies to a lot of dangers. Human evolution, if not stopped, slowed dramatically when we were able to clear out most macro and microscopic dangers.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
A fairly uncommonly contextual quote, which follows that long list of "things not to do" that everyone loves to quote in the whole the-Bible-is-anti-homosexuality debate:
Lev 20:22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. (KJV)
To simplify, those rules were rules he gave them in order to survive in the culture of the land they were moving to. It wasn't an expression of the Will of God or any such thing, it was just practicality for survival of His people.
Such are the dangers of quoting out of context.
,i>
On the other hand, if you're talking about a non-christian marriage which grants gays the same benefits as marriage, then sure. I see nothing hypocritical about that. It's just that when people are talking about marriage it is still easily understood to mean christian marriage, and you should be careful to spell it out if you don't mean it.
Given that marriage far predates Christianity and has always been more of an economic institution than a religious one, you might want to quit it with the moronic attempt at revisionist history. Also, there are far more marriages than there are Christians in the world.
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.
The original authors (the real ones - you know the jews whose 'spiritual' inheritance christians claim a part of) of the vast majority of those literary works (the OT) would disagree with that interpretation to say the very least. Quote the NT to them all you want - they don't believe it is the 'word of god' in the way you do, and they wrote all the parts that christians interpret as validating the divine nature of jesus.
Um, what?
The "original authors" of the OT were dead and gone long before Jesus was born or the NT written, so you can't claim they accepted or rejected anything. You're using the modern meaning of Judaism -- someone who follows the God of Abraham but does not accept the teachings of Jesus -- and transfering it back in time to the authors of the OT, long before that definition had any meaning at all. Your claim only makes sense if you are granting ancestral authority to those Jews who were alive at the time of these events and rejected the NT, remaining practitioners of Judaism. Well Jesus and his follewers were all Jewish, racially and religiously, and thus they all have equal claim to ancestral ties with Abraham. It was the acceptance/non-acceptance of Jesus and the NT that caused the split in religions of Judaism and Christianity. So saying modern Jews don't accept the NT is as insightful as saying that Christians don't accept the Koran, and saying the authors of the OT reject the NT makes as much sense as saying that the Disciples rejected Mohammed.
And, for the open minded parent poster above, the christian 'bible' clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination (Lev. 18:22), for which you get to go to hell (Rom. 1:26-28). Don't get me wrong, I applaud such open mindedness, but if you're a christian who believes that every word in the English christian bible was explicitly arranged by god, its pretty hard to reconcile open mindedness about such issues with the 'word of god'.
The argument for open-mindedness comes largely from the words of Jesus himself. I'll grant this is just my interpretation, but when Paul says something is an abomination and you will go to hell, and Jesus says we are all sinners and judge not lest you be judged yourself as only God has that authority, and accused anyone who would try to punish those who sin as hypocrites, I'm going with Jesus.
The enemies of Democracy are
I'm pretty sure that these countries have private ownership of businesses and personal property. This makes them only "socialistic". Naked Socialism would work out about as well as Communism did.
In a world of reason, there are facts, evidence, and proof, with which we can (in principle) persuade each other to converge on a single, objective knowledge... and hence, there is no need to kill each other.
Heh. Yeah. Because there's no way two people using facts and evidence would come to the conclusion that they have an unreconcileable conflict of interest and they won't get what they want unless they kill the other.
No King has ever decided that, based on pure reason, that it is better for him to invade a neighboring country, slay or enslave the populace, and steal their resources and land for himself.
It's religious conviction, anti-reason, that motivates organized criminals to kill snitches.
Okay, sarcasm over. I will fully accept the ills that relgions have caused, though I think you'll find that it is generally only as it is used as a mechanism to control the masses. The one doing the controlling usually has very practical, very rational, and completely brutal reasons behind the manipulation. The people are often driven to war by appealing to their religion, but the leaders seek war as they seek power and wealth and resources, like every war ever.
Frankly I reject your initial premise, that reason is the only common ground humans can find. Art, music, simple human empathy, are all based on emotion and are at least as effective at bringing people together.
The enemies of Democracy are
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. )ultimately evolution is something which happens over millions of years, so it's unlikely to see any other real notes / changes in my lifetime
The length of time it takes natural selection to shift the predominate traits in a population depends on a number of things, including the (in)stability of its habitat, how "important" whatever changes occur are to the organisms' survival and reproduction, and the length of the species' generation. Yes, we've generally seen noticeable changes take many thousands, if not millions of years, but it's not a foregone conclusion. Take, for example, the classic peppered moth. An entire population underwent a dramatic change in coloration in less than one hundred years, due to a sudden and perilous change in their habitat from industrial pollution.
Since when, in recorded history, have people acted with the peaceful rationality you attribute to them?
Furthemore, there are different brands of logic and rational approaches to situations which could (with or without religion) lead to conflict. Religious violence may occur in dramatic affairs, but I say that the logic of personal interest has caused just as much, if not more bloodshed. If you doubt this, consider how many people, from the dawn of time have been individually killed for food, money, land, possesions, and so on.
Never doubt that in a world without religion that people would still kill eachother in similar numbers and level of senselessness.
-Grym
In a world of reason, there are facts, evidence, and proof, with which we can (in principle) persuade each other to converge on a single, objective knowledge... and hence, there is no need to kill each other.
Interesting, then, that in this last century, where the culture was substantially influenced by this Enlightenment-based "world of reason" you describe, we have seen the bloodiest wars, and the most shocking instances of genocide, in all of history. Even accounting for the increased population.
And while yes, some of those conflicts exploited religion, none of the big ones had religion as their real motivation, as did e.g. the crusades, or the Catholic-Protestant conflicts of earlier centuries.
I'm not arguing that religion doesn't lead to violence, obviously it can and does. I am arguing that your supposed remedy to this violence simply doesn't work: human beings are, and will remain, violent. Religion is just one of the many excuses we use for it.
Without reason, it's just your feelings/assertion/faith/whim/tradition versus mine, and there is no mechanism for synchronizing the two databases... so, may the biggest club win.
I'm curious where you've ever seen this example you describe of perfect, mutually agreed upon rationality used to such a degree that rationality is actually the dominant means of decision-making, rather than a useful means of discussing issues. From what I can see of the world, even fairly "rational" people often form opinions and make decisions based substantially (if not entirely) on emotion, and then, in the ideal case, apply reasoning to evaluate those decisions. But emotions are still a very large part of human society, and I'm not sure how you propose to eliminate that through logic -- while some people may (claim to) be able to work that way, the vast majority of people do not and cannot.
And: even people who arrived at their conclusions "rationally" still frequently use power, rather than persuasion, to attain their ends.
I am the man with no sig!
Since when, in recorded history, have people acted with the peaceful rationality you attribute to them?
All the time, all around you, every day. Thats why we have a society and civilisation. In fact you can safely say that proportionately, wars are much more of a rare, occasional aberration. And even then we go about them in an organised and rational fashion.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.