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. "
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)
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.
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.
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.
In Soviet Russia, lactose evolves tolerance for YOU!
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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 :)
,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 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. )