Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution 503
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. "
I welcome our new lactose-intol... (Score:3, Funny)
You fucked it up.. (Score:3, Funny)
Execpt that it's too late, it already happend.
Micro vs Macro (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Micro vs Macro (Score:5, Informative)
So my point is, that it's not easy to define or prove 'micro-evolution'. Just to clarify, I am a biologist by trade and am quite comfortable with the punctuated-equilibrium model of evolution, I'm certainly not arguing that evolution doesn't happen, just that we have to be careful with our conclusions.
Re:Micro vs Macro (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Eh, just a passing thought I have from time to time. I haven't had a chance to state it as eloquently as I'd like, but the gis
That's What You Think It Said (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:That's What You Think It Said (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as a former historian, I can tell you that history and faith do not mix well--and shouldn't. You can not use history and science to "prove" supernatural assertions (if you could, they wouldn't be supernatural).
Yes, the Bible includes much important historical information that historians use (and argue about). But using historical and archaeological sources to argue that the Bible is accurate in many of its historical assertions does absolutely nothing to support or renounce its supernatural claims. Historians have, for instance, long accepted that Jesus was a real historical figure. But that acknowledgement can offer nothing to the argument over whether or not he performed miracles, or was the "Son of God."
-Eric
Re:That's What You Think It Said (Score:4, Insightful)
There are some word games being played here. First, "many" cultures is quite a stretch. There are some half-dozen cataclysm stories that parallel the flood story told in Genesis.
Second, calling these other stories "unrelated" is false. Greek and Sumerian cultures were "unrelated" to Hebrew culture? I think not. A large weight of evidence suggests the opposite of what you assert. These ancient civilizations were quite mobile and it is highly likely that these "unrelated" flood stories have a common root, which was passed among these people by oral storytelling tradition, through which it became localized.
Third, these stories are not "records" any more than the story of Paul Bunyan [wikipedia.org] is a "record" of how the Grand Canyon was formed. Now, I am not arguing whether the story has a basis in fact; believe about that what you will. I am only saying that it does not qualify as a historical record.
I submit that what you perceive as "anti-creator bias" is instead an aversion to black box thinking. If you see the work of God in the emergence of life on Earth, more power to you. However, we cannot postulate that the emergence of life is caused by a creator, because we then fall off the map of science. All the mechanics become hidden away inside a magical black box where we cannot see them. And since we cannot make observations, there is no way to prove any of the claims wrong. Ergo, science is impossible.
There is no bias present, only a desire to do proper science.
Re:That's What You Think It Said (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe you mean that the re-ordering of specific nucleotide sequences is somehow different from larger-scale changes, such as chromosome fusion, or perhaps the RNA->DNA change that is postulated to have happened ~1 billion years ago.
It is not clear what this difference would be. Chemistry is chemistry, and when you get down to it, all "evolutionary" changes are just chemic
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 va
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Dollars to donuts you don't read it in the original Hebrew.
The bible is a compilation of texts, and the records of the compiling process exist (hence we know that the book of Esther, for example, was considered and rejected for inclusion.) This process leads to the myriad inconsistencies (
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do you always bring it up without any evidence to corroborate your claim?
where's the mutation? (Score:2)
So I'd say natural selection happened as recently as ~5000 years ago, not evolution. But maybe TFA didn't explain everything.
Re:where's the mutation? (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Natural selection is one of the evolutionary processes, just as mutations are.
Natural selection is part of evolution, not something completely different and disjoint.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:where's the mutation? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it always "mutation" (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org] do all the work. Crossover, not mutation, is what lets a population do that slow walk/hillclimb, over time, through the genetic landscape.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you do crossover so one in the new generation can get "extra" material from a parent? In that way, a gene can be copied and modified. That is a known mechanism in the genome. There are lots of genes in every species that are modified copies of other genes.
Without any new species being created.
You could probably do a trivial mathematical argument that such a crossover operation in the normal genome has the same
Re:Why is it always "mutation" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, strong selection pressures are identified on a gene by the absence of crossover. When a gene is strongly selected the other genes and junk near it tend to be carried along intact, instead of being carved up by re
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why is it always "mutation" (Score:4, Informative)
You're right. Point mutations (like a bit flipping in geekspeak) are only one kind of evolution mechanism, although it can be caused by several mechanisms (error during copy of the genome, which in fact happens all the time, 1 or 2 per billion base pair per duplication if I remember, a rate that would never be tolerated in computers, it's like 1 bit flipping every 125 Mb, also chemicals, cosmic rays, etc). But to participate in evolution, it has to be transmitted to the germline. So the mutation has to happen in your balls, in other terms.
In fact, no. There are many point mutations between human beings, they are called SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) and there is a big worldwide project that mapped many of them them. Most of them are silent, or at least do not have a black and white effect (but it sometimes unfortunately happens : one single mutation in 3 billions nucleotides and you will suffer a painful and slow death). Remember that people used to say that most of the human genome is junk (this junk actually seems to be more and more important, but it's mainly "apart from defined genes - a few percent - we have no idea what the rest is doing here").
A point mutation in a primate genome would be like flipping a random bit in an overbloated Visual Basic application. It's very likely the program will still be funtional. As opposed to changing a random bit in a very size optimized assembler program, which is almost certainly going to crash.
I'm not sure it's supported by facts, although it's an interesting theory. Don't forget that there are even other ways to modify a genome. An important one is polyploidy : suddenly for some reason an organism doubles the number of chromosomes (a cell that duplicate the genome but fails to separate into two daughter cells). As you suddenly have twice the number of redundant genes, then the new genome is like a playground for other kinds of mutation, as time and random can play around with the copies of the genes without much effect, as long as there is one functional copy.
Another mechanism, as opposed to point mutation or whole genome doubling, is deletions or copies (in tandem, or inverted, or somewhere else, or in the middle of another gene) of huge portions of the genome (several thousands of nucleotides). In fact, there was a paper in Nature two or three weeks ago that compared the chimp and the human genome for this type of big chunk mutation.
A last one is through the action of transposons which may be some old retrovirus succesfully inserted in the genome. For some reason, sometimes a transposon get excited, wakes up and it will excise itself from its current location and jump somewhere else in the genome. But this process is never perfect, and the jump removes or leaves a few nucleotides that are going to induce a mess if it's inside a gene.
There are others ways to fuel evolution at the genome level, but that were the ones that came on top of my head quickly. Plus I need a coffee.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They cannot compete with the sheer truthiness of revealed insight.
Why go to Africa (Score:2, Funny)
Where is TFS (Score:2)
Humans have evolved ??? (Score:2)
The original papers abstract: (Score:2)
A SNP in the gene encoding lactase (LCT) (C/T-13910) is associated with the ability to digest milk as adults (lactase persistence) in Europeans, but the genetic basis of lactase persistence in Africans was previously unknown. We conducted a genotype-phenotype association study in 470 Tanzanians, Kenyans and Sudanese and identified three SNPs (G/C-14010, T/G-13915 and C/G-13907) that are associated with lactase persistence and that have d
Re: (Score:2)
Why is only Africa brought up? (Score:3, Informative)
- 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 [wikipedia.org].
- World map with lactose intolerance distribution [wikimedia.org].
Sort of Muddled Marketing (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:4, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, lactose evolves tolerance for YOU!
Shens! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No way! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:No way! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You've got some troubles with irony now don't you?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No way! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 invad
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:No way! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No way! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that his life and death and resurrection demonstrated that we do not have the capacity to behave well enough and require his forgiveness, hence his repeated use of the phrase 'repent and believe'?
Probably not a prostitute. Though Jesus did hang out with plenty of them. Doesn't mean he approved of what
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 ba
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 th
Re:No way! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, what?
The "original authors" of the OT were dead and gone long before Jesus was born
Re:No way! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:No way! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:No way! (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now who's being religious?
Re:No way! (Score:4, Insightful)
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 :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:They don't explain WHY (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They don't explain WHY (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They don't explain WHY (Score:5, Interesting)
The information in the above source seems reasonable enough, and well-backed with scientific reports. Please read it, I assure it is worth it.
Oh, and what kind of scientific discourse would be complete without anecdotal evidence?
So don't drink milk for health.
Re:They don't explain WHY (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll stick to searching 'pubmed.org' for "milk, osteoporosis" and seeing the randomized control trials, thank you.
Milk and survival (Score:5, Insightful)
But yes, of course smarts can pay off to various degrees in Darwinian terms too, depending on what niche you are looking to fill.
A dangerous and incorrect fallacy (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A dangerous and incorrect fallacy (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The "laws of evolution" are still with us, and spandrels are not necessarily plastic. Nor does the presence of spandrels lead to plasticity at all. I think you're just joining evolutionary-sciency words to sound clever.
Hence, positing evolution of humanity is incorrect in timespans extending much further back than a mere 6000 years.
Skin color? This must have arisen in the last 150kya after humans moved out of Africa. I could list other examples, but it's quite obvious you're talking out your arse here.
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.
Yes. It appears that this study was funded by the evil Dairy-conglomerate to promote milk-drinking behavior.
The author referenced here, one Nicholas Wade, is notable for engaging in ideologically dubious activities
Nicholas Wade [plosjournals.org] is a very well respected science writer. I guess that science could be consided "ideologically dubious" to some.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:They don't explain WHY (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 lik
Re:They don't explain WHY (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:They don't explain WHY (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They don't explain WHY (Score:4, Informative)
Guns, Germs and Steel - Jared Diamond
Re:They don't explain WHY (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Speculation, I don't see how it makes a differe (Score:5, Funny)
Where do you live? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Speculation, I don't see how it makes a differe (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Don't think so. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Don't think so. (Score:5, Funny)
I see about a billion websites that beg to differ...
Ah yes, the exception. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Aside from the alcohol part, that could describe any domesticated cat. :-)
Milk - check (as long as they didn't go a long time between being weaned and drinking milk as an adult).
Crawling/toddling - well, they are quadrupeds.
Tantrums -
"Baby" ... that means ~1 year old. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really simple, drinking milk or not really had no influence on human evolution. Humans that couldnt drink milk found something else to eat.
Yeah, because 6000 years ago you could just go down to 7-11 and grab a burrito, right genius? Fact is that you have two populations - one that can eat the enormously nutritious, high-calorie food that comes out of this cow/goat/wildebeast over here, and one population that can't. Guess which one dies first when famine hits, or the grain crop spoils?
Most evolution
Re:Speculation, I don't see how it makes a differe (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Link is False Advertising (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bah, forget that (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it can reflect a number of things.
As recently as a thousand years ago, Northern Europeans were still a bunch of cannibals running around with stone axes, and drank milk from animals.
Make that 1500 years and maybe, just maybe, you might be right.
In East Asia, Mongolians are lactose-tolerant, but they were less civilized than other countries in the region which acquired agriculture thousands of years ago.
Ah, an interesting po