Evolution happens. That's a fact.

Originally posted by AdesteFideles
reply to post by SpearMint

 

If you're going to source something on nutritional evolution with regard to lactase sourcing something as flimsy as bbc.news just won't hold. Here are some actual peer-reviewed journal articles that support your notion:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.nature.com...

www.cell.com...(07)61358-5

And here's a site with excellent info from a good friend of mine:

www.millerandlevine.com...

There is room for God and science in the equation. He made the equation.

Thank you. I read about this aaages ago so I didn't have a direct source. I was going to search google scholar for a peer reviewed paper but didn't get around to it yet. The BBC is very reliable and it is a good article, but yeah it's a bit flimsy.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by AdesteFideles
reply to post by SpearMint

 

If you're going to source something on nutritional evolution with regard to lactase sourcing something as flimsy as bbc.news just won't hold. Here are some actual peer-reviewed journal articles that support your notion:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.nature.com...

www.cell.com...(07)61358-5

And here's a site with excellent info from a good friend of mine:

www.millerandlevine.com...

There is room for God and science in the equation. He made the equation.

Thank you. I read about this aaages ago so I didn't have a direct source. I was going to search google scholar for a peer reviewed paper but didn't get around to it yet. The BBC is very reliable and it is a good article, but yeah it's a bit flimsy.

edit on 22-5-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

You're quite welcome. Google Scholar is good, but I just used Google. It'll pick up pretty much everything you're looking for on PubMed when it comes right down to it.

BBC may be reliable for "news"; for science articles I'd always go to the source. Just pray you never have to submit to those sources. ;-)

Anthropologist Marvin Harris' book entitled "Our Kind" discusses lactose intolerance and how tolerance was evolved from a vitamin D deficiency in cold northern climes.

Yes I wonder how many adaptations must occur before its deemed as evolution. Do we evolve to adapt? Is it just a play on words and definitions so as some may remain comfortable in their denial?

Try researching Atavisms

Search youtube for babies born with vestigial tails... seems most of us have adapted/evolved to no longer having this little number.

check out human embryo stages from 30 days to 40 days Looks like a tail to me. Lucky it doesn't get a hit of protein too.

Check out what this guy is doing with Chickens

Is the Green Sea Slug (Elysia chlorotica) adapting when it has stolen plant genes or has it evolved?

The slugs can manufacture the most common form of chlorophyll, the green pigment in plants that captures energy from sunlight, Pierce reported January 7 at the annual meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology. Pierce used a radioactive tracer to show that the slugs were making the pigment, called chlorophyll a, themselves and not simply relying on chlorophyll reserves stolen from the algae the slugs dine on.

Anyway... its a fascinating subject when these adaptations multiply sufficiently enough to to change a creature from having scales to feathers... I'm thinking archaeopteryx would make a good example of that.
Or even the modern day Platypus our most distant mammal relative has a genetic affinity with both reptiles and birds.

"The new genomic data make a water-tight case for [platypus] egg-laying truly being a primitive retention from reptilian ancestors,"

While milk production and giving birth to live young would seem to go hand in hand, the platypus genome shows that the two common mammalian traits evolved at very different points in evolutionary time.

Male platypuses produce a pain-inducing, snake-like venom, composed of at least 19 different substances, which is delivered to enemies or rival males through spurs on the males' hind legs. Previous studies of venomous snakes had found that poison production is the result of evolutionary modifications to genes that once served other functions. Some of the same genes appear to have modified in the platypus, but in a process entirely separate from the evolution of venom in snakes, according to the new study.

Elliott Margulies, a scientist at the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, said the significance of the platypus genome extends well beyond the field of early animal evolution

I'm wondering how much longer the creationists can hold their breath for, while having a tanty about the concept of evolution.

The word evolution brings to mind getting better, stronger, struggle, survial and the weak die.
I like the word unfolding. Everything is always changing, moving, morphing. Abolutely nothing stays the same.
Change happens, that is a fact.

Originally posted by LexiconV
I'm wondering how much longer the creationists can hold their breath for, while having a tanty about the concept of evolution.

Don't let them know that the fathers of the modern synthesis, Theodosius Dobzhansky and Ronald Fisher, were both Christians.

reply to post by LexiconV

I'm wondering how much longer the creationists can hold their breath for, while having a tanty about the concept of evolution.

Let me preface by saying although I am spiritual, I am not Christian, and I don't believe in a personified deity.

NOW, what is more unbelievable, creationism, as in, some type of outside influence whether it be from another realm, or aliens, or any other influence....... or a random accident that resulted in so much complexity that a single cell eventually morphed into a billion-billion cells of extreme organization? Is it really possible for one cell to voluntarily cooperate with another, and then morph into a complex system that supports another complex system that happened to organize adjacently, and then both of those systems to incorporate into another system, and so on and so on to create something as intricate as a human body? That is a LOT of ACCIDENTS!

I'm going to have to agree with 'getreadyalready' on this one. We are allowed to drink milk as an infant because it ushers in hormones. You can pinpoint about 59 different hormones in a glass of regular cow milk. You then lose the ability to drink milk because your body is trying to tell you "No! You shouldn't be putting these things in your body any more! You've already grown!"

Riddle me this: How many animals do you know that drink the milk of another animal? I can only think of humans and their consumption of usually cow milk.

The thing is, we have been conditioned through Consumerism to find milk appealing, just like an anorexic fashion model. Could I interest you in a glass of pig's milk? How about a nice tall glass of dog's milk? What about some horse milk? I bet you wouldn't even want to drink a glass of human breast milk. Why is this? Our bodies find it repulsive, not our minds, because the body knows we should not be drinking milk.

Not only does average milk contain a plethora of hormones, it also contains such toxic things as: bacteria, powerful growth hormones, allergies creating proteins, antibiotics, pesticides, fat, cholesterol, dioxin, and (here is the winner) pus!

But wait... there's more! Not only does it contain all these nasty things but it also contains a protein called 'casein'. Moreover, it doesn't just contain it... 80 to 90% of the proteins in cow milk are casein! Do you know what a practical use of casein used to be? Glue, paint, and plastics.

Casein used to be (and still is) used as a glue for placing labels on to items and as a wood glue because of its fast drying and super sticky nature. It was used as a paint because of its fast drying qualities as well. Galalith was a plastic made out of casein, as was 'Lanital' a plastic advocated by Italian Fascist leader Achille Starace during World War II (okay, that information wasn't necessary).

What happens to this casein when it enters your body? Well, it is registered in your brain's log file as a 'foreign protein'; a bogey on the radar. The histamines in your body then begin to take arms and break down these casein proteins which results in... *drum roll* ... mucus! Yes, "mucus". This is why doctors more-times-than-not recommend removing dairy from your diet if you have some chest-related sickness because you will produce much too much mucous.

This mucus, when overproduced, will thicken up your entire body. A very basic, visual test to see if someone has to much mucus is to lightly pinch the skin of a person's arm. If the skin comes up thin and elastically, then they usually have their mucus under control. If you can hardly pull the skin up because it is thick and causing a huge bit of fat and muscle to come up with it, then they likely have much mucus. Interestingly enough, Traditional Chinese Medicine exclaims that too much mucus in the body causes the majority of health related problems in the body. It is no coincidence that the biggest concern in TCM is dietary (milk being a part of that). It should be noted that casein only accounts for 20 to 45% of the proteins in human milk.

So, I (any way) can access that milk is probably not meant to be drink by adult humans, especially GMO, non-human milk, as it is dangerous. However, we still do drink it. Most people in the world drink milk because it has engrained its way into our societal norm. The result? Our bodies had to adapt to this abuse by altering our physiology. Basically, they see that we are drinking milk for a longer period of time than normal, so they allow us to continue using our milk-consumption proteins and enzymes.

Our bodies did not evolve, they just adapted their behavior to make up for our carelessness. I'm glad they are such good friends but we really should return the favor.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


Also, if you think you are one of the ones free from the damage of milk, you may be incorrect. Even a minor allergy can causes such symptoms of just having a 'mucus-y' throat, resulting in a cough. It may not seem like much but it is a signal from your body to home base.

The problem is: As I have stated the casein breakdown process takes anywhere from 10 to 12 hours. After this time has passed, you will no longer be concerned with the milk you had for breakfast. It is hard to put two and two together after that much time.

It's hilarious to see all the staunch evolutionists acting as if this information is some kind of unanswerable challenge that prove that the entire theory is right.

The only scientific facts are that some people are lactose intolerant and some are not. The facts are only what they are.

This information doesn't prove that man comes from molecules, that there isn't a God, or even that man comes from apes.

How much it relates to the overall theory of evolution is debatable and not really scientific.

Originally posted by crimsonhead
It's hilarious to see all the staunch evolutionists acting as if this information is some kind of unanswerable challenge that prove that the entire theory is right.

The only scientific facts are that some people are lactose intolerant and some are not. The facts are only what they are.

This information doesn't prove that man comes from molecules, that there isn't a God, or even that man comes from apes.

How much it relates to the overall theory of evolution is debatable and not really scientific.

It will always be an intensely interesting question, this one of how our origins and the origins of life were set into motion. I'm devout in my Christian faith and I'm also solidly grounded in science as a physician. I've read and researched things over the years in evolutionary biology that confound me and I've always come down to this.....

Genesis 1 isn't a scientific document. We're left with interpreting it as literal or more as a model of how God performed those first acts of creation. Why did He design P-selectin the way He did? Or how did the inflammatory model truly start working? Why are flagella so troubling to science? And those pesky chromosomal differences between us and lower primates. His design is both clear and unclear. What are we to rely on as men of faith and of science?

All we can say definitely from His character is that God never tries to trick us; that would be against His nature. When you apply this lens to your study you learn to accept things that perhaps you hadn't before.

I would encourage all those who truly believe God set all things in motion to read the link to Dr. Miller's site that I posted above. To those that don't believe in God I'm not sure what to tell you to study.

what you are saying does not compute.

my freshman biology teacher told me, when queried, as a matter of fact, "evolution no longer occurs." i couldn't understand at the time why this would be the case, as it didn't make sense that it would simply stop after billions of years unless someone was controlling it...but I accepted that answer and marched off into the world satisfied with his firm response.

are you trying to tell me that a high school science teacher doesn't know as much as you do?

reply to post by michaelbrux


Evolution still occurs. That high school science teacher (a science degree in education doesn't involve all that many science classes) didn't know what he/she was talking about. I am working on a Ph. D in anthropology so I'll venture to say that I do know more about it than a high school science teacher.

I honestly cannot believe that people who look at all the evidence and facts objectively can refute evolution. The arguments I see against it hold little merit.

reply to post by Erectus


I was being a bit facetious and never accepted such an outrageous assertion, that evolution no longer occurs. my opinion was that if it ever happened then it must still be happening and if its not happening then my question is what stopped it.

i just wanted to point out that in schools all around the country children are being taught lies on a daily basis and the people doing it expect raises.

Human adaptation to the digestion of milk is theorized to be a result of those living in Northern climes not having access to sunlight under their heavy clothing. This is the same reason for their pale skin. Every bit of vitamin D needed to be scavenged. In tropical climes vit D is available in copious amounts from direct sun light. Cancer, however is a major factor there, so dark pigmentation resulted in dark skin. Look at the pre-modern distribution of humans and it is clear that the people who lived farther from the equator had progressively lighter skin.

The eskimos are an exception to this. Why? Because they were asians (some say polynesian) not too many thousands of years ago. Their diet rich in vitamin D carrying seafood has not demanded an evolutionary change to light skin. They are just fine so no adaptation will be favored.

Evolution can adequately explain pretty much every trait of humanity and the natural kingdom.

Evolution occurs and has been proven on many accounts (DNA and all).

First of all, evolution is the result of completely accidental mutations! Sometimes (rarely) these mutations may be superior. These mutations must occur in a gamete cell and be part of the organisms whole DNA coding. Mutations that occur in somatic cells will not be passed onto offspring. For those concerned about where the mutation occurs, it can occur on the introns and exons of the gene sequence. Mutations occur through replication, deletion. fragmentation, or switching of bases (the base pair amino acids that code for DNA)

Here's a classic example of evolution, and a better example than OP. The evolution of bi-peds is thought to have occurred as primates moved from the jungle to the jungle-Savannah borders. It is thought that an accidental mutation occurred that allowed a primate to stand on its two hind legs in a more up-right posture. This has its obvious advantages in savannah which is commonly covered with tall grass. This more upright primate is able to see over the grass and thus detect predators as well as food much better than his brothers on all fours. Lets say this primate lives to reproduce, and passes this trait along to the next generation. The primate that can see over the grass and detect predators and scout food has a more likely chance of surviving in the given environment, and over time the alleles that express the traits of walking on four legs instead of two are literally "weeded out" since they have a much higher mortality rate. This cycle of mutation > increased survivability for environment > weeding out of weaker alleles from gene pool over time (since they die more often before they can reproduce) is what evolution is all about. Evolution does not care about perfection, just about what works better to keep the animal alive to reproduce.

This process can be further narrowed down when sexual selection occurs. If females are more attracted to males that can walk upright, this will speed up the process of evolution.

If you don't understand alleles or how genotypes are passed to offspring you should educate yourself on it. If you understand that, combined with how DNA mutates, and natural selection, you will understand evolution.

The above is a classic example, and most if not all evolution occurs in that manner. The modern human is nothing more than "what works better than before" at the time the mutation occurred in the environment the mutation occurred, and thus gave better survivability. It is impossible to get perfection. If total perfection were to occur for a given species, the gene pool would even out, and that creature would no longer evolve. Since the worldly environment is always changing, this is not possible. That being said, The human race is no longer subject to natural selection due to technological and medical advances, and with no natural selection comes a much slower rate of evolution. Physiologically, humans are not really evolving (not even comparatively close to the rate of species that are subjected to natural selection)

The lactose intolerance example that has been bouncing around isn't evolution, but did occur from a mutation. It is an example of genetic variation. Think of it as an allele like in my example. One allele to process lactose (stand upright), another to not process lactose (on all fours). If people that can process lactose have a better chance of being able to reproduce and pass on their genetics at a better rate than those that cant process lactose, then over time the alleles to not be able to process lactose will be completely weeded out. This won't happen though, because being able to drink milk or not drink milk doesn't affect the survivability of humans in the modern world. No natural selection occurs, since almost everyone can live to reproduce. It will remain a variation just like skin color, height, heck even sickle cell disease is all variation.

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
I'm going to have to agree with 'getreadyalready' on this one. We are allowed to drink milk as an infant because it ushers in hormones. You can pinpoint about 59 different hormones in a glass of regular cow milk. You then lose the ability to drink milk because your body is trying to tell you "No! You shouldn't be putting these things in your body any more! You've already grown!"

Close, but gene expression is cause for why we are able to drink milk as an infant, and not as an adult.
Genes can be coded to express or not express at certain times. In this case, children express the gene that transcribes the protein enzyme lactase. Lactase is essential for the metabolic pathway of breaking down lactose.

Another example of gene expression:
When you drink alcohol, you pee a lot. You don't pee a lot because your body is simply "trying to filter out the alcohol" (however the gene expression does in fact do this in a way, and may be why it evolved).

Alcohol actually suppresses the genes that are expressed for the production of aquaporins on the cell wall. Aquaporins are responsible for the uptake of water into the cell regardless of gradients. Aquaporins constantly recycle, so when the gene that synthesizes the production of aquaporins is suppressed, the amount goes down. This is why we pee when drinking, the body doesn't have the aquaporins to re uptake fluids at a normal rate. You literally just loose water.

Gene expression can be applied to many things, including cancer. Certain things can trigger cancer genes to turn on.

Hope this helps people understand some things about genetics and evolution!

Originally posted by SpearMint
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly

 

That's very interesting indeed, thank you for that! To me that's very strong evidence, maybe even proof. Another part of the body that may support evolution is the appendix which is not needed in modern humans. I don't know much about the history of the appendix though so that might not be a very good example, I need to do some reading.

Actually that's not true. They have now determined what the appendix is for and it is still a functioning organ in Humans. when we have an infection our guts tend to go through the mill and it is possible for out gut flora to be compromised. The appendix holds a sample of our normal gut flora and once we have recovered from an infection the good bacteria emerges from the appendix. Needless to say this can go awry and being bacteria can become inflamed.

Originally posted by yorkshirelad

Originally posted by SpearMint
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly

 

That's very interesting indeed, thank you for that! To me that's very strong evidence, maybe even proof. Another part of the body that may support evolution is the appendix which is not needed in modern humans. I don't know much about the history of the appendix though so that might not be a very good example, I need to do some reading.

Actually that's not true. They have now determined what the appendix is for and it is still a functioning organ in Humans. when we have an infection our guts tend to go through the mill and it is possible for out gut flora to be compromised. The appendix holds a sample of our normal gut flora and once we have recovered from an infection the good bacteria emerges from the appendix. Needless to say this can go awry and being bacteria can become inflamed.

This is true.

But, even if it had no function, the process of evolution likely wouldn't rid it completely because its current presence doesn't affect our ability to survive and reproduce. So it remains.

thats your proof of evolution. lactose intolerance.

some people can't eat peanuts. that doesn't mean they're descended from monkeys.

that isn't evolution.

and why isn't it that scientists can't find any human bones older than 7000-8000 years old if supposed mankind has been evolving for millions of years.

even modern human bones older than 20,000 years would be a start. which there should be since mankind bury their loved ones.

that's a fact right there disproving monkey theories. focus on that instead of lactose intolerance.

Originally posted by randomname

thats your proof of evolution. lactose intolerance.

some people can't eat peanuts. that doesn't mean they're descended from monkeys.

that isn't evolution.

and why isn't it that scientists can't find any human bones older than 7000-8000 years old if supposed mankind has been evolving for millions of years.
even modern human bones older than 20,000 years would be a start. which there should be since mankind bury their loved ones.

that's a fact right there disproving monkey theories. focus on that instead of lactose intolerance.

edit on 22-5-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)

Your post is full of fallacies, and speaks ignorance. Human remains have been found dating back over 400,000 years. Learn your facts before you post.

Yes, lactose intolerance is a bad example for evolution. Read my previous long post, and respond to that.