|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:05 pm Post subject: Caught Red-Handed: Proof of Evolution in Humans |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Lactose Tolerance in East Africa Points to Recent Evolution
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: December 11, 2006
A surprisingly recent instance of human evolution has been detected among the peoples of East Africa. It is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, conferred by genetic changes that occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, a team of geneticists has found.
The finding is a striking example of a cultural practice � the raising of dairy cattle � feeding back into the human genome. It also seems to be one of the first instances of convergent human evolution to be documented at the genetic level. Convergent evolution refers to two or more populations acquiring the same trait independently.
Throughout most of human history, the ability to digest lactose, the principal sugar of milk, has been switched off after weaning because the lactase enzyme that breaks the sugar apart is no longer needed. But when cattle were first domesticated 9,000 years ago and people later started to consume their milk as well as their meat, natural selection would have favored anyone with a mutation that kept the lactase gene switched on.
Such a mutation is known to have arisen among an early cattle-raising people, the Funnel Beaker culture, which flourished 5,000 to 6,000 years ago in north-central Europe. People with a persistently active lactase gene have no problem digesting milk and are said to be lactose tolerant.
Almost all Dutch people and 99 percent of Swedes are lactose tolerant, but the mutation becomes progressively less common in Europeans who live at increasing distances from the ancient Funnel Beaker region.
Geneticists wondered if the lactose tolerance mutation in Europeans, identified in 2002, had arisen among pastoral peoples elsewhere. But it seemed to be largely absent from Africa, even though pastoral peoples there generally have some degree of tolerance.
A research team led by Dr. Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Maryland has now solved much of the puzzle. After testing for lactose tolerance and genetic makeup among 43 ethnic groups in East Africa, she and her colleagues have found three new mutations, all independent of one another and of the European mutation, that keep the lactase gene permanently switched on.
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 reports today in the journal Nature Genetics. 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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/science/11evolve.html?_r=2&\1ref=science&\1oref=slogin&oref=slogin |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The preffered choice of Africa is sour milk. Most Africans can't stomach fresh milk. Something you'd notice if you went there~
If your point is that evolution disproves creation...you'd be wrong. Evolution and change was the result of the fall of creation. It is a development away from perfection, not a refinement. A loss of genetic material, not an evolving of new. DNA loses when it is copied over generations. A bit like making a copy of a copy of a copy.It becomes more and more inclined to mutation and defect.
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/02.10/onion.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
...and you're obviously a loooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngway from creation. 
Last edited by Manner of Speaking on Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice story, Manner. Haven't heard from you in a while.
Ever check out Christopher Wills's Children of Prometheus? It is a fascinating look at contemporary evolutionary debate and brings in many such African examples. (By "evolutionary debate," by the way, I mean how and not whether evolutionary theory can be modified to best account for the fossil record and other evidenciary factors.)
Also, you might not want to come down so hard on anyone who you disagree with. [Name deleted for courtesy] might come around and call you a "control freak."  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Also, you might not want to come down so hard on anyone who you disagree with. |
The pot melts into slag...
| Gopher wrote: |
| [Name deleted for courtesy] might come around and call you a "control freak." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Still sore moss?  inability to recover from minor wounds inflicted years previously ? Thats quite a design flaw you're carrying.
If you're still set on reproducing, I guess they might let you attempt a humanzee I guess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
The preffered choice of Africa is sour milk. Most Africans can't stomach fresh milk. Something you'd notice if you went there~
If your point is that evolution disproves creation...you'd be wrong. Evolution and change was the result of the fall of creation. It is a development away from perfection, not a refinement. A loss of genetic material, not an evolving of new. DNA loses when it is copied over generations. A bit like making a copy of a copy of a copy.It becomes more and more inclined to mutation and defect.
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/02.10/onion.html |
LOL!
(and where in genesis does it say that the punishment for eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the imperfect copying of genetic material? It's a bit of a stretch to get there from God's promise of 'death'.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| Also, you might not want to come down so hard on anyone who you disagree with. |
The pot melts into slag...
| Gopher wrote: |
| [Name deleted for courtesy] might come around and call you a "control freak." |
|
Someone obviously didn't get the reference, the sarcasm, or the joke. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
It's a bit of a stretch to get there from God's promise of 'death'.) |
How so?
imperfection enters creation>> genetic material begins to degrade rather than renew >>decomposition, loss of material..loss of species, variety>> "death". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
imperfection enters creation>> genetic material begins to degrade rather than renew >>decomposition, loss of material..loss of species, variety>> "death". |
Hmm, the opposite of the other fallacious argument, that there is some inbuilt drive to complexity...
I think that evolution is essentially random in nature, so from each
reproduction, the offspring have an equal chance to be more or less
complex. There seems to be a minimal level of complexity needed
for life, so offspring that are less complex than this die.
However more complexity is always possible, so some of them survive.
h |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| gang ah jee wrote: |
It's a bit of a stretch to get there from God's promise of 'death'.) |
How so?
imperfection enters creation>> genetic material begins to degrade rather than renew >>decomposition, loss of material..loss of species, variety>> "death". |
Yup, it's a bit of a stretch alright.
And anyway, if god uses genetic deterioration to punish humans for the disobedience of their ancestors, then he is truly history's greatest monster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
And anyway, if god uses genetic deterioration to punish humans for the disobedience of their ancestors, then he is truly history's greatest monster. |
You love those emotive words don't you. "punish" etc.
No. Simply the natural result of a less than perfect universe. A disobedience to laws.
if you jump off a cliff, are you then going to blame god for creating gravity? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| if you jump off a cliff, are you then going to blame god for creating gravity? |
Will jumping off a cliff cause congenital birth defects in my descendents? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| if you jump off a cliff, are you then going to blame god for creating gravity? |
Will jumping off a cliff cause congenital birth defects in my descendents? |
In a world that has rejected God, people suffer because of the injustices of others. I think we've had this long discussion before many times on here, obviously you weren't paying attention, or you are imune to logic.
DNA repliactes imperfectly down the generations. Mutations and mistakes are inbuilt, allowing organisms to adapt by natural selection. However this does not involve a gaining of new material but a new use of previously unused 'junk" DNA.
The tendency is for the long term degradation of DNA and matter and loss of genetic material over time.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/11/001107070133.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| you weren't paying attention, or you are imune to logic. |
Says a man who believes children get leukemia because some people thousands of years ago ate some fruit that a superbeing told them not to eat. Wow.
| Quote: |
DNA repliactes imperfectly down the generations. Mutations and mistakes are inbuilt, allowing organisms to adapt by natural selection. However this does not involve a gaining of new material but a new use of previously unused 'junk" DNA.
The tendency is for the long term degradation of DNA and matter and loss of genetic material over time.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/11/001107070133.htm |
I wonder if you'd mind pointing out exactly what in that article supports your claim that mutations do not introduce new genetic material. And perhaps you'd also like to account for the way in which this paper contradicts your claim:
Adami, C., C. Ofria and T. C. Collier, 2000. Evolution of biological complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4463-4468. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4463 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
