Skip to comments.
Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution
New York Times ^
| 10 December 2006
| Nicholas Wade
Posted on 12/10/2006 2:44:11 PM PST by Alter Kaker
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-179 next last
To: LonePalm
Dammit man! I had to cover my mouth to keep from spewing luke warm coffee on my monitor and keyboard!
101
posted on
12/11/2006 10:37:59 AM PST
by
null and void
(I'm not a great American. I'm a grateful American ~ Morrill Worcester (Worcester Wreath Co.))
To: AndrewC
"However, certain human populations have undergone a mutation on chromosome 2 which results in a bypass of the common shutdown in lactase production, allowing members of these populations to continue consumption of fresh milk and other milk products throughout their lives."
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Lactose_intolerance
To: Boxen
"Who created the creator? After all, if something exists, it must have a creator." This is only true if reality is limited to 4 dimensions.
A creator existing in 4+ dimensions does not require a beginning since he is not bound by time.
To: 3Lean
Since evolution is generally considered in the context of speciationActually, it isn't. Evolution is just change in allele frequencies over time. That can be caused by selection, which can take a number of forms including natural, sexual and artificial.
104
posted on
12/11/2006 11:53:48 AM PST
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: Alter Kaker; 3Lean
"Actually, it isn't. Evolution is just change in allele frequencies over time." This renders the term 'evolution' meaningless since it easily accomodates populations accumulating deleterious mutations.
This would allow evolutionists to claim that populations that are in catastrophic error-catastrophe are 'evolving' when they are actually in genetic meltdown.
Coincidental?
To: GourmetDan
This renders the term 'evolution' meaningless since it easily accomodates populations accumulating deleterious mutations. This would allow evolutionists to claim that populations that are in catastrophic error-catastrophe are 'evolving' when they are actually in genetic meltdown. Huh? Populations don't go into "catastrophic error-catastrophe" (whatever that is). That violates the principle of natural selection -- more fit individuals will survive, which means that there is constant evolutionary pressure towards greater fitness, not less.
106
posted on
12/11/2006 12:16:07 PM PST
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: jim35
There are tons of fossils, lots of evidence of what happened, with some pretty good evidence of when it happened, but practically nothing but raw speculation, ever changing, about how it happened.I think your first clause disproves yours second. We know how it happened: selection, mutation, gene flow and genetic drift, and we can readily and repeatedly observe those four forces in the fossil and genetic record.
We know that hydrogen didn't evolve, that it was somehow created.
I don't know what "evolve" means in that context. Evolution in the biological sense refers to a change in allele frequencies over time. Hydrogen has no alleles. It did not "evolve". Hydrogen did form approximately 300,000 years after the Big Bang, per cosmologists, when atomic nuclei and electrons cooled down enough to combine.
Tell me how the first bits of life came about. Then show me your proof.
My answer is: I don't know. Evolution has nothing to say on the matter -- as far as I know, God could have created the first life.
107
posted on
12/11/2006 12:22:22 PM PST
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: RobRoy
People keep calling it a mutation. Why is that?Because it's a mutation that we can observe in the genetic record. Looking at random mutations over time to that mutation, we can get an approximate date for it's first appearance. Which is exactly what the researchers did in this study.
IOW, this article is opinion.
Nonsense. Out of curiosity, what are your qualifications? Have you read the actual study?
108
posted on
12/11/2006 12:25:07 PM PST
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: Eagle Eye
I don't tolerate high amounts of alcohol like I used to. Am I evolving?No, but if you continue to consume large quantities of alcohol, your children will possibly evolve, although the resultant mutations are unlikely to be benign or beneficial.
109
posted on
12/11/2006 12:27:09 PM PST
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: jim35
. Just for the sake of info, how do these researchers know when this took place?By looking at the degree of variation between different copies of the mutated gene, microbiologists can estimate the age of its earliest appearance, as certain mutation rates are reasonably constant. At the present time, this kind of dating is still only approximate, as you'll notice with the date used in this article which has an accuracy of +/- 2000 years.
110
posted on
12/11/2006 12:30:53 PM PST
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: Mamzelle
I guess that's why they can't duplicate Darwinism in the lab--cause that wouldn't be natch'rl.Maybe you could help us out then -- please describe to me a hypothetical experiment where one could "duplicate Darwinism (sic) in a lab."
111
posted on
12/11/2006 12:32:58 PM PST
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: GourmetDan
Lactose tolerance is just a normal 'loss-of-function' mutation. Nothing supporting evolution here.Tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself to believe whatever it is you feel called on to believe.
112
posted on
12/11/2006 12:34:28 PM PST
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: Old Professer
The domestication of mammal herds makes available a source of excess milk but by itself doesn't prove that the enzyme had remained switched off thousands of years before.No it doesn't. That's why the researchers mentioned in the article conducted the genetic experiment they did, in order to date the mutation.
113
posted on
12/11/2006 12:36:13 PM PST
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: muawiyah
Or, you might have the gene(s) that turn off at adulthood.I know many adults that should switch from genes altogether, and just wear sweat pants.
114
posted on
12/11/2006 12:38:09 PM PST
by
D Rider
To: Alter Kaker
If you don't accept the obvious examples in millenia of animal husbandry, then there's no lab that can duplicate natural selection. In which case, we'd have to way to test the hypothesis other than a historical record.
To: Mamzelle
If you don't accept the obvious examples in millenia of animal husbandry, then there's no lab that can duplicate natural selection.Animal husbandry is the opposite of natural selection. Sorry Mamzelle.
116
posted on
12/11/2006 12:47:04 PM PST
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: Alter Kaker
"Tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself to believe whatever it is you feel called on to believe." Like you aren't doing the same thing?
To: labette
I would think the casualty rate would be kinda high if milk consumption was attempted before domestication.LOL True.
118
posted on
12/11/2006 12:50:17 PM PST
by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: Alter Kaker
So, is there a lab scenario? Seems to me that if you can't duplicate, you can't demonstrate. So the theory has no scientific, testable accountability, at least in the conventional sense.
Sorry, Alter Kater. Ain't accepting this stuff on faith or even history.
To: null and void
It's an additional food source in a famine.Hmmm. . .makes sense, but I'll have to think about that. Assuming they had domesticated cattle, it would seem the first thing they would do is eat some of the cattle as well as some of the plants the cattle ate.
120
posted on
12/11/2006 12:53:30 PM PST
by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-179 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson