Posted on 05/26/2009 9:03:40 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
For many, the mere mention of milk will be enough to invoke memories of nausea, bloating, cramps, diarrhea, and perhaps in some cases, jibes and taunts about “wind” and bad breath. Some will have undergone medical tests that diagnosed the cause as “ Lactose intolerance ”.
Lacking the enzyme lactase, which breaks down the milk sugar lactose (see box), they are unable to digest milk, whereas lactose-tolerant people can. Others, though, might still be unaware that they are “deficient” in lactase, not realizing that drinking milk causes their feelings of nausea, etc.[1]
For many years, lactose intolerance was regarded as abnormal, and was used by many as evidence of human evolution. As a measure of evolutionary “advancement”, milk-drinking seemed to fit the stereotype perfectly. Pale-skinnned northern Europeans usually retained full intestinal lactase activity into adulthood, in stark contrast to the world’s darker-skinned peoples who are only able to digest milk as infants or young children. Well, that’s the way the story went.
However, “lactose deficiency” in adults is not in fact abnormal, but the norm! Research has shown that...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
“Becaude your agenda is failing now because of the internet?”
Becaude=Because
There ya’ go Mr. “Editor-Surveyor”. Something tells me you may not be an editor either.
I’d happily take raw milk if there were a trustworthy source around here. Wouldn’t want to go into the dairy business myself.
umm, what?
“Why is lactose persistence present in such high prevalence among populations where milk was available for drinking if drinking milk conferred no advantage?”
You mean “lactose Intolerance”?
Anyway, I don’t know the answer, but I know there’s an advantage to the dairies’ cash registers.
Being an obese slug on a high fat diet leads to Type II diabetes, not having the ability to ingest and process milk products. Drinking milk as a non-child is a beneficial trait in a population, being an obese slug on a high fat diet is not......but you've gotta be edumacated enough to know that a trait is a negative in population genetics ONLY IF it lowers your genetic fitness...your ability to pass on your genes to offspring. AND you gotta see that this benefit was larger in the long-ago past when diets were sometimes limited. If you could drink milk without getting sick, you had better nutrition, were stronger, and were more likely to pass on your genes for a longer period....it increased you genetic fitness slightly. NOW, we can do without milk as NOW we have knowledge about better nutrition, advanced medicine, and supplements, if needed.
Type II diabetes does not generally lower genetic fitness because it usually hits an obese slug on a high fat diet AFTER they pass their genes on......AND Type II diabetes based on nutrition and activity level is generally a new disease....as we are a lazier, fatter, and high fat diet population than we used to be.
.....but you're sooooo wicked-smaht you knew that before you tried to make milk the Devil.
I love it when a Creationist website, in an attempt to poke at the Theory of Evolution, starts talking about inheritable and beneficial DNA mutations.
No, I mean lactose persistence. Where you retain the ability to digest lactose when most mammals stop producing the enzyme as soon as they stop nursing.
There was an obvious advantage to retaining the ability to digest lactose among Northern European and some cattle herding African populations.
O.K. Thanks.
Mr. nonsense man, Type II diabetes is the result of the distruction of the endocrine system by biofilm bacteria. This has been proven in practice beyond any doubt.
The mainstream medi-liars make tons of cash prescribing feckless poison to type II diabetics, so they are attempting to sweep the facts under the carpet in order to maintain that lucrative avenue of deception. (just as they do with most other diseases)
The fact that you choose to align with deception says much about your character.
You should tell the real scientists in the world your hypothesis.....you know...those of us that actually research diseases instead of tossing around nonsense on-line.
We need a good laugh.
Let’s see.....asinine baseless claim...check. Conspiracy theory....check. Lame insult.....check.
“I’d happily take raw milk if there were a trustworthy source”
That is a problem, of course, because the dairy industry does not want us to have those trustworthy sources.
My source is a small, organic dairy farm operation - done better than what “organic” requires. The milk is yummy and it keeps well in a refrigerator held in the 35-40 degree range. Keeps 3 or 4 weeks. If any does go sour, we make cottage cheese. We take some of the cream off and make ice cream, also yummy.
In a few states it is legal for raw milk to be sold. Others often look the other way, if it is kept under the radar. Federal law probits the transport of raw milk across state lines.
I sterilize the milk containers with 35 - 50% hydrogen peroxide. This also helps preserve it in a fresh state. Some countries this preservation technique is common and they do not pasteurize.
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.