Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-28-2017 10:59 AM
367 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,790 Year: 19,396/21,208 Month: 2,155/3,111 Week: 376/574 Day: 31/59 Hour: 7/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Are you a mutant? x man? Can you drink milk?
frako
Member
Posts: 2701
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 16 of 31 (728566)
05-30-2014 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by NoNukes
05-30-2014 1:36 PM


And since vitamin D is also added to other stuff, there is absolutely no reason for an adult to drink milk unless they are a dirty mutie.

milk has natural high concentrations of vitamin D, yea nowadays id does not matter much, but if you are a Viking with several hours of sunlight a day a bit of cheese, and a glass of milk does the trick.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 05-30-2014 1:36 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 05-30-2014 3:20 PM frako has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9750
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 17 of 31 (728574)
05-30-2014 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by frako
05-30-2014 2:24 PM


milk has natural high concentrations of vitamin D,

Source please...

Assuming you mean cow's milk, I'm going to have to call you on this.

http://www.milk.co.uk/page.aspx?intPageID=71

quote:
There are two sources of vitamin D, it is made in the skin by exposure to sunlight and there are a few dietary sources, such as oily fish, eggs, and fortified foods including margarine (which is required by law to contain vitamin D), some yogurts and breakfast cereals. There is very little vitamin D in milk and in fact only trace amounts and in the UK milk is not fortified with vitamin D.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by frako, posted 05-30-2014 2:24 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by frako, posted 05-30-2014 4:35 PM NoNukes has responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2701
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 18 of 31 (728580)
05-30-2014 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by NoNukes
05-30-2014 3:20 PM


http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/...t/kids/art3933.html
"
The University of Toronto researchers found that among children not using a bottle, cow’s milk did indeed increase the vitamin D level and decrease the iron level. Specifically, each cup of cow’s milk increased the vitamin D level by 6.5 % and decreased iron (serum ferritin) by 3.6%. Several other factors raised Vitamin D levels. Children who received vitamin D supplements were obviously higher in D. Children with light skin pigmentation absorbed more vitamin D from the sun and had higher levels. The summer season also played a role — more sun, more vitamin. Finally, children with a lower body mass typically had higher levels of vitamin D."

My guess you are reading a label from skimmed milk that does not have vitamin D unless its added.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 05-30-2014 3:20 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 05-30-2014 5:07 PM frako has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9750
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 19 of 31 (728581)
05-30-2014 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by frako
05-30-2014 4:35 PM


The University of Toronto researchers found that among children not using a bottle, cow’s milk did indeed increase the vitamin D level and decrease the iron level.

In Canada and the US milk, and some juices are fortified with vitamin D because otherwise vitamin D is hard to come by. So it is not all that surprising that milk in Toronto can raise a child's vitamin D levels. Absent fortification, there is not much vitamin D in milk or in most foods.

Unless you are prepared to show me that the Toronto study was with unfortified milk. I guess it is possible, but according to everything I can find, milk does not naturally have more than trace amounts of vitamin D.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by frako, posted 05-30-2014 4:35 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by frako, posted 05-30-2014 5:18 PM NoNukes has responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2701
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 20 of 31 (728584)
05-30-2014 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by NoNukes
05-30-2014 5:07 PM


http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=130

When obtained from 100% grass-fed cows, whole milk contains a surprising diversity of both conventional and phytonutrients. In the conventional category, you'll find milk to be a very good source of vitamin B2 (riboflavin), vitamin D, and vitamin B12.

But my guess is its a bit harder to get whole milk, you need to know a farmer that has cows for milk purposes. The milk in stores is nothing like real milk, if it does no produce an inch of that fatty stuff on top over night then its not milk, its also not milk if it boils milk does not boil it goes over and wrecks your stove.....


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 05-30-2014 5:07 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2014 1:19 AM frako has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9750
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 21 of 31 (728604)
05-31-2014 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by frako
05-30-2014 5:18 PM


But my guess is its a bit harder to get whole milk,

After doing some looking, that's not it. Regular, not well treated cows make whole milk without much vitamin D. Cows that are treated to grass feeding, and other TLC make milk with an appreciable amount of vitamin D.

So depending on where your from, you might either use a definition under which American cows don't give whole milk, or you go out of your way to call grass fed milk something special.

http://www.realmilk.com/safety/there-are-two-raw-milks/


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by frako, posted 05-30-2014 5:18 PM frako has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25610
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 22 of 31 (728687)
06-01-2014 8:13 PM


More likely a loss than a gain
Typical bunch of evo myths if you ask me. None of the references or the participants on the thread has offered evidence for these supposed mutations that have made lactose tolerance possible, or for the time period in which this supposedly happened in certain parts of the world. It's asserted and believed and that's it.

Are these mutations the addition of specific alleles for a specific gene or exactly what are they? And how do you know they are mutations?

I would of course have my own usual guess. The ability to digest milk would have to have been built in to the human genome because milk is such a nutritious food.

Abraham served it to his guests about 4000 years ago:

Gen 18:8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

And it's mentioned throughout the Bible, especially in the phrase "land of milk and honey" denoting a richly fertile land.

Therefore rather than the ability to digest it having been acquired here and there, I'd suppose it was lost here and there instead, just as I would suppose that we've lost all kinds of physical strengths we were originally endowed with, such as a functioning appendix, and what we've acquired, instead of any beneficial abilities, is our enormous collection of genetic diseases and other vulnerabilities. Seems to me junk DNA is most likely the record of what we've lost genetically over the millennia.

But let's see you all prove your thesis since so far it's only been assumed.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 06-02-2014 12:05 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 06-02-2014 1:01 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-02-2014 2:04 PM Faith has responded
 Message 26 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2014 9:09 PM Faith has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13330
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 23 of 31 (728720)
06-02-2014 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
06-01-2014 8:13 PM


Re: More likely a loss than a gain
Faith writes:

And it's mentioned throughout the Bible....


quote:
Hebrews 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 06-01-2014 8:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9750
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 24 of 31 (728729)
06-02-2014 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
06-01-2014 8:13 PM


Sigh.
You are right. We are guessing and discussing things based on an assumption that the theory of evolution is correct. Why is that so bad? Just as every discussion of relativity does not require us to talk about the experiments confirming the correctness of the theory, neither does every speculation about possible evolutionary paths require us to prove evolution.

Are these mutations the addition of specific alleles for a specific gene or exactly what are they? And how do you know they are mutations?

Good question. So why is it in other threads when exactly this evidence is presented, you still argue that there are no beneficial mutations?

In any event, here is a discussion of the distribution of lactose intolerance around the world and some evidence, but not proof of the genetic origin of lactose intolerance.

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n3/full/5201297a.html

Sample quote

quote:
Since dairying is thought to have originated around 10 000 years ago, the selective pressure has been only for the past 400 generations. Despite this short time, there is suggestive evidence of recent positive selection: lactase persistence is associated with one haplotype, which is very common only in northern Europeans, and is distant from the ancestral haplotype.4, 5 Discovery of the possible molecular basis of this polymorphism – a single nucleotide change 14 kb away from the gene, has allowed further analysis of genetic variation associated with lactase persistence/nonpersistence.

Most likely, your guess is complete nonsense. It is not that there is no current ability to drink milk. The issue is that the ability to drink milk does not persist into adulthood. I suppose you would suggest that among other things, Noah's son Ham was lactose intolerant.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 06-01-2014 8:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11575
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 25 of 31 (728736)
06-02-2014 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
06-01-2014 8:13 PM


Re: More likely a loss than a gain
But let's see you all prove your thesis since so far it's only been assumed.

Its hypocritical of you to demand proof of the scientific explanation when you require no proof at all of your ad hoc invention.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 06-01-2014 8:13 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 06-02-2014 11:22 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 26 of 31 (728772)
06-02-2014 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
06-01-2014 8:13 PM


Almost definitely a gain.
Faith writes:

Typical bunch of evo myths if you ask me. None of the references or the participants on the thread has offered evidence for these supposed mutations that have made lactose tolerance possible, or for the time period in which this supposedly happened in certain parts of the world. It's asserted and believed and that's it.

How many of the research papers on the subject did you read before forming that opinion?

Faith writes:

Are these mutations the addition of specific alleles for a specific gene or exactly what are they? And how do you know they are mutations?

Lactose digestion and the evolutionary genetics of lactase persistence

Faith writes:

I would of course have my own usual guess. The ability to digest milk would have to have been built in to the human genome because milk is such a nutritious food.

Well, apart from the obvious point that so is the grass that our domesticated animals process to make it, you could test that hypothesis against observations. You could observe that genetic drift would be extremely unlikely to remove Lactase persistence from most of the population in just the few hundred generations your YEC model allows, and most people in the world do not have it (~65%).

Then you could think of an experiment to test your hypothesis directly. As it would predict that stone age Europeans would all, or nearly all, have the Lactase persistent allele that most Northern Europeans still have, you could extract DNA from the bones of people found on Neolithic sites, and check them for the LP allele.

If you find that all your samples have it, that's in keeping with your hypothesis, but if you find that none of them do, then you've pretty well falsified your hypothesis.

Fortunately for you, someone has already done the work for you, saving YEC scientists the trouble.

Fred Flintstone couldn't drink milk

Oops!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 06-01-2014 8:13 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 06-02-2014 11:25 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25610
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 27 of 31 (728783)
06-02-2014 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by New Cat's Eye
06-02-2014 2:04 PM


Re: More likely a loss than a gain
Assertions galore were made on this thread before I joined it and not a single bit of evidence has been given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-02-2014 2:04 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-03-2014 11:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25610
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 28 of 31 (728784)
06-02-2014 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by bluegenes
06-02-2014 9:09 PM


Re: Almost definitely a gain.
This is just the usual flimflam runaround. I believe it is your job to present whatever evidence you think you have so that a reader of the thread could follow it without having to open links. It's not my job to prove my argument, it's yours to prove the assertions on this thread before I joined it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2014 9:09 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by bluegenes, posted 06-03-2014 2:32 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 06-03-2014 7:52 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 29 of 31 (728792)
06-03-2014 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
06-02-2014 11:25 PM


Study the relevant research before expressing opinions.
Faith writes:

This is just the usual flimflam runaround.

"Flimflam runaround" pretty much describes every post you make about biology.

Faith writes:

I believe it is your job to present whatever evidence you think you have so that a reader of the thread could follow it without having to open links.

Which we can take as meaning that, when presented with evidence from the relevant literature that supports the O.P., you want to continue to pretend that no-one has presented any evidence that supports the O.P., which is what you claimed in the post I replied to.

The second paper I linked to shows that our Neolithic ancestors did not have the allele for Lactase persistence at near fixation in the way that modern north-western Europeans do. It wasn't present in any of the eight Neolithic individuals examined, or in one Mesolithic individual, which shows that your unsupported assertion that Lactase persistence was the historical norm was clearly wrong.

If you can't read and understand papers like these, then you shouldn't be expressing your opinions on biology. Those opinions are meaningless fantasy if you can't support them.

You are the one disagreeing with the research described in those two papers, and the conclusions of specialists in their field. If you want to do that, you need to read the papers, and give the technical reasons for your disagreement.

You also need to understand the point I made about drift in the last post, which you ignored.

Now, stop flimflamming around, and if you want to discuss biology, learn how to do it like an informed adult.

What the current evidence points to is a number of different mutations in different geographical regions that led to lactase persistence and have faced positive selection over the last few thousand years in cultures that do dairying.

Read the papers. They contain some of the evidence that supports that point.

Lactose digestion and the evolutionary genetics of lactase persistence

Fred Flintstone couldn't drink milk


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 06-02-2014 11:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9750
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 30 of 31 (728796)
06-03-2014 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
06-02-2014 11:25 PM


Re: Almost definitely a gain.
It's not my job to prove my argument,

Surely you jest. It is certainly your job to advance your own argument. I'll note that bluegenes provide a rebutal to your argument that did not involve any links, which firmly kicks the ball of defending your argument back into your court.

The point here is that lactose intolerance is a well known and well researched phenomenon. You joined a discussion in which the participants had no problem accepting those conclusions and were instead simply speculating on what the selection pressure might be, and then decided to insist that we take our discussion back to square one. Why should we feel any impetus to do that just because you cannot be bothered to read?

Nobody really needs to prove anything to you at all. Out of courtesy two of us have provided references and a little discussion, but ultimately, if you want to participate, you are going to have to do a little homework. I don't really care that you don't accept evolution.

Finally, I am going to address your bit of an argument. I'll note that ringo has quoted a Bible verse showing that milk was food for babies only. In addition, as you also noted, "land of milk and honey is a metaphor" and not a literal statement. Nobody could live on such a diet, and of course since feeding babies is important, the statement does not necessarily say anything about adults drinking milk. But let's assume that it demonstrates that adults were drinking milk. Ultimately that still proves nothing.

You posted a Bible verse describing Abraham and other adults drinking milk. That's great. Except that the person in question lived well after (about 2000 years) Adam was created, and under your scenario for post flood evolution, that would not be a relevant time for showing us that man was created with the ability to drink milk as an adult, and then later lost that ability.

After all, in the evolutionary theory, we are discussing a time frame of 10,000-20000 years for such changes. We don't need to seriously consider the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old in every discussion. Certainly not in a science forum discussion.

In short you have yet to post anything that should be taken seriously.

you have so that a reader of the thread could follow it without having to open links

You post mere links on a frequent basis. That's what you did when I asked you about the anathemas, and you never responded when it was pointed out that you probably did not have any objections to the majority of what your reference included.

Edited by NoNukes, : Add date estimate of 2000 years from Abraham to Noah


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 06-02-2014 11:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017