Are you a mutant? x man? Can you drink milk?

Its also how we whiteys became white more milk you can drink more vitamin D the less melanin you need to make your own.

Isn't the vitamin D in milk artificially added? I think this is a second reason why this proposition does not work. It turns out that if you cannot get enough sunlight, your stuck with eating fatty fish and ingesting artificially fortified food as options for getting vitamin D.

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.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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.

---

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.

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/

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.

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