fish601
Active Member
thanks, so he was wrong
According to Heyman (2006), approximately 70% of the global population cannot tolerate lactose in adulthood
Religion Has Done More Bad Than Good
- Thread starter grape swisha
- Start date
According to Heyman (2006), approximately 70% of the global population cannot tolerate lactose in adulthood
CrackerJax
New Member
Scientists identify lactose intolerance mutation
15-Jan-2002
Related topics: Science & Nutrition
A single genetic mutation allows people to tolerate milk after they leave babyhood, and is virtually the same in people of Asian, European and African descent, researchers reported Sunday.
Finding the tiny change in the genetic code should allow scientists an easy test for lactose intolerance, a painful digestive condition, and also offers insights into how some groups of people evolved a milk-drinking culture, the team of U.S. and Finnish researchers said.
People who have lactose intolerance - most of the people in the world - cannot digest large amounts of lactose, the main sugar found in dairy products.
If they eat milk, cheese or other dairy products they develop nausea, cramps, bloating, gas and diarrhea. Between 30 million and 50 million North Americans are lactose intolerant - 75 per cent of African-Americans and 90 per cent of Asian-Americans.
It affects about 5 per cent of Northern Europeans and close to 100 per cent of Southeast Asians, said the researchers, who reported their findings in the journal Nature Genetics.
Lactose intolerance was known to be genetic, caused by a recessive gene, meaning that a person has to inherit a "faulty" copy from each parent to be lactose intolerant.
"This is the first time this mutation, the DNA change, is actually identified," said Dr. Leena Peltonen, a geneticist at the University of California Los Angeles, who led the study. "This paves the way to DNA testing."
Peltonen and colleagues first looked at nine Finnish families, 196 people, who had lactose intolerance. They narrowed it down to a gene that regulates the gene responsible for making the enzyme that breaks down lactose.
They found two changes, one in every person with lactose intolerance and another in all the Finns.
Then they looked at blood samples from nine Italians, nine Germans and 22 Koreans, all of whom had been diagnosed with lactose intolerance, as well as genetic information from 109 people from Utah in the United States and France.
They found the gene variation in 41 per cent of the French, 7.6 per cent of white North Americans and 79 per cent of African-Americans.
Peltonen said babies are born with the ability to digest lactose - it is found in breast milk - but they lose this ability after weaning.
"That we found the same DNA variant in all lactose-intolerant people across distant ethnic groups indicates to us that it is very old," she said.
"We believe that the variant we identified in patients is the original form of the gene, which mutated to tolerate milk products when early humans adopted dairy farming," she added.
"This 'lactose intolerance' today is actually the ancient form of the gene."
In cold climates where winter crops cannot be reaped, a gene mutation allowing adults to digest milk would help people survive better. People who survived would pass on those genes to their offspring.
"Ten to twelve thousand years ago, when human populations started to use dairy culture - cattle, goats - around that time the mutation happened and made some individuals lactose tolerant," Peltonen said.
"I think it's fascinating. People think lactose intolerance is a disease, but this is how everyone was initially."
15-Jan-2002
Related topics: Science & Nutrition
A single genetic mutation allows people to tolerate milk after they leave babyhood, and is virtually the same in people of Asian, European and African descent, researchers reported Sunday.
Finding the tiny change in the genetic code should allow scientists an easy test for lactose intolerance, a painful digestive condition, and also offers insights into how some groups of people evolved a milk-drinking culture, the team of U.S. and Finnish researchers said.
People who have lactose intolerance - most of the people in the world - cannot digest large amounts of lactose, the main sugar found in dairy products.
If they eat milk, cheese or other dairy products they develop nausea, cramps, bloating, gas and diarrhea. Between 30 million and 50 million North Americans are lactose intolerant - 75 per cent of African-Americans and 90 per cent of Asian-Americans.
It affects about 5 per cent of Northern Europeans and close to 100 per cent of Southeast Asians, said the researchers, who reported their findings in the journal Nature Genetics.
Lactose intolerance was known to be genetic, caused by a recessive gene, meaning that a person has to inherit a "faulty" copy from each parent to be lactose intolerant.
"This is the first time this mutation, the DNA change, is actually identified," said Dr. Leena Peltonen, a geneticist at the University of California Los Angeles, who led the study. "This paves the way to DNA testing."
Peltonen and colleagues first looked at nine Finnish families, 196 people, who had lactose intolerance. They narrowed it down to a gene that regulates the gene responsible for making the enzyme that breaks down lactose.
They found two changes, one in every person with lactose intolerance and another in all the Finns.
Then they looked at blood samples from nine Italians, nine Germans and 22 Koreans, all of whom had been diagnosed with lactose intolerance, as well as genetic information from 109 people from Utah in the United States and France.
They found the gene variation in 41 per cent of the French, 7.6 per cent of white North Americans and 79 per cent of African-Americans.
Peltonen said babies are born with the ability to digest lactose - it is found in breast milk - but they lose this ability after weaning.
"That we found the same DNA variant in all lactose-intolerant people across distant ethnic groups indicates to us that it is very old," she said.
"We believe that the variant we identified in patients is the original form of the gene, which mutated to tolerate milk products when early humans adopted dairy farming," she added.
"This 'lactose intolerance' today is actually the ancient form of the gene."
In cold climates where winter crops cannot be reaped, a gene mutation allowing adults to digest milk would help people survive better. People who survived would pass on those genes to their offspring.
"Ten to twelve thousand years ago, when human populations started to use dairy culture - cattle, goats - around that time the mutation happened and made some individuals lactose tolerant," Peltonen said.
"I think it's fascinating. People think lactose intolerance is a disease, but this is how everyone was initially."
It's all in the article Fish. Your bias is showing by choosing to cherry-pick a couple of sentences and twisting them to fit your purpose.
fish601
Active Member
Actually I was referring to the wiki article that I posted. However, just because a random scientist neglects to choose her words carefully, doesn't mean that she is incorrect.
CrackerJax
New Member
They say "we believe" as a form of descriptive language. It infers that further testing will VERIFY his OPINION which is not based on some ancient text written by anonymous authors, but from real testing and data.
So there is a mutation which FAVORS man.... nuff said.
So there is a mutation which FAVORS man.... nuff said.
fish601
Active Member
well i really dont want to read all that but i know that babies drink milk so if someone is lactose intolerant it would seem like a negative mutation to me
Since you can't be bothered reading it, I can't be bothered addressing your point, especially since the wiki page already covered it.
CrackerJax
New Member
The lactose intolerance was first Fish.... try and follow along. It's in english. 
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Yeah (you are getting it!)! If the mutation does not do enough to scare away potential mates, and/or end up getting them killed before they are able to mate, then that gene is passed down. And if enough of those genes get passed down it will end up crossing and meaning that those 'new' animals can end up with the deficiency.
Usually in nature they end up dying off, but sometimes they are in a easy enough situation or it is small enough that it doesn't matter and they not only survive it, but they thrive.
Like rabbits, they have to eat their poo to get the nutrition out of it.
They literally eat the grass, pass it through their system without absorbing anything because they don't have the enzymes to break it down, and poop out the pellets. Then they have to eat those pellets that are 1/2 way broken down so that they can then absorb the nutrients.
That is so inefficient, and could lead to starvation in a situation where there is a lot of competition for the food, but rabbits developed in very plentiful areas so they were able to survive this blunder of evolution. So this is a situation where evolution did not help a species out. There are an immense amount of these things in almost every single species on the planet.
For example, we humans innovations in food has outpaced evolution. We have more calories than we can possibly use and are getting fatter due to it. But if you look at the common rat, they have a very high metabolism due to the brown fat that they carry, so they have a very difficult time getting rats to become fat. We developed less brown fat (possibly due to the very nature we would have to hunt with our bare hands, and ineffective brain as chimps) so we wanted to carry some body fat for the times we had less food. So due to this, we now are getting fat as a species instead of having enough brown fat on our body to deal with this issue.
I get a little fuzzy on this part, but have read a couple books on it. How you look at the 'timeline' of these genes is a mathematical formula. Basically the amount of these mutations tell the story of how long they have been around.
If you look at native americans. You can pretty much follow the genes and tell how long between the crossing over the land bridge because of the split in these genes.
So native americans have (not correct numbers, just giving you an idea of it) 80% of the same genes as chinese people. So that 20 percent shows 2 mutations. When you date bone fragments you find that the average time that it takes for these mutations is about 10,000 years. So they can say with a well formulated and backed up with evidence around the world and historical data, and radio carbon dating, that they would be here 20,000 years ago (again not the real number, just giving you the overall).
The dating methods may not be 100%, but they are fairly precise (see the asymptote example I talked about on the other thread). And constantly being tested with history. With things like pottery, paintings, bone fragments, ect. And the info we have is the most up to date, and evolution has held up. See evolution is just a term about the movement of life on our planet, and nothing more.
See by saying 'we believe' is still not ruling anything out. If they were to say "We know" like christianity does, then any new information that is slightly off would instantely rule it out as wrong. Science doesn't rule these things out, because they have to incorporate it and change to a more precise measuring method.
CJ covered this, but I figured I would add some in too. Human milk was ok before this, but we were not able to consume a cows milk due to completely different enzymes in it. But due to evolution it gave our children a brand new source of food that allowed them to not be forced to die if the mother died and another pregnant woman was not in the tribe.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
For sure it could. It would be some sort of single celled organism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote
fish601
Active Member
ok lets go back to dating methods because inorder for your theory to work it would need lots of time
we have two problems, first we will never be able to tell if the rate of decay has been the same as it is today we can only assume and second, even if the rate of decay is constant without a knowing the exact ratio of C12 to C14 in the first place the dating method still has a problem. convence me of this then we can move to evolution, please?
we have two problems, first we will never be able to tell if the rate of decay has been the same as it is today we can only assume and second, even if the rate of decay is constant without a knowing the exact ratio of C12 to C14 in the first place the dating method still has a problem. convence me of this then we can move to evolution, please?
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Ok so there are several different sciences out there, and I am not a expert by any means. But you have different fields that work independantly and they all come up with very similar timelines.
So first you have to look at advanced mathematical models that show the timeline of the universe. The way (I think this is right, but again I am not a astral physicist) is think of throwing a handful of dirt. And having it video recorded.
Now you take this snapshot of that video when the dirt left your hand, then one a few ticks of time later. Now take two specs of dirt that are apart so it would almost be like this:
Ok so you do the math to find a point of origin of all three lines. This would give you an eventual center of all three (the hand that threw it). After you have that you do the math that shows the time it took for those red X to move to the second one on the line.
At that point you can pretty accurately gauge the time it took for the "X" to travel from the center point to the current position.
Ok now for the element decay: (again anyone with better information hook it up, because this is not my specialty)
So the smaller curve would be carbon dating, more accurate but only under shorter time spans. And not as accurate as stuff that is within years that would be able to really scale down the time line, but as you get further out in time it no longer works.
So Radio carbon dating works very well in the curve part but as it straitens out it no longer is accurate because of the asymptote that I explained before. But that is when you move to a different element that has a far larger decay curve. Thar curve is accurate but only for much longer period of times, and the asymptote starts to happen again.
So there you have 2 examples of mathematical equations and science that has worked out the same/similar number but in two completely different ways. The things are always coming up and working out the same conclusions. If just one model said this, then scientists would not listen to it, but when you have 2, 4, 9 and more models all coming up with the same conclusions it gains more and more support.
It all comes down to accuracy which is why I am continuing to ask you what do you feel is a real world example of accuracy.
fish601
Active Member
if you do not know that the rate of decay has been consistant and you do not know at what it started at how can you tell how old someting is..
just me but i would think that we could get pretty close dating on something within a few thousand years.
but when you talk about 1 million + we dont have a clue of what happend
just me but i would think that we could get pretty close dating on something within a few thousand years.
but when you talk about 1 million + we dont have a clue of what happend
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
What it comes down to is when was it created. After that point (remember the pic that I made with the lines) we can look at the speed it is decaying and follow that rate of change back to the conception point. That is what allows for the timescales. We just have to look at different things, because somethings break down slower than others.
ReggaeGanja
Active Member
i think if you guys were in any war your view on religion would change a hell of alot better than it is now
Care to elaborate on that?