No milk or cheese

[kbs2244]

From Thursdays News:

Stone Age Scandinavians unable to digest milk

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 040110.php

I don’t know how this plays into the various arguments as far as the peopling of the Americas is concerned.
But.
I believe, most, if not all, of the groups now called Native Americans are lactose intolerant.
It is given as a reason for their not progressing beyond the hunter gather stage in NA.

[Digit]

It is given as a reason for their not progressing beyond the hunter gather stage in NA.

To which my first response is 'rubbish!' To accept that is to imply that herders became herders to obtain milk or cheese!

Roy.

[Leona Conner]

Could it be that Native Americans evolved into being lactose intolerant because they had no domesticated dairy animals? I sure wouldn't want to try to milk a bison or mountain goat, even if I could catch one . Once they were weaned from mother's milk that was the end of it.

[Digit]

Take a look at the map Leona...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance

....there appears to be little relationship between lactose intolerance and cattle raising there.

Roy.

[Beagle]

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nu ... e-mutation

The lactose tolerant gene only appeared 11-12 thousand yrs. ago. So it's still not spread to far outside of Europe, where it originated.

[uniface]

"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.

And they know this how ?

From comparison with an adequate worldwide survey of dna from thirteen thousand years ago ?

The quote could as plausibly have come from Santa Claus

[Leona Conner]

Take a look at the map Leona...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance

....there appears to be little relationship between lactose intolerance and cattle raising there.

Roy.

Thanks for the link, Dig. I found the table very interesting, still trying to figur out how they came up with such high percentages when the number of persons tested is unavailable. The Maasai result was extermely interesting considering the importance of milk in their culture, 24 tested with 62% intolerence (?). That would be like coming here where I live in the south and testing 24 people and saying that 62% have a dislike of Budweiser, when we all know that it's more like a 98% preferrence. Or testing 100 people in Europe and finding no trace of Neandertal gene, so you say that it doesn't exist. IMO you need a large base if you really want accurate results.

[Digit]

From comparison with an adequate worldwide survey of dna from thirteen thousand years ago ?

No! and if you would care to do some research as opposed to making useless comments you wouldn't need to ask that question!

Roy.

[uniface]

Pointing out that a wild conjecture is a wild conjecture is a useless comment ?

[Digit]

Pointing out that a wild conjecture is a wild conjecture is a useless comment ?

Absolutely not! But which wild conjecture in particular were you referring to?

Roy.

[uniface]

Since you missed it :

"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.

[Minimalist]

This is hardly news. The study was announced in 2002.

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nu ... e-mutation


Once again, this is not a "conjecture" but the result of genetic study.

[Digit]

Since you missed it :

No I didn't, so what's your point?

Roy.

[uniface]

You did miss it. Not only the specific point, but the principle underlying it.

The only way anyone would -- could -- know when that mutation happened (if it even is one) is if they had the dna from before that for a baseline and an accurately dated sample of the modification from when it showed up. Then it would be possible to say that it appeared at X point in time.

Absent that, they're making it up as they go along. IOW, it's evolutionary business as usual.

You know -- the one where bipedalism appears so there can be bipedalism, and the capacity for speech so that there can be speech.

[Digit]

I did not miss it and if you can not think of a method for dating this particular mutation then the fault is yours, think on it!
You suggested a truism here...

Pointing out that a wild conjecture is a wild conjecture is a useless comment ?

... to which I immediately agreed. I'll now give one for your consideration.
The inability of an individual to understand an idea does not necessarily mean that that idea is incorrect!
Would you also dispute that? A straight yes or no please?

Roy.