Lactose Tolerance in East Africa Points to Recent Evolution

[Cumulonimbus]

"Genetic evidence shows that the (genetic) mutations conferred an enormous selective advantage on their owners, enabling them to leave almost 10 times as many descendants as people without such mutations. The mutations have created “one of the strongest genetic signatures of natural selection yet reported in humans,” the researchers write.

The survival advantage was so powerful perhaps because those with the mutations not only gained extra energy from lactose but also, in drought conditions, would have benefited from the water in milk. People who were lactose intolerant could have risked losing water from diarrhea, Dr. Tishkoff said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/sc...mp;oref=slogin


Is this as big of a deal as it seems? Or is it just another pointless blow against the mostly impenetrable armor of faith? I'm intrigued by what stance the Christian non-IDrs on this forum take about this...

[Phil153]

Debunking creationist arguments requires understand their viewpoint.

Creationists obviously agree that alleles can be selected for (which is why you can breed varieties of plants and dogs for example), but they raise questions about the possibility and frequency of non trivial, beneficial, random mutations that change the organism in a significant way.

This is an absolutely trivial example of beneficial mutation, if it is even that. It's just the ability to continue producing an enzyme that we already produce. It's possible that this wasn't a mutation at all, but just a turning on of any of a number of dormant genes.

So no, it won't make any difference to creationists.

[goodsamaritan]

[ QUOTE ]

Is this as big of a deal as it seems? Or is it just another pointless blow against the mostly impenetrable armor of faith? I'm intrigued by what stance the Christian non-IDrs on this forum take about this...

[/ QUOTE ]

Scientists have known for a long time that a mutation occurred in northern Europe that allowed humans to digest lactose. This just seems to be another independent mutation, which does not really add much in my opinion.

As Phil said, I don't think IDers dispute the possibility of mutation; they dispute that mutation and natural selction can completely account for the diversity and complexity that we see in life today.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
...I don't think IDers dispute the possibility of mutation; they dispute that mutation and natural selction can completely account for the diversity and complexity that we see in life today.

[/ QUOTE ]


Unfortunately, IDers go further than that, they do posit the existence of an intelligent designer. That is their greatest mistake! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]