(October 25, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(October 25, 2011 at 2:07 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: You are so very wrong. Lactose tolerance has only evolved as recently as within the last 3000 year.

Lactose intolerance is a corruption of the original design that results in a reduction of genetic information, it is a hardship for the majority of people who have it and cannot be said to be “evolution in action.”

Lactose intolerance is in fact the default and lactose tolerance is the recent mutation. as such it is a good example of evolution in action.

Quote:Scientists have looked into the human genome to find the precise genetic mutation that causes lactose tolerance. Lactose tolerance in humans always come from the same genetic mutation, regardless of whether they are of European, Asian, and African descent.

Most people in the world are lactose intolerant. People do not naturally have the ability to digest milk beyond infancy. The sugar, lactose, that is present in high levels in milk causes nausea and bloating in most adults. Europeans and Americans are much more likely to have the genetic mutation that allow them to digest lactose. Lactose intolerance is present in only 5% of Northern Europeans but nearly 100% of Southeast Asians.

(October 25, 2011 at 11:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Bingo, now get to work.

Already provided it, the fact it completely went over your head is not really my problem. It is you who provides claims of knowledge that you have not provided any proof of, you claim to know that God does not exist and yet provide no evidence proving his non-existence.

(October 26, 2011 at 12:49 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Lactose intolerance is in fact the default and lactose tolerance is the recent mutation. as such it is a good example of evolution in action.

You are right, I had that backwards, but it is not an example of evolution. Humans are all lactose tolerant at birth; they then have a mechanism that shuts this tolerance off after weaning. Most humans today have lost that mechanism, so they become lactose persistent. However, this is a loss in genetic information because of the loss of the mechanism, so it is still downhill selection. You can’t keep pointing to examples of downhill selection (something creationists support) to try and prove that uphill selection happens all the time (something creationists do not support).

Quote:Scientists have looked into the human genome to find the precise genetic mutation that causes lactose tolerance. Lactose tolerance in humans always come from the same genetic mutation, regardless of whether they are of European, Asian, and African descent.

This must be from an old source because it has currently been traced to three different mutations; some Africans even have all three mutations that result in lactose persistence.

(October 26, 2011 at 6:28 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You are right, I had that backwards, but it is not an example of evolution. Humans are all lactose tolerant at birth; they then have a mechanism that shuts this tolerance off after weaning. Most humans today have lost that mechanism, so they become lactose persistent. However, this is a loss in genetic information because of the loss of the mechanism, so it is still downhill selection. You can’t keep pointing to examples of downhill selection (something creationists support) to try and prove that uphill selection happens all the time (something creationists do not support).

Incorrect. It is a genetic mutation, not a loss of genetic information.

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/food/200...evolution/

(October 26, 2011 at 6:49 pm)Shell B Wrote: Incorrect. It is a genetic mutation, not a loss of genetic information.

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/food/200...evolution/

It is a mutation that results in a loss of genetic information because the mechanism is rendered useless by the mutation.

(October 26, 2011 at 6:52 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(October 26, 2011 at 6:49 pm)Shell B Wrote: Incorrect. It is a genetic mutation, not a loss of genetic information.

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/food/200...evolution/

It is a mutation that results in a loss of genetic information because the mechanism is rendered useless by the mutation.

No, it isn't. Hence the fact that many people retain some level of lactose intolerance. Furthermore, you have to show that there is an actual loss of genetic information, I mean, it is gone and nothing more is in its place, before we can continue this discussion. Assertions mean nothing.

(October 26, 2011 at 6:57 pm)Shell B Wrote: No, it isn't. Hence the fact that many people retain some level of lactose intolerance. Furthermore, you have to show that there is an actual loss of genetic information, I mean, it is gone and nothing more is in its place, before we can continue this discussion. Assertions mean nothing.

There is a genetic mechanism that shuts off lactase production after weaning. That is the mechanism that is rendered useless by the mutation. This qualifies as a loss in semantic genetic information because the information that is left behind is no longer functional, it’s completely useless. So you have a loss in genetic information that happens to provide a benefit to the organism. If you are going to make assertions that people are kissing cousins of single celled organisms you are going to have to point to millions of information increasing mutations which we just do not observe happening. If humans had developed some genetic mechanism that allowed them to digest milk later in life you may be on to something. Rather you have a mutation that prohibits the functionality of a genetic mechanism that is supposed to be functional. It’s evidence supporting natural selection, but It’s not evidence supporting common descent.

Who made assertions that people are kissing cousins of single celled organisms, Stat? You're starting to sound like those idiots who think evolution means monkeys were our grandpas.

Again, show this lack of genetic material. You saying it is not sufficient.

(October 26, 2011 at 7:15 pm)Shell B Wrote: Who made assertions that people are kissing cousins of single celled organisms, Stat? You're starting to sound like those idiots who think evolution means monkeys were our grandpas.

If all life on earth descended from a single common ancestor as Darwinian Theory asserts, then humans would be distant cousins of bacteria.

Quote: Again, show this lack of genetic material. You saying it is not sufficient.

How? :-P Can you show it is an increase in semantic genetic information since you seem to be asserting it is? You can’t call the rendering of a structure as useless an increase in genetic information. If a person loses the ability to use their eyes we would not call this uphill selection even if they gained some benefit from it.

Novel genetic material/code/information is created all the time. He probably knows that, but it doesn't help him to bullshit people.

(October 26, 2011 at 7:24 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Novel genetic material/code/information is created all the time. He probably knows that, but it doesn't help him to bullshit people.

Depends on what you mean by information now doesn't it? I am talking about semantic information here which has never been observed to be created by natural selection; you probably knew that though didn't you? You just wanted to be cute by acting like the creation of raw Shannon information proves the theory, which of course it doesn’t.