Keith Law vs Curt Schilling on evolution

[Nate Colbert]

And the ignorami in Bristol suspend Law?

Exceedingly Sorry Pathetic Nimrods.

[jbm]

That's really fucked up.

[Navin R Johnson]

When did Carl Everett get hired as the director of social media for ESPN?

[austro]

I do not understand how anybody who can actually engage their brain can doubt evolution as a mechanism of change. Pointing to missing fossils is absurd. Of course there are missing fossils; have you noticed how fragile biological remnants are? The miracle is that there are any fossils at all.

[Navin R Johnson]

I do not understand how anybody who can actually engage their brain can doubt evolution as a mechanism of change. Pointing to missing fossils is absurd. Of course there are missing fossils; have you noticed how fragile biological remnants are? The miracle is that there are any fossils at all.

http://youtu.be/KHJbSvidohg

[Nate in IA]

I do not understand how anybody who can actually engage their brain can doubt evolution as a mechanism of change. Pointing to missing fossils is absurd. Of course there are missing fossils; have you noticed how fragile biological remnants are? The miracle is that there are any fossils at all.

Well, I tend to engage my brain quite a bit and having actually studied genetics, I can say that evolution is so outside the bounds of reality as to be laughable.   The vast majority of genetic change results in death and those changes that don't result in death, do the equivalent and render the organism impotent.   I have not looked at every last organism in the world, but I have studied genetic mutations.   It's not pretty.

[subnuclear]

Charles Darwin didn't know anything about genetics. He was a gentleman farmer and knew a lot about animals and most of his theories come from breeding domesticated animals and observing wildlife.

That's not to knock genetics, but it's a lot easier to understand dog breeding than cell biology.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Charles Darwin didn't know anything about genetics. He was a gentleman farmer and knew a lot about animals and most of his theories come from breeding domesticated animals and observing wildlife.

I didn't know he was a farmer. I knew he married his cousin.

[subnuclear]

'Gentleman farmer' may be too strong a term. He was interested in it, but his livelihood came from other things.

[HudsonHawk]

Well, I tend to engage my brain quite a bit and having actually studied genetics, I can say that evolution is so outside the bounds of reality as to be laughable. 

These two statements could not be more incongruent. There is no debate about the letgitamacy of evolution. It is not controversial in the realm of science, not even a little.  And those who question the existence of "transitional" fossils show an alarming ignorance of the subject.

[HudsonHawk]

Charles Darwin didn't know anything about genetics. He was a gentleman farmer and knew a lot about animals and most of his theories come from breeding domesticated animals and observing wildlife.

That's not to knock genetics, but it's a lot easier to understand dog breeding than cell biology.

That's not entirely true. Darwin studied medicine and geology at the most prestigious universities in Europe, and did intense field research on marine invertebrates, writing and presenting papers alongside the most respected scientists in the field, prior to presenting his ideas on natural selection. He came from a wealthy family, so he was a "gentleman" whatever, simply meaning he was independently wealthy, and  didn't really have a job. But he was a member of th Geological Society of London and a Fellow of the Royal Society, two of the most prestigious academic organizations in the world. It's entirely inaccurate to portray him as some rube with no formal or academic training.

[NeilT]

That's not entirely true. Darwin studied medicine and geology at the most prestigious universities in Europe, and did intense field research on marine invertebrates, writing and presenting papers alongside the most respected scientists in the field, prior to presenting his ideas on natural selection. He came from a wealthy family, so he was a "gentleman" whatever, simply meaning he was independently wealthy, and  didn't really have a job. But he was a member of th Geological Society of London and a Fellow of the Royal Society, two of the most prestigious academic organizations in the world. It's entirely inaccurate to portray him as some rube with no formal or academic training.

Damn geologists.  They're worse than lawyers.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I think I'm sophisticated
'Cos I'm living my life like a good homosapien
But all around me everybody's multiplying
Till they're walking round like flies man
So I'm no better than the animals sitting in their cages
in the zoo man
'Cos compared to the flowers and the birds and the trees
I am an ape man
I think I'm so educated and I'm so civilized
'Cos I'm a strict vegetarian
But with the over-population and inflation and starvation
And the crazy politicians
I don't feel safe in this world no more
I don't want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore and make like an ape man
I'm an ape man, I'm an ape ape man
I'm an ape man I'm a King Kong man I'm a voodoo man
I'm an ape man
'Cos compared to the sun that sits in the sky
compared to the clouds as they roll by
Compared to the bugs and the spiders and flies
I am an ape man
In man's evolution he has created the cities and
the motor traffic rumble, but give me half a chance
and I'd be taking off my clothes and living in the jungle
'Cos the only time that I feel at ease
Is swinging up and down in a coconut tree
Oh what a life of luxury to be like an ape man
I'm an ape, I'm an ape ape man, I'm an ape man
I'm a King Kong man, I'm a voodoo man
I'm an ape man
I look out my window, but I can't see the sky
'Cos the air pollution is fogging up my eyes
I want to get out of this city alive
And make like an ape man
Come and love me, be my ape man girl
And we will be so happy in my ape man world
I'm an ape man, I'm an ape ape man, I'm an ape man
I'm a King Kong man, I'm a voodoo man
I'm an ape man
I'll be your Tarzan, you'll be my Jane
I'll keep you warm and you'll keep me sane
and we'll sit in the trees and eat bananas all day
Just like an ape man
I'm an ape man, I'm an ape ape man, I'm an ape man
I'm a King Kong man, I'm a voodoo man
I'm an ape man.
I don't feel safe in this world no more
I don't want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore
And make like an ape man.

[subnuclear]

That's not entirely true. Darwin studied medicine and geology at the most prestigious universities in Europe, and did intense field research on marine invertebrates, writing and presenting papers alongside the most respected scientists in the field, prior to presenting his ideas on natural selection. He came from a wealthy family, so he was a "gentleman" whatever, simply meaning he was independently wealthy, and  didn't really have a job. But he was a member of th Geological Society of London and a Fellow of the Royal Society, two of the most prestigious academic organizations in the world. It's entirely inaccurate to portray him as some rube with no formal or academic training.

I didn't mean to call him rube, just wanted to emphasis his ideas came from observing actual animals.

[HudsonHawk]

Damn geologists.  They're worse than lawyers.

Let's not get crazy now.

[BizidyDizidy]

Well, I tend to engage my brain quite a bit and having actually studied genetics, I can say that evolution is so outside the bounds of reality as to be laughable.   The vast majority of genetic change results in death and those changes that don't result in death, do the equivalent and render the organism impotent.   I have not looked at every last organism in the world, but I have studied genetic mutations.   It's not pretty.

I assume this must be some kind of subtle joke.

[Bench]

I didn't know he was a farmer. I knew he married his cousin.

Darwin was an aggie?

[Limey]

The anti-science movement is the most scary thing in modern society.  It's going to get us all killed.

[Navin R Johnson]

The anti-science movement is the most scary thing in modern society.  It's going to get us all killed.

It is fascinating.  The 'necks of this generation are gonna be mocked for centuries. 

[Nate in IA]

These two statements could not be more incongruent. There is no debate about the letgitamacy of evolution. It is not controversial in the realm of science, not even a little. 

This does nothing to controvert my statements.   I was in genetics class with many of those scientists.   They could not see past their assumptions and could not give one valid example of beneficial evolution.  Please give me one example of beneficial evolution of an animal (and no, gene expression of alleles does not count).

And those who question the existence of "transitional" fossils show an alarming ignorance of the subject.

I have nothing to say on "transitional" fossils..  I am ignorant of any sort of controversy surrounding such a thing.

[HudsonHawk]

This does nothing to controvert my statements.

It wasn't a rebuttal, it was simply an observation.

Please give me one example of beneficial evolution of an animal (and no, gene expression of alleles does not count).

Evolution isn't beneficial.  Natural selection doesn't have a goal, it doesn't progress towards an end.  It simply acts in the present. 

[HudsonHawk]

I have nothing to say on "transitional" fossils..  I am ignorant of any sort of controversy surrounding such a thing.

Like with evolution in general, there is no controversy.  They are scientific fact. 

[Nate in IA]

It wasn't a rebuttal, it was simply an observation.

So noted.

Evolution isn't beneficial.  Natural selection doesn't have a goal, it doesn't progress towards an end.  It simply acts in the present. 

So you're suggesting that all evolution is negative?     In order for any sort of selection to happen, all alleles of the gene must have been expressed and some 'selected' to not carry on to the following generations.   This isn't evolution in any sense of the word.

[HudsonHawk]

So you're suggesting that all evolution is negative?

There is no negative or positive.  It's not working towards some goal.  It doesn't have absolute value.  It simply is. 

[Nate in IA]

  It simply is not. 

fify

[HudsonHawk]

I suck dick

Really? 

Don't ever "FIFY" me ever again. 

[subnuclear]

This does nothing to controvert my statements.   I was in genetics class with many of those scientists.   They could not see past their assumptions and could not give one valid example of beneficial evolution.  Please give me one example of beneficial evolution of an animal (and no, gene expression of alleles does not count).

I'm sure if this meets your conditions, but lactose tolerance in adults evolved within the last 2,000 - 20,000 years.

[NeilT]

This does nothing to controvert my statements.   I was in genetics class with many of those scientists.   They could not see past their assumptions and could not give one valid example of beneficial evolution.  Please give me one example of beneficial evolution of an animal (and no, gene expression of alleles does not count).

I have nothing to say on "transitional" fossils..  I am ignorant of any sort of controversy surrounding such a thing.

One example of beneficial mutation? Processing milk by northern Europeans.

[Limey]

This does nothing to controvert my statements.   I was in genetics class with many of those scientists.   They could not see past their assumptions and could not give one valid example of beneficial evolution.  Please give me one example of beneficial evolution of an animal (and no, gene expression of alleles does not count).

Not beneficial to us, but flu evolves every year to render moot a vaccination against last year's flu.  Even the anti-science brigade in Congress are on board with viral evolution, given that they were apoplectic (and wrong) about how the Ebola virus had mutated to become airborne transmittable.

[Bench]

Science

Having two copies of a mutant gene for haemoglobin almost eliminates your risk of developing malaria, say Italian researchers. One in five people they studied in the West African country of Burkina Faso has at least one copy, which they predict will spread through the population.

[Limey]

So you're suggesting that all evolution is negative?     In order for any sort of selection to happen, all alleles of the gene must have been expressed and some 'selected' to not carry on to the following generations.   This isn't evolution in any sense of the word.

Organisms mutate.  Some mutations are beneficial, others are not.  Beneficial mutations tend to be carried forward because the organism has an advantage over its unmutated cousins; the obvious corollary being that unmutated organisms tend to lose out to their improved cousins, and get bred out.

Of course, given that birth rates among those with lower IQs tends to outweigh the birth rates among those with higher IQs, the human race is having a good go at challenging that norm.

[HudsonHawk]

Organisms mutate.  Some mutations are beneficial, others are not.  Beneficial mutations tend to be carried forward because the organism has an advantage over its unmutated cousins; the obvious corollary being that unmutated organisms tend to lose out to their improved cousins, and get bred out.

Of course, given that birth rates among those with lower IQs tends to outweigh the birth rates among those with higher IQs, the human race is having a good go at challenging that norm.

And mutations aren't "beneficial" or "positive" in the sense that they take things closer to some sort of perfection or desired outcome.  They simply result in higher reproduction rates in that particular environment.  Natural Selection, which is the primary mechanism by which evolution occurs, acts on the phenotype, not genotypes.  The same mutation, in a different environment would yield a different outcome.  One is not better than the other, they are simply different.  Genetics are the reason that certain physical characteristics are passed on to subsequent generations, but selection acts on the current individual's observable physical trait, not on his genes. 

[Nate in IA]

I'm sure if this meets your conditions, but lactose tolerance in adults evolved within the last 2,000 - 20,000 years.

Having read that paper, I can say that "evolve" is not used in the sense of mutations but rather in the normal "progress over time".   So no, it doesn't really have anything to say towards genetic mutations leading to the macro evolution of genomes. 

From the article: 
"Symptoms like this are usually referred to as lactose intolerance although their severity is variable depending on
the quantities of lactose consumed, colonic flora and possibly
additional factors like other components of the diet."

In other words, lactose tolerance has very little to do with the human organism, but rather the amount of "colonic flora" ("bugs in your gut").  One of the reasons pre- and pro- biotics are so popular.

[Nate in IA]

Organisms mutate.  Some mutations are beneficial, others are not.  Beneficial mutations tend to be carried forward because the organism has an advantage over its unmutated cousins; the obvious corollary being that unmutated organisms tend to lose out to their improved cousins, and get bred out.

Of course, given that birth rates among those with lower IQs tends to outweigh the birth rates among those with higher IQs, the human race is having a good go at challenging that norm.

I don't think organisms mutate _at the genetic level_.   If you wish to call behavioral changes mutations I would argue that you're misusing the English language.

[Gizzmonic]

The 'necks will win and start a new dark age. Texas textbooks shall be their weapons against reason.

[Limey]

I don't think organisms mutate _at the genetic level_.   If you wish to call behavioral changes mutations I would argue that you're misusing the English language.

..and you are trying to reduce to absurdity the theory* of evolution.

* A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

[BizidyDizidy]

Nate - take your point that we can't be 100% sure on evolution. However, in the sense of Pascal's Wager (and assuming that evolution does exist), maybe it's safer if you don't procreate. Thanks.

[Nate in IA]

Nate - take your point that we can't be 100% sure on evolution. However, in the sense of Pascal's Wager (and assuming that evolution does exist), maybe it's safer if you don't procreate. Thanks.

Thanks for your advice, I'll give it the due consideration it deserves.

[HudsonHawk]

I don't think organisms mutate _at the genetic level_.   If you wish to call behavioral changes mutations I would argue that you're misusing the English language.

Evolution isn't about mutations at the genetic level, it's about variations at the physical level.  Again, it's about the phenotype, not the genotype. 

[Dark Star]

The 'necks will win and start a new dark age. Texas textbooks shall be their weapons against reason.

Of course, a lot depends on how much kids pay attention to textbooks, regardless.

I tend to think that now, more than ever, they do not.

[Nate in IA]

..and you are trying to reduce to absurdity the theory* of evolution.

* A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Okay, I'll bite.. what's your definition of the "Theory of Evolution"?

[jbm]

Been a long time since I took biology, but organisms don't mutate at the genetic level?

[Limey]

Okay, I'll bite.. what's your definition of the "Theory of Evolution"?

I don't have one.  I listen to the people who are qualified to describe it.

[Nate in IA]

I don't have one.  I listen to the people who are qualified to describe it.

Well, then, never mind.

[Limey]

THE AFFINITIES of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during each former year may represent the long succession of extinct species . . . The limbs divided into great branches, and these into lesser and lesser branches, were themselves once, when the tree was small, budding twigs; and this connexion of the former and present buds by ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living species in groups subordinate to groups . . . From the first growth of the tree, many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off, and these lost branches of various sizes may represent those whole orders, families, and genera which have now no living representatives, and which are known to us only from having been found in a fossil state . . . As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications.

[subnuclear]

Having read that paper, I can say that "evolve" is not used in the sense of mutations but rather in the normal "progress over time".   So no, it doesn't really have anything to say towards genetic mutations leading to the macro evolution of genomes. 

From the article: 
"Symptoms like this are usually referred to as lactose intolerance although their severity is variable depending on
the quantities of lactose consumed, colonic flora and possibly
additional factors like other components of the diet."

In other words, lactose tolerance has very little to do with the human organism, but rather the amount of "colonic flora" ("bugs in your gut").  One of the reasons pre- and pro- biotics are so popular.

If it were non-genetic in origin it wouldn't track with the gene at all.

[HudsonHawk]

..and you are trying to reduce to absurdity the theory* of evolution.

* A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

This brings up another common tactic of the anti-science crowd; calling it "just a theory".  They do this for two reasons; 1) to try to convince you that evolution occupies a lower rung on the scientific acceptance ladder (as if a "theory" can somehow be elevated to a higher level), and 2) to attempt to elevate their own explanations to a level equal to legitimate science (the old "creationism is a theory just like evolution, so teach both").  They either willfully or ignorantly conflate "theory" as it's used in science and as it's used in colloquial expression. 

[subnuclear]

Been a long time since I took biology, but organisms don't mutate at the genetic level?

A mutation is a mutation of the gene. But it is the organism which lives or reproduces and therefore is the subject of selection.

[BizidyDizidy]

If evolution isn't real, explain this:

http://wgntv.com/2014/11/24/woman-saying-were-ready-for-ferguson-accidentally-shoots-self-in-head-dies/

[jbm]

A mutation is a mutation of the gene. But it is the organism which lives or reproduces and therefore is the subject of selection.

Thanks for the clarification.  I don't get the importance of this distinction.  If an organism is essentially a reflection of it's genetic makeup, isn't the selection of an organism essentially the selection of it's genetic makeup?  

At any rate, this is probably not important to the overall debate.  Carry on.

[Navin R Johnson]

This brings up another common tactic of the anti-science crowd; calling it "just a theory".  They do this for two reasons; 1) to try to convince you that evolution occupies a lower rung on the scientific acceptance ladder (as if a "theory" can somehow be elevated to a higher level), and 2) to attempt to elevate their own explanations to a level equal to legitimate science (the old "creationism is a theory just like evolution, so teach both").  They either willfully or ignorantly conflate "theory" as it's used in science and as it's used in colloquial expression. 

People who want to teach creationism, in a science class, are flat out dumber than a chimp.  And that probably isn't fair to chimps.

There are valid places to discuss creationism, like in your Church or in a philosophy class. The charlatans who are pushing to get this crap put into science books are pieces of shit and do nothing but harm Christianity.

Guys like this.  And no, this isn't an Onion article, it just reads like one.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20131212-gop-lieutenant-governor-hopefuls-back-creationism.ece

[HudsonHawk]

Thanks for the clarification.  I don't get the importance of this distinction.  If an organism is essentially a reflection of it's genetic makeup, isn't the selection of an organism essentially the selection of it's genetic makeup?  

No.  Selection acts on the physical traits, not on genetics.  Physical traits are a manifestation of both genetics and environment, but it is only the physical expression that effects an individuals chance of survival and reproduction rates.  They are related, but understanding evolution requires a fundamental understanding of the distinction between genetic makeup and physical appearance. 

[HudsonHawk]

People who want to teach creationism, in a science class, are flat out dumber than a chimp.  And that probably isn't fair to chimps.

There are valid places to discuss creationism, like in your Church or in a philosophy class. The charlatans who are pushing to get this crap put into science books are pieces of shit and do nothing but harm Christianity.

Guys like this.  And no, this isn't an Onion article, it just reads like one.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20131212-gop-lieutenant-governor-hopefuls-back-creationism.ece

Yeah, that is politicians pandering to the lowest common denominator at its finest. 

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

The paradox in this debate is how scientific research via hospitals and universities, are often funded by religious organizations. I know a brilliant guy who is a neurosurgeon and is deeply religious, a true believer so to speak. I'm not sure how he reconciles his belief that God created the world with his vast knowledge of medicine and science pointing otherwise. I'm a dumbass in comparison and not the least bit religious. People argue about stupid shit all the time, like their opinion is the most important and their knowledge makes them somehow better, I don't care one way or the other, it's all unbelievable to my simple in-the-now brain. I know there has been a lot of great shit done by churches, they house orphans, they feed the hungry, etc... but I still don't want to go to church and don't believe the dogma. I also think it's beyond silly to teach creationism in a science class, but I would never put anyone down for their religious beliefs*, just keep it out of science class.

*unless they believe it's cool to go around lopping off heads of infidels, those guys are fucked up.

[Limey]

The paradox in this debate is how scientific research via hospitals and universities, are often funded by religious organizations. I know a brilliant guy who is a neurosurgeon and is deeply religious, a true believer so to speak. I'm not sure how he reconciles his belief that God created the world with his vast knowledge of medicine and science pointing otherwise.

I think it's easier for those whose religious beliefs are not "fundamental".  Fundies start from the premise that everything in the Bible is literally* accurate, and work back from there.  Anything that interferes with a literal interpretation of the Bible has to be discredited or denied because accepting even a sliver of it as true means that the Bible isn't an infallible tome.  If they cannot trust the Bible on everything, then they cannot trust it on any given thing, and then their heads explode.  Turning one's intellect into an pretzel is less traumatic that your bonce blowing up, so that's what they do.

* Literally


Where it gets really fun is when the Bible contradicts itself and the cherry-picking begins.  Like gay marriage; yes, the Bible says that "man shall not lay down with man".  Once.  The Bible also endorses polygamy, women as property, rape as courtship and an instant death penalty (by stoning) for newly married girls who aren't as chaste as their father's had advertised them to be.  So, if we adhere to the whole not-laying-down-with-men thing, then should we not also adhere to all those other rules?

Eh?  Oh.

[Jacksonian]

The paradox in this debate is how scientific research via hospitals and universities, are often funded by religious organizations. I know a brilliant guy who is a neurosurgeon and is deeply religious, a true believer so to speak. I'm not sure how he reconciles his belief that God created the world with his vast knowledge of medicine and science pointing otherwise. I'm a dumbass in comparison and not the least bit religious. People argue about stupid shit all the time, like their opinion is the most important and their knowledge makes them somehow better, I don't care one way or the other, it's all unbelievable to my simple in-the-now brain. I know there has been a lot of great shit done by churches, they house orphans, they feed the hungry, etc... but I still don't want to go to church and don't believe the dogma. I also think it's beyond silly to teach creationism in a science class, but I would never put anyone down for their religious beliefs*, just keep it out of science class.

*unless they believe it's cool to go around lopping off heads of infidels, those guys are fucked up.

There are plenty of religious people who believe in an infinitely complex God who is not so simplistic but can create a vast and infinitely complex universe, a universe in which natural selection and evolution and dinosaurs exist.

[HudsonHawk]

I also think it's beyond silly to teach creationism in a science class, but I would never put anyone down for their religious beliefs*, just keep it out of science class.

This. I'm don't mind creationism being taught in its proper place; religion class, sociology class, philosophy class, etc. Just don't put it in science class and hold it up as some sort of legitimate alternative.

[NeilT]

Having read that paper, I can say that "evolve" is not used in the sense of mutations but rather in the normal "progress over time".   So no, it doesn't really have anything to say towards genetic mutations leading to the macro evolution of genomes. 

From the article: 
"Symptoms like this are usually referred to as lactose intolerance although their severity is variable depending on
the quantities of lactose consumed, colonic flora and possibly
additional factors like other components of the diet."

In other words, lactose tolerance has very little to do with the human organism, but rather the amount of "colonic flora" ("bugs in your gut").  One of the reasons pre- and pro- biotics are so popular.

Not a scientific paper, but I think you're working hard to exclude what you want to exclude.  I think the genetic description here is fairly graphic:  http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/evolution_of_lactose_tolerance_why_do_humans_keep_drinking_milk.html

[NeilT]

Having read that paper, I can say that "evolve" is not used in the sense of mutations but rather in the normal "progress over time".   So no, it doesn't really have anything to say towards genetic mutations leading to the macro evolution of genomes. 

From the article: 
"Symptoms like this are usually referred to as lactose intolerance although their severity is variable depending on
the quantities of lactose consumed, colonic flora and possibly
additional factors like other components of the diet."

In other words, lactose tolerance has very little to do with the human organism, but rather the amount of "colonic flora" ("bugs in your gut").  One of the reasons pre- and pro- biotics are so popular.

The paragraph that you're quoting is a description of what happens when the lactose intolerant drink milk.  The severity of their reaction can be affected by the "quantities of lactose consumed, colonic flora and possibly
additional factors like other components of the diet."  The genetic change, which has nothing to with that sentence, is how and why certain populations became lactase persistent, which allowed them to digest lactose without those symptoms.  What you should be looking at in the article appear starting in section 5.3, which discusses the genetic source of lactase persistence, and its probable absence in early Neolithic populations.

[NeilT]

There are plenty of religious people who believe in an infinitely complex God who is not so simplistic but can create a vast and infinitely complex universe, a universe in which natural selection and evolution and dinosaurs exist.

Dinosaurs don't exist anymore.  Just saying.

I'm a pretty religious guy, and grew up in a religious community.  Our 8th grade science teacher (who went to our church and was my cub scout den mother) taught the Biblical creation story alongside evolution theory to show us that the inconsistencies were things that we created in our heads, and were not particularly Biblical.  I am still very grateful to that woman.  Plus she drove a 1965 mustang.  Blue.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Our 8th grade science teacher (who went to our church and was my cub scout den mother) taught the Biblical creation story alongside evolution theory to show us that the inconsistencies were things that we created in our heads, and were not particularly Biblical.

Like what kind of inconsistencies?

I grew up going to the Church of Christ three times a week, it was what we did but I never really enjoyed Sunday school or the worship service, I did make friends and enjoyed the relationships we had. Both my parents have always been very active, mom taught and dad was a deacon and later an elder. I had a preacher tell me once that I had to believe with my heart. He said, that faith is about believing in what your heart tells you, not what your brain rationalizes. I still go when I visit my mom and dad--it pleases them.

[NeilT]

Like what kind of inconsistencies?

I grew up going to the Church of Christ three times a week, it was what we did but I never really enjoyed Sunday school or the worship service, I did make friends and enjoyed the relationships we had. Both my parents have always been very active, mom taught and dad was a deacon and later an elder. I had a preacher tell me once that I had to believe with my heart. He said, that faith is about believing in what your heart tells you, not what your brain rationalizes. I still go when I visit my mom and dad--it pleases them.

We'll have a non-church of christ beer next time you're in Houston or I'm in Austin and discuss it. 

[Ebby Calvin]

We'll have a non-church of christ beer next time you're in Houston or I'm in Austin and discuss it. 

I'd think that's more of a Slack Shack conversation.