Thank you Jay. This is interesting! Who knew The NY Times! Its sort of the old nature vs nurture question. No doubt the genes and behavior are not independent but dependent functions. That said we do not innately milk cows. This is a learned behavior that didn’t require a change in our DNA to occur. Our brains were fully able to figure that out. Once that behavior is expressed then the genetic pool can adapt to that behavior by selecting for the expression of the lactase in individuals.
1 Like
Do I recall hearing that the lactase mutation in Europeans is different from the lactase mutation in some African group? So natural selection favored different mutations but got a similar result of the populations being able to digest dairy products? Or did they involve different mutations which ended the age-limitation of milk digestion?? I probably have all of this mixed up in my mind.
You recall correctly. It evolved 2x in different populations at different times.
Why not report it?
But was it the same mutation or did it achieve preservation of lactase production by a different “path”?
Nobody has had a solution.
The number of mutations is up to 4 now, all independent. They are all of one particular type of mutation: they don’t affect the gene itself but affect the nearby regulatory regions that control when the gene is turned on and off. The lactase story is not about a gene being changed (in the sense that the lactase enzyme is always the same) but about the activation and inactivation of a gene being changed.
6 Likes
Thanks, Steve. I would love to get the background on these 4 mutations. Could you provide a link or two?
Yes, gladly, sorry that I didn’t add a link to my post. You can find numerous references, and overall discussion, in this paper:
In Vitro Functional Analyses of Infrequent Nucleotide Variants in the Lactase Enhancer Reveal Different Molecular Routes to Increased Lactase Promoter Activity and Lactase Persistence
2 Likes
Seeing how this thread appears to be dying, I hope that means that everyone realizes that YES, evolution continues because evolutionary processes are always at work. Even when an environment doesn’t appear to change, evolution continues regardless.
2 Likes
Thank you Socratic.Fanatic!
Seeing how this thread appears to be dying, I hope that means that everyone realizes that YES, evolution continues because evolutionary processes are always at work. Even when an environment doesn’t appear to change, evolution continues regardless.
Not so fast. I am not quite done with it. So you say we have evolved in this period. What is the evolutionary development(s)? What is God creating?
I thought we settled that. Lactose tolerance in Northern Europeans. And bleached blondes in all the world! haha
1 Like
I am saying that every generation represents more evolution. Allele frequencies in populations change over time. That is evolution.
Some examples would be:
(1) Many types of genetic defects are no longer fatal, so those alleles are now appearing at higher frequencies than in the past—because the “carriers” of those alleles are not only surviving longer but reproducing in many cases.
(2) Because more protein sources are available today, lactose-intolerant Europeans are surviving and reproducing more favorably than in the past. They aren’t at such a big disadvantage for not eating dairy proteins as they were in the past.
(3) Northern and southern populations of a common species of North American rabbit is quickly becoming TWO distinct species and populations which can no longer cross-reproduce. It is a great example of macro-evolution directly observable right in front of our eyes.
(4) Many bacteria species are becoming more resistant to man-made antibiotics. That is evolution.
(5) Relatively recently we observed flavobacteria evolving to where they can digest nylon, a man-made fiber which did not exist before the 1940’s, if I recall. That is evolution at work.
Scientists could give you literally THOUSANDS of examples of what evolution is producing. (Of course, deniers of evolution will make silly claims like “That isn’t evolution. That’s adaptation.”)
Where is God “headed” with his biosphere? I don’t know. But I’m sure that some scientists could give you some general trends they observe. I don’t spend much time worrying about it. I figure God knows what he is doing. After all, he created evolutionary processes for his glory just as everything else in the creation. (Obviously, I’m not going to deny any of it just because I may not like some aspect of it. As I get older, I am bothered more by gravity–but I accept what God has commanded as to the functioning of the universe.)
2 Likes
I saw an interesting article about how plastic surgery is interfering with what was a previous trend in terms of natural selection towards mates with particular characteristics. Men in China and in India are suing women for “false advertising” of their genes. That is, men assumed that the women would produce “beautiful” sons and daughters due to superior genes—but plastic surgery is hiding the undesirable genes. Courts have even awarded marriage annulments due to that “false advertising.”
Anything which alters reproduction of various alleles tends to change the allele frequencies. That’s evolution.
I’m not a moderator. I don’t have the power to shut down “dead” threads. So you don’t have to be concerned about the “not so fast.” You can still post all you want.
Most threads die a natural death. Only when a mutation results in a cancer is intervention required.
10 Likes
Ok. I guess I need to revise “mutate” this question. Perhaps I should start a new thread. I am more concerned with out behavioral evolution. I consider behavior our learning, technological, knowledge based and cultural developments basically non genetic. It seems difficult to really assess human genetic evolution as Humans have a massively heterogenous genetic population. What I am trying to get at is has the genome really changed as much as our cultural and behavioral evolution over the last 10,000 years and do the genome changes over that time explain (cause) those behavioral changes. And will those genetic changes drive our behavioral evolution going forward? Simply said where as stated the lactose tolerance was selected for now you can just take Lactase pills and drink your milk. These behavioral developments ( adaptations ) make the genes less important. Behavior is the software on the DNA computer hardware. (Of course, I do believe we will engineer the genome to enhance our abilities but clearly the tools that we are developing such as AI will outperform our genetic abilities)
We as Christians are not defined by our genes but our faith in the Lord. The word of God is not genetic but is behavioral based.
Interestingly, human genetic diversity is pretty low, somewhat remarkably low, compared to other animal species/populations. I know this isn’t really your point, but thought you’d be interested.
I think your question is very interesting, and I’m sure that you are right, though it depends on what you mean by your various terms.
Daniel Dennett wrote something similar when he discussed “Design Space” and how humanity is now “leaping through” Design Space and in some sense leaving genes and genetics behind. Forty years ago in The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins asserted our “rebellion” against the selfish replicators (genes) with a single word: contraception. Your example is also a good one: you can wait a few millenia to select for lactose tolerance, and that can work, but today you can just install lactose tolerance with a pill. (I’m not sure that works super well, but the point remains.)
What is less clear to me is what you are really asking. Your basic claim, if I am understanding it correctly, is undisputed.
To the question of “Is God still creating?” When we look at Romans 8:20-22 we see that God’s original creation has been and is groaning since the sin of Adam (The Fall). If that is the case, and all that God did in regards to creation is perfect, since God is perfect, then God cannot still be creating. The earth would not be continually groaning. The Bible states that this groaning is waiting upon His redemption. This original creation will be set free in Revelation when a new earth and new heaven are created (Rev. 12:1) and the old heaven and earth have passed away. The process of life continues through a fallen world since Adam’s sin, and is not GOD still creating.
That’s pretty tortured logic there. And… I don’t think the writer of Psalm 104 got the memo.
4 Likes
Question: Is something incomplete by definition imperfect? How about an embryo? Is an embryo perfect or imperfect? It hasn’t reached its potential yet, and it must change in order to become everything God wills/envisions for it to be.
It seems like you are arguing that if creation “in the beginning” had potential for development and change, it follows that it was imperfect. I don’t think that really follows. Plus Scripture never calls original creation perfect, it designates it very good. According to Bible scholars I have read, “very good” means fulfilling it’s assigned function in the larger scheme of things. Insisting that everything in the created order was perfect in some Platonic or Aristotelian sense sounds, well, like pagan Greek philosophy not the Bible.
Plus, if creation has been groaning since Adam, isn’t that all the more reason for a loving God to continuously and creatively and proactively reach out to his creation in the process of making things right? Making things right is the heart of the gospel and the eschatological hope of Christianity after all. In your view God the Creator is sidelined until Revelation?
2 Likes
If it was all ‘perfect,’ what was the serpent doing there? Where did it come from?
Also, Isaiah 44:2: “This is what the LORD says-- he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.”
John 5:17: “In his defense Jesus said to them, ‘My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.’”
I don’t think it follows that the earth cannot be groaning if God is still creating.
I don’t know your stance here, but it would also mean that the seventh day was definitely not a literal twenty-four-hour day, if God was still in it.
1 Like
Hey, Isaiah 44:2 is interesting! The Lord made him … he formed him in the womb.
This sounds very much like Front Loading … using natural processes to effect God’s plan!
1 Like