Darwin's 200th B-Day And Drinking Milk
Although I am not in the habit of commemorating birthdays of renowned scientists, the currently prevailing Semi-Dark Age we are living in (one more case in point here) compels me to underlie that today is Charles Darwin's B-day - he who provided the first genuine scientific evidence of the process of evolution for life on our home planet.
Of course, science and our knowledge of genetics, cellular biology and molecular biology stand a galaxy apart from Darwin's times of the 19th century - for instance, genetic inheritance (first discovered by Gregor Mendel in the 1860's, and thereafter "rediscovered" some 50 years later) and DNA were discovered and understood almost a century after his seminal work On the Origins of Species.
In other words - "(...) twentieth century genetic research proved that Darwin was right all along: that variations occur naturally, and that natural selection is the main force determining which variations survive and spread. This materialist victory in science is one of humanity’s greatest achievements. For that reason alone, no matter what his hesitations, delays or prejudices, Charles Darwin deserves to be remembered and honoured by everyone who looks forward to the ending of superstition and ignorance in all aspects of life".
For that matter, our current knowledge of genetics, cellular biology and molecular biology already stand a world apart (at least) from what was known in the 20th century - hence why the scientific theory of evolution is at the edge of being recognized at last as a law of Nature.
Hence, I thought it would be quite à propos to reproduce below an older post of mine, written in a tongue-in-cheek manner, aimed against one of the most basic (ignorance-based) "argument" that creationists/IDists like to waive about frantically - that Man was created/designed in God's image:
Of course, science and our knowledge of genetics, cellular biology and molecular biology stand a galaxy apart from Darwin's times of the 19th century - for instance, genetic inheritance (first discovered by Gregor Mendel in the 1860's, and thereafter "rediscovered" some 50 years later) and DNA were discovered and understood almost a century after his seminal work On the Origins of Species.
In other words - "(...) twentieth century genetic research proved that Darwin was right all along: that variations occur naturally, and that natural selection is the main force determining which variations survive and spread. This materialist victory in science is one of humanity’s greatest achievements. For that reason alone, no matter what his hesitations, delays or prejudices, Charles Darwin deserves to be remembered and honoured by everyone who looks forward to the ending of superstition and ignorance in all aspects of life".
For that matter, our current knowledge of genetics, cellular biology and molecular biology already stand a world apart (at least) from what was known in the 20th century - hence why the scientific theory of evolution is at the edge of being recognized at last as a law of Nature.
Hence, I thought it would be quite à propos to reproduce below an older post of mine, written in a tongue-in-cheek manner, aimed against one of the most basic (ignorance-based) "argument" that creationists/IDists like to waive about frantically - that Man was created/designed in God's image:
A Very Milky Conundrum
One of the main (non)arguments of religious fundamentalists against the process of evolution is that God created man in His image and that, subsequently, humans have ever remained unchanged since the creation of Adam and Eve some 6000-10000 years ago.
Each time I hear such reality-disconnected fallacies, what immediately springs to my mind is the proven existence of numerous mutations in our genome which have emerged over the last 150000 years or so since the evolutionary advent of homo sapiens sapiens (with many mutation events actually occuring well after the presumed "Godly Creation of Man") - especially those mutations which cause genetically inherited diseases, such as muscular dystrophies, epidermolysis bullosa, et al..
However, considering the intellectual sloth-driven, ignorance-striken, fearful and parochial mind-think of religious fundamentalists, I doubt that they would be able (let alone be willing) to grasp the simple and obvious concept that the existence of such disease-causing mutations constitutes in itself proof of the basic genetic mechanisms which underlie the process of evolution.
Truth be told, I have this strong suspicion that they would simply reply that such horrible things were the Will of God following the Fall of Man.
Very well, then. Here's one small evidence (among a legion of others) that not only negates such feeble arguments against the reality of evolution, but which also actually invalidates the so-called literal-interpretation of holy scriptures.
And this evidence has everything to do with milk.
Yes - you have read this correctly: milk. But before I proceed further, allow me to properly set the table for you.
You see, we must first remember that mammals suckle their young, giving them nourishment through the milk produced in their mammaries. Same thing with humans (and hence why homo sapiens sapiens is also a mammal by definition). Now, milk is a rich source of fats, proteins, minerals (especially calcium) and, of course, water. Milk is also a rich source of sugars - or, rather, of one specific sugar: lactose. The problem here is that animal cells (such as our own) use glucose, a simple lonely sugar, to metabolize and derive energy from. Since lactose is a bit more complex sugar, being composed of one glucose linked with one galactose (a glucose relative), this means that this lactose needs to be broken down to release the glucose and galactose. In turn, the galactose can be quickly changed into another glucose, thus giving us the following end-equation: one lactose = two glucose.
Hence, that is why milk is full of lactose instead of glucose - otherwise, the milk would be quite syrupy, rendering it a difficult thing to suckle indeed (not taking into account that it would make the young suckling very thirsty).
Thus, enter the digestive enzyme lactase which breaks down lactose into its two individual, single sugar components.
The funny thing here is that lactase is expressed only when needed. In other words, the gene encoding this very necessary digestive enzyme for sucklings gets to be shut off around the time of weaning. No more milk as diet - thus no more need to spend energy and resources to produce lactase: such is the way for nearly all known mammals, including humans.
Or rather, such was the way for humans.
(Yes - the table is now properly set)
You see, when humans became sendentary - settling into stable villages and such - they soon began farming and domesticating goats and cattle. Realizing that the milk produced by these animals constituted a rich source of nutrients right at their finger tips, they of course began making cheeses out of milk (whereby the lactose gets broken down in the process of manufacture) or, for a quicker and more refreshing fix, actually drinking the milk.
Unfortunately, post-weaning children and adults being bereft of lactase, drinking goat or cattle milk would cause much discomfort such as cramps and even diarrhea. However, such side-effects were deemed acceptable when taking into account the richness that milk provided (but without being able to digest the lactose) - and therefore drinking milk eventually became a staple in the diet of some of our ancestors nonetheless.
This in turn favored random mutations in the lactase gene, thereafter acting as an adaptative/evolutionary advantage which resulted in their quick spreading among human (sendentary and milk-drinking) populations.
What were such mutations you ask? Why, they simply prevented the lactase gene from shutting down around weaning, thus setting the stage for massive milk-drinking frenzies among post-weaning children and adults without any side-effects, in addition of the benefit of being able to digest all the lactose in the milk.
In short: humans could then not only have their milk, but enjoy it too.
Let us fast-forward to today and what do we have? Why, we have those folks who are lactose intolerant ("old original stock") and those who are lactose tolerant (new, evolved, stock).
Interestingly, such mutations first emerged as early as 6800 years ago and as late as 2700 years ago, each such mutation being different and occuring independently among separated (milk-drinking) populations - yet procuring the same evolutionary advantage of keeping the lactase gene turned on after weaning.
Notice the time line here?
That's right - lactose tolerance evolved after the presumed time of the "Godly Creation of Man" so cherished by religious fundamentalists.
Now, here's the clincher: from the moment of Adam and Eve and onward, everyone is apparently quite lactose tolerant in the holy scriptures. Not a single mention of God giving the Divine Gift to man of being able to drink milk without side-effects.
Goodbye holy scriptures literalism and hello evolution.
So next time you meet a religious fundamentalist (like this one, this one or this one), ask him or her the following very simple - but oh, so damning - question:
"Got milk?"
One of the main (non)arguments of religious fundamentalists against the process of evolution is that God created man in His image and that, subsequently, humans have ever remained unchanged since the creation of Adam and Eve some 6000-10000 years ago.
Each time I hear such reality-disconnected fallacies, what immediately springs to my mind is the proven existence of numerous mutations in our genome which have emerged over the last 150000 years or so since the evolutionary advent of homo sapiens sapiens (with many mutation events actually occuring well after the presumed "Godly Creation of Man") - especially those mutations which cause genetically inherited diseases, such as muscular dystrophies, epidermolysis bullosa, et al..
However, considering the intellectual sloth-driven, ignorance-striken, fearful and parochial mind-think of religious fundamentalists, I doubt that they would be able (let alone be willing) to grasp the simple and obvious concept that the existence of such disease-causing mutations constitutes in itself proof of the basic genetic mechanisms which underlie the process of evolution.
Truth be told, I have this strong suspicion that they would simply reply that such horrible things were the Will of God following the Fall of Man.
Very well, then. Here's one small evidence (among a legion of others) that not only negates such feeble arguments against the reality of evolution, but which also actually invalidates the so-called literal-interpretation of holy scriptures.
And this evidence has everything to do with milk.
Yes - you have read this correctly: milk. But before I proceed further, allow me to properly set the table for you.
You see, we must first remember that mammals suckle their young, giving them nourishment through the milk produced in their mammaries. Same thing with humans (and hence why homo sapiens sapiens is also a mammal by definition). Now, milk is a rich source of fats, proteins, minerals (especially calcium) and, of course, water. Milk is also a rich source of sugars - or, rather, of one specific sugar: lactose. The problem here is that animal cells (such as our own) use glucose, a simple lonely sugar, to metabolize and derive energy from. Since lactose is a bit more complex sugar, being composed of one glucose linked with one galactose (a glucose relative), this means that this lactose needs to be broken down to release the glucose and galactose. In turn, the galactose can be quickly changed into another glucose, thus giving us the following end-equation: one lactose = two glucose.
Hence, that is why milk is full of lactose instead of glucose - otherwise, the milk would be quite syrupy, rendering it a difficult thing to suckle indeed (not taking into account that it would make the young suckling very thirsty).
Thus, enter the digestive enzyme lactase which breaks down lactose into its two individual, single sugar components.
The funny thing here is that lactase is expressed only when needed. In other words, the gene encoding this very necessary digestive enzyme for sucklings gets to be shut off around the time of weaning. No more milk as diet - thus no more need to spend energy and resources to produce lactase: such is the way for nearly all known mammals, including humans.
Or rather, such was the way for humans.
(Yes - the table is now properly set)
You see, when humans became sendentary - settling into stable villages and such - they soon began farming and domesticating goats and cattle. Realizing that the milk produced by these animals constituted a rich source of nutrients right at their finger tips, they of course began making cheeses out of milk (whereby the lactose gets broken down in the process of manufacture) or, for a quicker and more refreshing fix, actually drinking the milk.
Unfortunately, post-weaning children and adults being bereft of lactase, drinking goat or cattle milk would cause much discomfort such as cramps and even diarrhea. However, such side-effects were deemed acceptable when taking into account the richness that milk provided (but without being able to digest the lactose) - and therefore drinking milk eventually became a staple in the diet of some of our ancestors nonetheless.
This in turn favored random mutations in the lactase gene, thereafter acting as an adaptative/evolutionary advantage which resulted in their quick spreading among human (sendentary and milk-drinking) populations.
What were such mutations you ask? Why, they simply prevented the lactase gene from shutting down around weaning, thus setting the stage for massive milk-drinking frenzies among post-weaning children and adults without any side-effects, in addition of the benefit of being able to digest all the lactose in the milk.
In short: humans could then not only have their milk, but enjoy it too.
Let us fast-forward to today and what do we have? Why, we have those folks who are lactose intolerant ("
Interestingly, such mutations first emerged as early as 6800 years ago and as late as 2700 years ago, each such mutation being different and occuring independently among separated (milk-drinking) populations - yet procuring the same evolutionary advantage of keeping the lactase gene turned on after weaning.
Notice the time line here?
That's right - lactose tolerance evolved after the presumed time of the "Godly Creation of Man" so cherished by religious fundamentalists.
Now, here's the clincher: from the moment of Adam and Eve and onward, everyone is apparently quite lactose tolerant in the holy scriptures. Not a single mention of God giving the Divine Gift to man of being able to drink milk without side-effects.
Goodbye holy scriptures literalism and hello evolution.
So next time you meet a religious fundamentalist (like this one, this one or this one), ask him or her the following very simple - but oh, so damning - question:
"Got milk?"
********************
(P.S. : I invite you good folks to read also the two follow-up essays to this one (If It Ain't Real, Then Nothing's Real, and Yes: It's In The Roll Of The Dice, Baby!), likewise written in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Enjoy.)
(Cross-posted at TWWL and NetRoots)
(Cross-posted at TWWL and NetRoots)
"This in turn favored random mutations in the lactase gene, thereafter acting as an adaptative/evolutionary advantage which resulted in their quick spreading among human (sendentary and milk-drinking) populations."
ReplyDeletewell, that's what you "say." Aren't you some kinda...scientist? Probably going for some grant...public breast feeding and all...yes, this explains it.
Show me the science!!!!
really neat post, Mentarch. Very interesting.
St-Augustine, my most despised saint sort of "proves" in a different way that we can't possibly be created in god's image - although that wasn't his intent. He says we know babies are born evil because they cry and they drink from their mother's breast.
"He says we know babies are born evil because they cry and they drink from their mother's breast."
ReplyDeleteWell - I stand corrected, then ...
;-)