NY Times Article on a Human Evolution Study

[Trifikas]

http://tinyurl.com/ych44z

It discusses how the Human Genome evolved Lactose Tolerance, Starting where Cattle were first thought to have been domesticated, In north-central Europe, and spreading outward with time.

It also discusses how they found Convergent Evolution (evolving the same trait independantly) in societies in Kenya and Tanzania. I'm not versed enough in the what-it-all-means aspect for any Evo-ID debate, but an interesting read.

 

[brooklyn44]

I read the article this morning at work and couldn't wait to get home and see what the forumites had to say about this and I am, indeed, surprised that no one weighed in. I thought the story was so compelling that, if properly publicized, could lead the "average joe/jane" to a more realistic idea of how natural selection works. (And hopefully could put a stop the the age-old retort from the ignoramuses, "How come we don't see evolution taking place now?")
b44

 

[HappyCat]

Genetic evidence shows that the mutations conferred an enormous selective advantage on their owners, enabling them to leave almost 10 times as many descendants as people without them.

I found this to be very interesting. I wonder what it is about milk that makes it so beneficial? Natural selection just as easily could have selected for people who didn't drink milk (thus not being poisoned by it), yet it didn't. This seems to suggest to me that milk had a great benefit over the other foods and drinks that people of that time drank. Otherwise, I think, the selecting force wouldn't have been so strong.

edit: actually, I should have read the article more closely

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.