Re: Lactose

<gregory.cochran@xxxxxxxxx>:
We didn't have to rely on a molecular clock. Burger et al, in
PNAS, checked some skeletons from northern Europe, 7000-8000 years
old (archeologically and/or carbon dated). None of them had the
13.910*T allele.

Ok, finally some real conversation.
So, you believe that this specific allele does that, and in just the
specific way you expect it do that.
How it does that?
They "prove" that something do that by seeing if some allele is
present or not. Gee. I encountered situations where they initially thought
that some allele is for sure for some job, but when they did a real research
on it, they found out that it only remotely affects some condition.
Also, there is evolution still present. At that time, maybe it was
achieved in some other way. At this place maybe people did it differently.
If olders ate milk (that way), what were children eating.
In other words, this thinking is pretty unreliable. First you have
to know exactly how some mechanism works. Those geneticians don't know that. They just know iof some gene is present or not, in a condition they don't fully understand. All this gene business is still too superficial. But it doesn't stop superficial people in their greed to achieve "BIG" goals by fastly revealing the truths of life. Of course, I am not surprised when they find out that they were wrong all the way.
So, those two are "sure" that this allele is for exactly this, and
they are sure that this way was all the way in the past. But they are not
sure how exactly all this works.
I don't rely on genetics. Whoever relies on genetics, encountered
numerous problems. I don't rely on much more obvious things than genetics,
because those things also sometimes don'tt work like expected. You rely on
that. Well, be prepared for surprises. -- Mario Petrinovic

.

Relevant Pages