Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misterqueue]

My vegan friend tells me that people of European descent can only tolerate milk because of a genetic defect (I call it natural selection--I love chocolate milk!  Thanks Darwin!), and that's why lactose intolerance seems to run along lines of nationality.  Who knows?

My sister says she is lactose intolerant.  She says she has a problem with all cheese too.  But don't certain types of cheese, like cheddar, have very little or no lactose?

A genetic defect? That's a brilliant display of bias in describing a morally neutral mutation. If she is of european descent, she's 'defective' as well...
use of language like that turns me off to any further argument.

Defect is strong, but maybe it's a recessive trait and one not found in many other countries.. is it possible that her meaning is the same but nomenclature is merely lacking?  I'm just saying...

[AugustWest]

I have trouble characterizing a genetic difference that allows one to do something additional as a "defect".  That's kind of like calling the opposible thumb a "defect".  

Whatever your position on eating meat or drinking milk, I can do something that a most people in the world can't -- digest lactose.  How is it that I'm the defective one?

[V-Adore]

I have trouble characterizing a genetic difference that allows one to do something additional as a "defect".  That's kind of like calling the opposible thumb a "defect".  

Whatever your position on eating meat or drinking milk, I can do something that a most people in the world can't -- digest lactose.  How is it that I'm the defective one?

To be a wonk about it:

The question is whether lactose digestion arises from the creation of a new ability (what we call a "gain-of-function mutation") or the disabling of a previous ability (what's called a "loss-of-function mutation"). I don't actually know what's going on there, but you could posit a system in which what the mutation actually does is to disable the pathway that inhibits lactose digestion after infancy; in that case, you would probably call it a loss-of-function mutation, since you're "losing" the lactose-digestion-inhibition "function." However, given that lactose digestion is not apparently maladaptive or disruptive to reproduction, calling it a "defect" is at best misguided.

(I hasten to add that, in scientific terms, causing any mutation a "defect" is generally considered fallacious; more and more "disease" mutations are turning out to have advantageous functions when heterozygous, for example, or otherwise be around for a reason other than making our lives hell. Really heinous, embryonically-fatal-in-heterozygosity stuff, or stuff directly related to DNA damage, can still get called a "defect" with some justice, but most mutations can't be. Also, as a scientist*, I have to just say that technically all mutations are morally neutral. Until we track down that elusive "evil gene," at least.)

* "I'm a SCIENTIST -- I don't believe in anything!!"

[theinevitable]

the way I understand the milk thing, animal fat somehow screws with calcium... I think in the way it's digested? the calcium which is actually -in- milk makes up for part of the loss, but not all.

Anyway, it is a conspiracy. The whole "food pyramid" thing is funded by the dairy industry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_pyramid#Criticism.

[Doc]

EDIT: Damnit, posted to the wrong thread, post deleted and replaced with this slightly more relevant post:

Even if lactose is stopping calcium from being absorbed thats hardly the same as it being 'stripped from our bones' (a phrase I'm favouring for it's overly dramatic edge). Or did you mean the way animal fat is digested that messes with calcium in bone?

[Bozack]

V-Adore, do you realize what this "calcium-stripping" could mean to science? It could mean actual advances, in the field of science.

[V-Adore]

V-Adore, do you realize what this "calcium-stripping" could mean to science? It could mean actual advances, in the field of science.

Calcium-stripping! Brilliant! You see... all my life, I've been hated by skeletons...

[miles]

Yeah I agree about the whole defect thing.  As I said, I consider it to be a plus, becuase, you know chocolate milk!  And cheese!  I left it as "genetic defect" because I think it's funny.

He's an ethical vegan, and so I guess his language reflects that.  He wants people to stop drinking milk.  When he's drunk, he gives me vegan literature (which usually consists of recipes and only a little propaganda).

[starlight]

My sister says she is lactose intolerant.  She says she has a problem with all cheese too.  But don't certain types of cheese, like cheddar, have very little or no lactose?

Cheese was actually how I found out I was lactose intolerant in eighth grade.  I was having my double grilled cheese sandwich (cheddar and that one white cheese.. jack something or other?) as usual -- I was a grilled cheese fiend; I used to rate different ones -- I began feeling ill afterwards.  I thought it was just a bug, but I attempted eating one again and the same thing happened.  even chocolate gave me problems for awhile that year, so I stopped with milk chocolate *and* cheese.  milk and ice cream I never really paid any mind too often; sometimes milk in cereal but it wasn't a big deal to remove it.

Anyway, I'd say definitely no on the cheddar.
Swiss I think is the one with a lack of lactose.  I can eat that one just fine now.  also, I'm cool with parmesian/romano (not very heavy, I guess) and ricotta in certain pastas to a tiny degree (too much and my head feels a bit clogged).

So.. yeah.... I found ways around most cheese.  with pizza, I just scrape it off.  most people find this strange.

[JorgeFabregas]

My vegan friend tells me that people of European descent can only tolerate milk because of a genetic defect (I call it natural selection--I love chocolate milk!  Thanks Darwin!), and that's why lactose intolerance seems to run along lines of nationality.  Who knows?

Ok, as a vegetarian who is somewhat sympathetic to veganism my bullshit meter is going off the charts. What's the european gene set? As far as I know, there is none. Given that European climates differ greatly from each other, what would be the unifying environmental factor? Long term exposure to cows? Almost surely, any tolerance that correlates to a whole continent has more to do with the effects of culture (in utero exposure to cow's milk, or other early exposure, etc.).

People used to think that sickle-cell anemia was genetically linked to African ancestry. They were right insofar as it is linked to the areas in Africa (and other continents) that have been plagued by malaria. I don't see see a similar enviornmental factor that would influence the whole of Europe.

[CortJstr]

Also, as a scientist*, I have to just say that technically all mutations are morally neutral. Until we track down that elusive "evil gene," at least.)

Hitler had it. Walt Disney had it. And Jough has it.

I'm mildly lactose intolerant. I can't have a milk shake without waking up in the middle of the night with terrible gas pains. But yogurt helps.

[arkabee]

BOOZE UP AND RIOT!!!!

http://store.slavelabor.com/MC4Sinfo.shtml

sometimes i think i might be lactose intolerant,
other times i figure it's just my body's natural reaction
to bovine growth hormones.

[Bobby Isosceles]

I have trouble characterizing a genetic difference that allows one to do something additional as a "defect".  That's kind of like calling the opposible thumb a "defect".  

Whatever your position on eating meat or drinking milk, I can do something that a most people in the world can't -- digest lactose.  How is it that I'm the defective one?

To be a wonk about it:

The question is whether lactose digestion arises from the creation of a new ability (what we call a "gain-of-function mutation") or the disabling of a previous ability (what's called a "loss-of-function mutation"). I don't actually know what's going on there, but you could posit a system in which what the mutation actually does is to disable the pathway that inhibits lactose digestion after infancy; in that case, you would probably call it a loss-of-function mutation, since you're "losing" the lactose-digestion-inhibition "function." However, given that lactose digestion is not apparently maladaptive or disruptive to reproduction, calling it a "defect" is at best misguided.

(I hasten to add that, in scientific terms, causing any mutation a "defect" is generally considered fallacious; more and more "disease" mutations are turning out to have advantageous functions when heterozygous, for example, or otherwise be around for a reason other than making our lives hell. Really heinous, embryonically-fatal-in-heterozygosity stuff, or stuff directly related to DNA damage, can still get called a "defect" with some justice, but most mutations can't be. Also, as a scientist*, I have to just say that technically all mutations are morally neutral. Until we track down that elusive "evil gene," at least.)

* "I'm a SCIENTIST -- I don't believe in anything!!"

I remember reading somewhere that the evolutionary benefit of lactose intolerance was a natural impetus toward weaning; in which case, a loss-of-function mutation as such could be seen as a defect from a genetic fitness perspective. Someone who is weaning far beyond the point where they absolutely have to is, at least to some degree, going to be less fertile for impregnation; thus, being part of a race of milk-lovers means you will breed less often.

[Bobby Isosceles]

Also, as a scientist*, I have to just say that technically all mutations are morally neutral. Until we track down that elusive "evil gene," at least.)

Hitler had it. Walt Disney had it. And Jough has it.

Jough's not evil. He just hates everyone. There's a difference.

[V-Adore]

I have trouble characterizing a genetic difference that allows one to do something additional as a "defect".  That's kind of like calling the opposible thumb a "defect".  

Whatever your position on eating meat or drinking milk, I can do something that a most people in the world can't -- digest lactose.  How is it that I'm the defective one?

To be a wonk about it:

The question is whether lactose digestion arises from the creation of a new ability (what we call a "gain-of-function mutation") or the disabling of a previous ability (what's called a "loss-of-function mutation"). I don't actually know what's going on there, but you could posit a system in which what the mutation actually does is to disable the pathway that inhibits lactose digestion after infancy; in that case, you would probably call it a loss-of-function mutation, since you're "losing" the lactose-digestion-inhibition "function." However, given that lactose digestion is not apparently maladaptive or disruptive to reproduction, calling it a "defect" is at best misguided.

(I hasten to add that, in scientific terms, causing any mutation a "defect" is generally considered fallacious; more and more "disease" mutations are turning out to have advantageous functions when heterozygous, for example, or otherwise be around for a reason other than making our lives hell. Really heinous, embryonically-fatal-in-heterozygosity stuff, or stuff directly related to DNA damage, can still get called a "defect" with some justice, but most mutations can't be. Also, as a scientist*, I have to just say that technically all mutations are morally neutral. Until we track down that elusive "evil gene," at least.)

* "I'm a SCIENTIST -- I don't believe in anything!!"

I remember reading somewhere that the evolutionary benefit of lactose intolerance was a natural impetus toward weaning; in which case, a loss-of-function mutation as such could be seen as a defect from a genetic fitness perspective. Someone who is weaning far beyond the point where they absolutely have to is, at least to some degree, going to be less fertile for impregnation; thus, being part of a race of milk-lovers means you will breed less often.

This is a fair point, but you could argue just as strongly that later weaning results in a higher overall nutrititive intake for the child during early childhood, better development during that period, and thus greater viability. If the babies you have are more likely to live, that can cancel out the effect of having fewer babies, since children only "matter" for natural-selection purposes if they get to breeding age and breed themselves. I can't say which effect is stronger, but if we posit the suggested model (that somehow this mutation has spread throughout Europe and does not generally appear to be being outcompeted by Europeans without it) then it doesn't appear to be having measurable deleterious effects on the fitness of the carriers.