Re: [asa] lactose tolerance mutation

From: PvM <>
Date: Tue Dec 12 2006 - 23:02:32 EST

Man, if Paul really said this then he seems even more confused about
evolutionary science than I had imagined.
First of all, there exist good examples of beneficial mutations,
second of all, neutrality does drive evolution.
Are you sure he said this as this seems to be quite a vacuous and
erroneous statement.

On 12/12/06, Randy Isaac <> wrote:
> This afternoon I listened to the radio program "The Bible Answer Man"
> sponsored by the Christian Research Institute. Paul Nelson was the guest. He
> is very impressive in his style of communication. It was generally the
> standard ID fare but I was surprised at his answer to one of the call-in
> questions. The caller asked whether there were any beneficial mutations or
> if they were all harmful. Paul essentially said none was beneficial and
> mutations may be neutral at best but neutrality doesn't drive evolution.
> I wish I could have jumped in and asked about the article that Jack Haas
> posted on his blog on Dec. 11 (I presume you all regularly check Jack's blog
> at ) on lactose
> tolerance. If I understand it correctly this is not only an example of a
> positive mutation (assuming it is positive to be tolerant of lactose) but
> also one of convergent evolution. I'm not an expert in this field so I have
> some questions for those of you who are. Are they implying that the same
> mutation occurred in different populations to achieve convergence in lactose
> tolerance? Or are these different mutations? If so, what are the
> characteristics of the mutations causing this change? Is it silencing a
> specific protein? Activating a silent one? In general, I would like to know
> what you think is the significance of this finding.
> Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 12 23:03:30 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 12 2006 - 23:03:30 EST