Faith writes:
This is just the usual flimflam runaround.
"Flimflam runaround" pretty much describes every post you make about biology.
Faith writes:
I believe it is your job to present whatever evidence you think you have so that a reader of the thread could follow it without having to open links.
Which we can take as meaning that, when presented with evidence from the relevant literature that supports the O.P., you want to continue to pretend that no-one has presented any evidence that supports the O.P., which is what you claimed in the post I replied to.
The second paper I linked to shows that our Neolithic ancestors did not have the allele for Lactase persistence at near fixation in the way that modern north-western Europeans do. It wasn't present in any of the eight Neolithic individuals examined, or in one Mesolithic individual, which shows that your unsupported assertion that Lactase persistence was the historical norm was clearly wrong.
If you can't read and understand papers like these, then you shouldn't be expressing your opinions on biology. Those opinions are meaningless fantasy if you can't support them.
You are the one disagreeing with the research described in those two papers, and the conclusions of specialists in their field. If you want to do that, you need to read the papers, and give the technical reasons for your disagreement.
You also need to understand the point I made about drift in the last post, which you ignored.
Now, stop flimflamming around, and if you want to discuss biology, learn how to do it like an informed adult.
What the current evidence points to is a number of different mutations in different geographical regions that led to lactase persistence and have faced positive selection over the last few thousand years in cultures that do dairying.
Read the papers. They contain some of the evidence that supports that point.
Lactose digestion and the evolutionary genetics of lactase persistence
Fred Flintstone couldn't drink milk