• MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Btw, is there a evolutionary cost to creating lactase? Because, why do we stop with it usually and only keep it if it has huge advantages?

    • Rob Bos@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I would guess that humans have been around for what, 250k years? And that the vast majority of that didn’t involve a whole lot of milk after age 4.

      So it wouldn’t have been to much advantage to be able to metabolize lactose.

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        No, there is, you get more from your cattle, and on a individual level, less likely to starve.

        Keeping Lactase happened at least twice; north europe and a group in west africa.

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Saudi Arabia too. I assume that camel milk came in pretty handy in early tribes surviving the deserts.

        • Rob Bos@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Sure, if you a) keep mammals around and b) drink their milk. I’m not convinced domesticated animals have been a thing for all that long, evolutionarily. Long enough for some groups to have adapted, sure. We have adaptations for cooked food, too.

          [Searches] Cattle probably around 10k years ago.

        • Floey@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          It’s easy to break down into glucose, which is important for bodily functions. Gluconeogenesis is a thing, but it is inefficient.