I'm left with the opinion that the research teams mentioned in the article are grasping at straws rather than giving a rock solid explanation of why lactose doesn't affect some people like it does others. In my own family, some members can drink lactose-containing products every hour of the day and not be affected while others of us get pain and other digestive problems from merely drinking half a glass of milk. I've met other families that are similar.
The article leaves me with a question unanswered.
If we take a drink of something and discover in the drinking that it's poison, don't we decide never to drink the stuff again, if we're fortunate enough to survive? Doesn't plain common sense tell us never to drink it again? And if we care about our children, don't we warn them never to drink it? So what's the chance of our descendants some thousands of years later getting adjusted to the stuff if nobody down the line ever drinks what their ancestors have learned to avoid?
If one generation decides to go ahead and make the drink a part of their steady diet, does that cause them to evolve upward, or does it lead to a generation that is weaker? I think drinking what is bad for people only tends to cause deterioration rather than improvement.
One member of our family was told by doctors that he'll die at an early age if he continues to eat and drink milk products. If there is any lesson in the article, it's that he should ignore the doctors because doing so will result in benefits to his descendants. Or am I missing something?
Frank
