I am not saying that paleo people got much milk. And I am not saying that
neolithic people made the transition to milk drinking quickly. Just trying
to point out that even most lactose intolerant people can and do drink milk
without much obvious effect.

I would not be surprised to find that it caused increased cancer, as William
pointed out, or that they got various other ills from it.

My guess is that early domesticated cows were kept for ease of having meat
on hand, and maybe blood drinking like some Africans still do. Milk drinking
was probably a much later innovation.


> Except that that doesn't jibe with what I found in these articles that
> claim
> that cattle were first domesticated about 9,000 years ago but people
> didn't
> start drinking their milk until "later" and lactose tolerance didn't
> develop
> until about 7,000 years ago. It doesn't make sense that Paleolithic hunter
> gatherers were drinking milk, then stopped drinking it after they
> domesticated cattle.



As to how significant the effects would have to be to give lactose tolerant
people the boost. A selective advantage does not have to be all that great
to have a big effect over several thousand years time.

Also, wouldn't lactose intolerance effects have had to be fairly significant
> for enough people to give the lactose tolerant genes the "enormous
> selective
> advantage" that scientists found they provide? The theory stated in one of
> the articles is that lactose tolerant people "not only gained extra energy
> from lactose but also, in drought conditions, would have benefited from
> the
> water in milk" because people "who were lactose intolerant could have
> risked
> losing water from diarrhea."
>
>