Well to be honest there are several points flying around at once, this has sort of branched out. I’m not sure how much of this you have read and would defiantly not fault you for not reading back far it’s like 6 pages of madness.
Regarding the term omnivore what I want is irrelevant. I pointed this(see wiki mentioned below) out several times, and it seems to be something people don’t agree with very much.
What I’m doing is responding to peoples posts directed at me. That is all.
While the goal of scientific classification is to promote communication and analysis of various differences and similarities between species, the concept of an ‘omnivore’ is broad and could be applied to virtually any mammal since disease risks and the quality of digestion are often not considered. There are social, psychological and non-nutritive factors that influence diet behavior. “[T]he behavioral basis of omnivory has not been thoroughly explored… and food selection behavior is central to understanding the causes and consequences of omnivory. However, few studies have actually addressed this issue through rigorous tests of multiple hypotheses.”
Yes and that fellow brought up fish. You're missing a key concept about what we know about adaptation. You are make a good point, but you are missing mine, so you have not convinced me of anything other then you don't get what I'm actually saying.
Carefully take the time to think about it. Weeks if you need them. Try to understand why humans quickly(10k years) adapting to bovine milk would be significant to the adaptation argument, when we are talking about another adaptation that for some reason did not occur in the million year spans you have mentioned. (think really hard)
What a human removed from all culture and technological influence would eat, what the base instincts of a human are removed from culture. Do we have natural tool blue prints in our heads? Hunting instincts?
Though I think they did studies on this in the 50’s that would be considered illegal now, they still would not really address the question.
Bingo the healthier trait lives longer and can have .2 more kids(guess), and on a long enough time line that makes that dominant gene. YES. BOOM you get it. That now nature selects for minor traits. Such as an adaptation to lactose, or amylase in saliva.
But strangely not very well to red meat. Even though its been with us for millions of years. RIGHT? (Please someone understand this)
And im not trying to factually say why… but based on that evolutionary logic. There is issue there.
Also because I’m not ruling anything out here, some HGs may have a red meat eating gene, that makes it healthy to them. I don’t know of any studies on any HGs genome, or this facet of this point. Maybe if I clarify that that will help you get what I’m saying about adaptation a bit better.
What I understand is that you’ve learned bugger-all over the course of this discussion, because you are still saying that humans are not evolutionarily well adapted to red meat.
I have no argument that different human population subgroups have different diets, and that those diets are constrained by culture and tradition, which includes tool use.
Yes at the species, but not the cultural, and certainly not the individual. Which is why I think we again run into issues with human classification, using strictly animal classification as used in a given animal species. A given species of animal will stick to a pretty narrow range of behavior, not at all the case with humans. Which is why I said generally correct, but still leaves something to be desired in terms of transmitting meaningful information. Humans are animals, but at the same time there are things about us that in no way fit into a system for modeling and identifying animal species as a whole.
There is a certain level of micro vs macro here, and some other elements that are not really being appreciated.
Yes but what we do largely depends on food, where we get it, how we view it, its the key to our survival after all. Language does define I think values and relationship to things. As I recall low water cultures have lots of words for water, or things of value tend to have more words. See; Texas Tea
This one was fairly interesting and is consistent with what some primatologists are saying about chimp behavior as related to early human ancestral behavior. There are some knit picky points about consciousness I could make, but I don’t think they would be taken correctly. I could see how it could be done with out much tool use, they could easily make a fire around it and not even have to move.(though of course fire would require some things, so well skip that argument) I’ve also watched eskimo hunts previous to this, and they involved a similar level of patience. It sort of lends to that same question of scarcity of other food sources. Though does appear to be a tradition that could have many many elements used perhaps millions of years ago. Another example that comes to mind is giant turtles, which were easy to turn over and make a fire around.
It would be curious to know if this was in fact universal way way back, or adapted to specific areas. This sort of hunting seems survival based, which is a bit different from the chimp model, which while it takes place mostly during the dry season, seems to have vast social implications. The one interesting one I encountered, was that female chimps did better in pregnancy when they had meat. This would be a very real selective tool nature would use. Still I’m not going to try to use that to fill in a several million year gap of event.
Agreed. You say it’s silly but, my point was about natural inclination, or preference given abundance. I really don’t want to go to far down the road of philosophical arguments, and how those might influence human evolution, in terms of culture.
Way to speculative. There is something there you might consider though, if you take memetic’s into account.
As I spoke before about possible built in behaviors, which the hunt is quite telling of.
Thanks that’s incredibly helpful.
I will say great points, but bear in mind because an argument is to complex to be understood does not necessarily make it wrong. It simply means the mechanisms to communicate it are not available, hence the use of an “impossible statement”. And the spontaneous growing of food, or making of a spear in a given culture.
If you truly wish to stamp fact on this, be my guest. There in my mind are two many unknowns about the past 2 million years to do call the game. A great theory though. ( I trust you understand the difference)
For the rest ice man may just be the tip of the iceberg so to speak.
A good post to read though, seeing the hunt(linked) was damn interesting.
No they would be a window into the questions you have deemed meaningless. It would show our built in inclination.
Some animals do not need much teaching to behave how they behave, others do. Humans I think fall to the latter, but that does not preclude some natural(in the sense of instinctual) behaviors. We have some obvious powerful drives, we may have some lesser drives as well.
There is evidence that excessive intake of high-fat, high-cholesterol foods (regardless of their origin) is correlated with chronic illnesses whose onset is well beyond peak fertility years.
This is not evidence that humans are not evolutionarily well adapted to read meat. To say that it is reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution and adaptation. Do you understand what I mean when I say that?
Yes and I would echo the same. I have done my best to provide information on how it would be over time would be slowly selected for. As we have seen in the case of lactose and amylase genes. Again we have a several million year period, it’s quite a long time, many many generations.
Game meat might account for it. Though some is higher in cholesterol then domestic. I would still expect to see some adaptation, though there seems to be none.
But I don’t have the information to say definitively beyond a theory. Perhaps you do.
In the case of lactose, there is a strong vector you can point to for selection.
Both parts of this sentence are wrong.
Where’s the vector for a long-term chronic illness? It’s extremely weak, especially since there has been no chance for it to manifest until very recently in human history.
Second, again, you say that there is “no” adaptation for eating meat. This is flatly wrong.
I cannot point to it because it has not been shown to me.
Hidden from me apparently. Though if I understand what you are saying, the supposed weakness, relative to what I don’t know. Though you are suggesting there is some examination of this concept somewhere you are relying on for your facts. That weak vector you mention would possibly been accounted for in the million years we are discussing.
I don’t recall saying that definitively. How you interpret what I say is only half my responsibility.
Frankly, I don’t see the point of finding sources for you, because there’s enough already in this thread to satisfy you.
But here goes good money after bad – Look up Marvin Harris, who has written extensively on lactose tolerance and pins it to the expansion of homo sapiens into areas with a scarcity of calcium-rich green, leafy vegetables. This happened primarily in two places – Europe and India. Calcium deficiency is a strong selection vector because it has the effect of preventing individuals from reaching reproductive age in good health. Lactose tolerance (and melanin-deficient skin, for that matter, which allows for the use of sunlight to produce Vitamin D, necessary in drawing calcium from dairy) was selected for because those people could efficiently process calcium from dairy. Those with lactose intolerance (also dark skin) are not only less able to draw calcium out of dairy, but they suffer significant intestinal discomfort, which is obviously would be a disadvantage in mate competition as well as general health. (Note that melanin-deficiency may be an advantage for this purpose, but it creates a disadvantage in making individuals more susceptible to skin cancer.)
As far as meat eating is concerned, you say “Hidden from me apparently.” No, no one’s hiding anything from you. You fail to see it because it’s simply not there. A chronic illness that is triggered in late life by a lifetime of overindulgence in high-fat, high-cholesterol foods cannot be a strong selection vector. Something that manifests in old age like this simply does not have any effect on evolution.
And there are two other factors here: (1) Someone who has had the opportunity to overindulge in meat-based foods is someone who has had long-term access to meat-based foods, which is an advantage in terms of reproductive success. (2) Human beings in general have not had significant opportunity to overindulge in meat based foods until very recently, and even now only in relatively restricted population groups.
Given all these factors, there is absolutely no basis to say “I would still expect to see some adaptation, though there seems to be none.”
Yah defiantly a lot of good stuff there, testimony to the power of poking and prodding for information. From the little I’ve read a largely agree with the fellows conclusion.
Though it still does little to address the philosophical or “impossible”, not material point about human nature. Which lands more in the realm of philosophy, and psychology, and speculation about cognitive development.
For the last, I agree it may be an advantage to reproductive success, as seems to be the case with chimps. There could be some interesting cross wiring going on in terms of human dietary prioritization. In looking at chimps for example and how they seem to link meat to mating in some cases, this sort of built in behavior over say, 2 million years. May create possible hard wired “meat=sex” tendencies, that may have some link to over consumption that is leading to health issues currently. There could be a lot of psychological stuff there that support meat eating… hmm…
For example the more planty gorilla does not live in a society like a chimp, but instead one male and a few females. The chimp is a bit different, having a group composed of both males and females. No conclusions on that. Have to look at other stuff…
Though I now think its unlikely gorillas would be able to form into a complex culture as easily using their social model. (vaguely related to the thread, as it shows there may be a natural tendency in humans, aside from nutrition)
None the less you have my thanks for the recommendation. I apologize for the antagonism.