Evolution
Evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand that some/all of these questions could be completely off-base and/or be completely speculative with no finite answer, but I'd like differing ideas on these topics. Hence my posting. On with it.
1. I notice that vegetarians are the sickliest people I know. I believe meat is absolutely necessary to survive and live well without a true deficiency. My rationale is that, because we have incisors, are bodies must be meant to chew, swallow, and digest flesh of animals. Would you agree with this?
2. Is it possible that people of Northern European descent wouldn't digest most fruits as well as somebody native to the area they're produced? An example would be that I wouldn't imagine that many Vikings ate bananas. Also, I know that Native Americans on average have a much higher chance of becoming lactose intolerant than most races. Would their particular digestive systems be less tolerant to perceived "strange" foods?
3. What would have been the likelihood that a human would eat MOSTLY flesh? We -hunted- primarily, no? Would we have even seeked veggies and oats etc? What were portions mostly like?
4. Does anybody know how much testosterone we would have likely produced compared to the established levels of the equivalent of 70-100mg per week currently, say.. 500, 1000, 5000 years ago? 600mg was proven to have few side affects in the New England Journal of Medicine. Perhaps, over time, these levels were diminished from much higher, but tolerable, natural hormone levels as we evolved and had less competition in regards to reproduction? Does anyone know, or know where to find out, the testosterone levels produced by primates? Wild or captive?
5. Going back to one of my earlier questions, would it be likely that eating the foods indigenous to our own ancestor's environment would be better for us in every regard (muscle growth, bodyfat accumulation, health, sleep, psyche, etc)? Would it be possible to make a list of best foods for people of different races? EXAMPLE:
Northern Native American:
- Red meat - in the form of elk, deer, rabbits (I bet ya didn't know rabbit was red meat...)
- Fish (lake fish and salmon)
- Nuts
- Berries.. not many other fruits (more specifically.. "bush berries".. raspberries, blackberries, blueberries, strawberries)
- Various herbs
Asians would include mostly fish, rice, and vegetables, etc.
Inuit would be mostly fish and some seaweed? Correct me if I'm wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by jrs; 05-14-2009 at 03:00 AM.
JRS: some great speculation. Here's the evidence I know about from anthropology--my field in a general sense.
1) homo homo sapiens, like all primates are omnivores. We eat everything (go to China and see). The ratio and food types differ from chimps & other other cousins to us, but humans dentition is designed to both tear meat and grind plants (molars). Most primates & other great apes (gorillas, urangs, chimps) are primarily fruit eaters and their teeth reflect this. (But chimps eat meat and go hunting-savagely.)
2) Modern man and what he eats is often determined more by culture than by what is available climate or geography. We in the US don't eat insect, but there a millions of kinds of tasty and rich beetles, grubs & the like. Native Americans, coming here perhaps 20-to maybe 25, 000 yrs ago (timeline debated) brought along their dietary preferences. Some tribes did eat grubs, some did not. Meat eating in the plains was greatly increased by the re-introduction of the horse around the 16th century and these tribes increased their population dramatically.
Some plants do indeed make some people sick but ingenious methods were devised to make them digestible (heat, chemicals, combinations with other plants, fermentation). Lactose intolerance is due to genes common to many gene groups--Africans being a big one. But then again, some Africans also eat all sorts of dairy. It depends on the type of dairy-cheese/whey being different chemically than straight milk. And it also depends upon custom--if only babies eat milk then an adult is given it after yrs of abstinence, their flora has died out & they will get sick. If they have continuously had milk, no problem.
3) Until recently humans were primarily scavengers. One theory is that wolves taught men how to hunt in groups. Animal protein is far more efficient to build muscle than plant, and requires less work. This frees up time for culture--and gossip.
Other primates & esp great apes spend all day eating--sleeping--then time in social interacting & sex (Bonobo chimps). Not us.
4) There is no way to know the endocrinology of an extinct animal. Speculation: You could check a primatology text book to see the biblio about other primates & the great apes. Or ask a local university anthro dept. I suspect we are high on the list. (I'm not a physical anthropologist, so I'm guessing here.) You also need to see a Food Anthropologist.
As for Neanderthals & test levels, I don't know. But gorillas are extremely strong but also, very gentle, so you can't equate strength with test. Neanderthals are a specialized form which adapted to glaciations. The Max Planck Institute for Human Evolution says we split 500,000 years ago but that we still shared many, many genes--Neanderthals could most likely talk, for instance. Where they stupid? No, they created art and were quite sophisticated. Why are they extinct? Recent evidence that modern man was eating Neanderthals (do a google). You might ask Chris Stringer British Natural History Museum. .
5) Races: this is sociological, not biological. There are as many races as you need to be bigoted, get a government grant, or appear to be fair in a corporate environment. In nature there are gene pools which are not distinct and merge with each other like a rainbow. (Africa has the most, by far.)
It is a fallacy to assume that at some mythical time there were distinct groups. Apes are always having sex and homo homo sapients more than any--we have the largest phallus and copulate the longest (baboons average 12 pelvic thrusts. Science is fun.) We are all mixed up.
Most ethnic diets, before modern agribusiness and Monsanto, were seasonal and quite varied. (Think about heirloom fruits if you live on a farm.) Before European expansion there were grain (Europe), rice, (Asia), potato (S. America) and yam (W. Africa, not native) based civilizations. But these incredible crops were spread around by 1800 and they are bio-available to everyone on the planet. (Think Mutiny on the Bounty). The modern industrialized world uses about 11 crops. The Peruvian Potato Institute, lists over 3,000 separate types of potatoes alone. Commercial food is basically anything that you can kick around for weeks then leave on a dock & still sell for a profit. Nutrition isn't important. There is a very important modern movement to bank heirloom veggies. It may be that some heirloom carrot or whatever has a special enzyme which could then be used for medicine. I think bodybuilders and anyone dedicated to health and food, such look into this.
The evidence from Sickle Cell Anemia in Africa suggests that a serious genetic modifications can quickly enter any population. Around 2000 BC a certain type of farming was introduced to E. Africa which provided a haven for mosquitoes which gave people malaria. Quite quickly, a genetic mutation was selected--the Sickle Cell advantage (you don't get malaria but you die painfully & young--but AFTER reproductive years). Looking at indigenous foods, there would have been an advantage for any one group to develop along with any local food source, but unlike mosquitoes, the food source would not be static, it would most likely change due to human activities. In an isolated island population (genetically a big deal), the change would be less since it would only be ecological destruction and not the continuous introduction of new types.
There is, however, evidence from death rates of force labor in Japanese camps during WWII which indicates that the Asians survived better on the meager rations given as the prisoners were worked to death. However, this may be because the Japanese tortured and humiliated the Europeans more due to cultural motivations and left the Asians alone. (I haven't read this study in 30 years, but I think it is tied to blood groups.)
My thoughts, Jim
.gif "IP Gear")
