Putting our diet into perspective

[Nancy LC]

Putting time into perspective (http://www.waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/putting-time-in-perspective.html)

Scroll down to anatomically modern humans. Just a little bit before the bright pink is when we starting eating wheat and dairy.

Here's that fragment, but you should go look at the whole thing. :)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Etpp24a5-hQ/UhZn_Ld9ROI/AAAAAAAAFAo/55dOUVZlL_0/s1600/Timelines+3.png

[ojoj]

Mind blowing, ut so interesting

Jo xxx

[WereBear]

Sorta blows up those vegan claims that we are "just like gorillas."

[teaser]

The bit about knowing when our ancestors began talking--this is based on what? Without going on a mad hunt to figure out how they know this--my first guess is somebody pulled this part of the timeline out of their butt.

[RobLL]

There are some suspicions that language may date earlier. Essential bits and pieces pop up from time to time even in birds and other primates. Some think that stone working and language were linked.

[keith v]

The bit about knowing when our ancestors began talking--this is based on what? Without going on a mad hunt to figure out how they know this--my first guess is somebody pulled this part of the timeline out of their butt.

well of course it's just a guess, there's no way to really know.

My understanding is they look at the brain using the inside of the skull and notice the area for speech has gotten bigger...

[M Levac]

After thinking about it for a second, I believe language already existed even before the genus split at 6Ma. The split itself was due to a significant mutation, which most likely included a greater ability for language. When I say language, I don't necessarily mean verbal.

However, I believe language is only possible if there is already the ability to conceptualize. So, the split might be due more to a difference in the ability to conceptualize, rather than language. In other words, it's all about the brain. The brain must have grown bigger first. There must have been a slew of mutations with a bigger brain, but only the one with a smaller gut took hold, because that's the only one that can sustain the bigger brain. With a smaller gut, staying in the trees doesn't provide enough energy, they left the forest. From there, it's a whole 'nother ball game to get food. Selective pressures would have been even greater. Stay in the forest, ample food supply, but not enough to support a bigger brain, because that food supply requires a bigger gut, so no brain growth for them. But outside the forest, food isn't as ample or as easy to get. It's dispersed this way and that, you gotta start foraging and scavenging. No problem: Bigger brain.

Outside the forest, the kind of food is also different. More variety of plant and animal sources. But all these things aren't enough. There must have been another mutation aspect that came with the bigger brain and smaller gut. Probably a greater taste for meat. Remember, we eat because we are driven to eat, not because we enjoy it. But then, maybe we enjoy eating because that's one way we're driven to eat. So, for the mutation to hold, it must have included a bigger brain, a smaller gut, and a greater taste for high-density foods, i.e. fat, meat, or both.

I went on a tangent there, but the point is that while all this is going on, the brain keeps getting bigger, and the ability to conceptualize follows that growth. At some point, language is inevitable. At what point? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it happened way before 50k years BC. Remember, we already had civilization at 10k years BC. Foraging and scavenging is a much more complex enterprise than just lifting an arm and picking leaves and fruits and maggots from the tree you also live in. It involves a whole lot more than just the acquisition of food. Where do you sleep, what do you leave behind that you still want when you get back? What are the dangers, how far do you have to forage and do you have enough time to get back before nightfall? Are you going alone or in a group, and how do you keep that group from dispersing so you stay safe and aren't left alone on your own out there a long way from home? All of this requires a tremendous ability to conceptualize, and then the ability to transmit those concepts to the other individuals in the group.

We are probably the most paradoxical predators on the planet, by virtue of our gross ineptitude at dealing with our environment - without the use of tools. So, I believe our brain must have grown much faster than we believe, or at least the part of our brain where the ability to conceptualize sits. I mean, think about it. Even at the split, we weren't even closely adapted to compete with existing predators outside the forest, let alone inside the forest. The mutation at the split must have been very very very significant right off the bat just so we can survive the mutation, and all the changes this mutation demanded. So, the mutation must have included a bigger brain, a smaller gut, a greater taste for high-density foods, and a much greater ability to conceptualize, and the ability to transmit these concepts to other individuals in the group, all at once.

If not, then attrition rate would have been very very high. But then, that only means an even greater selective pressure, so an even faster evolution.

This post is too long.

-edit- Had to correct a few grammatical errors.

[WereBear]

This post is too long.


I liked it.

And having lived with multiple animals for many decades, I can say that while they do not have language, per se, they do have communication. I saw cooperation among friends, the passing of messages about what was going on in another room, and expressions of compassion when someone was sick.

Even before we had language, I'm sure we had ways of understanding each other.

[Nancy LC]

Well, we do have a pretty good idea of when humans started eating grains and when humans became "anatomically modern" humans.

The point of the post was to show what a short length of time, over the span of human history, we've been eating those foods.

The question of when humans began talking is very interesting. I wonder how they would know? It isn't like we have ancient brains around to dissect.
...

Answer sort of found: We didn't have the apparatus to make the complex sounds of speech until 100,000 years ago or so. That doesn't mean we couldn't communicate, but speech as we know it probably didn't exist before we had the means to make those vocalizations.

We know apes can be taught sign language, so the mental apparatus exists. Our domestic animals learn to communicate with us too. So the means exists for most mammals, just not the method of forming more complex sounds or using syntax. I assume most communication is nouns and verbs.

[leemack]

Apes have a big capacity for communication and can be taught sign language, and it's important to remember that speech wouldn't have developed in a vacuum, but as part of an already complex communication system. As our physical ability to make more complex vocalisations increased, what we know as speech would have developed very gradually. And as our brains developed and we were able to conceive of more complicated and abstract ideas, our increased ability to vocalise would have been used combined with our other forms of communication to express them.

We put such a big emphasis on speech, but forget that the majority of our interpersonal communication is non verbal.

[M Levac]

I was thinking about it some more, and I believe I have something good. I watched a show a while ago, and the point was that the genes that control bone growth are all pretty much the same for all species. The difference lies with timing and repetition. So, for the elephant, timing is longer, and/or there's more repetitions. It works this way because growth occurs in steps which are then repeated until the sequence ends. Another word for this is iterations. More iterations for bigger bones, fewer for smaller ones.

If that's how it works for bones, that's how it must also work for organs and soft tissue because they too appear to be built with a small pattern repeated many times. So, to make a smaller gut, we only need to change the iteration length. Nothing to it from a genetic point of view. But from an end-result point of view, it can be disproportionately more significant than the genetic changes would predict. Think of it as a repeating program where we only change a single variable - the number of times the script is repeated. In math, we'd call this a fractal.

Anyway, this gives us the plausibility for a significant physiological mutation with a bigger brain and a smaller gut, along with the other things I mentioned all at once, all with only a few small genetic mutations. Now if we also add the epigenetic effect of this new more energy-dense diet, we get an even bigger difference. I believe right from the second generation, we'd get significantly smarter individuals than the first of this new mutation. Sort of fulfilling the potential made possible by the genetic mutations, as the first generation builds the second one using the full potential of the new high-density diet.

Told you it was good.

[LarryAJ]

Even before we had language, I'm sure we had ways of understanding each other. Absolutely, man is a social animal and for a society to work there MUST be communication between the members. This is true even for insects. Both bees and ants have ways of communicating where one member has found food. Here is a post about a dog communicating using signing to "talk" to her owner/alpha pack member. (http://sugarmtnfarm.com/2011/07/30/doganomics/) This is just one of several posts about how Walter Jeffries communicates with his dogs, how they communicate back and how they communicate with each other. In one post he talks about how wolves are "natural farmers" and thus are ideal companions for a farmer. I have read somewhere that when wolves were reintroduced into an area the elk population thrived. The apparent reason being that the wolves eliminated the smaller predators that were killing the young elk. Walter talks in one post about how his dogs keep the coyotes out of his farm where they would kill his piglets. WARNING! If you like dogs and animals in general, the Sugar Mountain Farm site can be quite addictive - at least that is what happened to me.

[ImOnMyWay]

Fascinating.

You might be interested in this book, which investigates corvid intelligence. very scientific and interesting.

"gifts of the Crow"

http://www.amazon.com/Gifts-Crow-Perception-Emotion-Thought/dp/1439198748

[locarb4avr]

Some book says something does the world in certain days, something like that.