How Farming Reshaped Our Genomes

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Farming Reshaped Our Genomes

Posted by samzenpus on Monday January 27, 2014 @07:02AM from the oldest-MacDonald dept.

sciencehabit writes "The earliest farmers may not have been built for the profession. They may have been unable to digest starch and milk, according to a new ancient DNA study of a nearly 8000-year-old human skeleton from Spain (a hunter-gatherer who had dark skin and blue eyes). But these pioneers did already possess immune defenses against some of the diseases that would later become the scourge of civilization. The findings are helping researchers understand what genetic and biological changes humans went through as they made the transition from hunting and gathering to farming."

144 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Wheat and corn fucked over the human race by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 07:05 · Score: -1

News at 11
1. Re:Wheat and corn fucked over the human race by jellomizer · 2014-01-27 08:15 · Score: 2
  
  In a Adam and Eve type of story, yes.
  Wheat and Corn, allowed for civilizations to grow and prosper.
  One of the premises in Jared Diamond "Gun Germ and Steel", is that the ability for a civilization to really grow we needed grain, otherwise the culture will stay in more of a hunter gather type of living. Major Civilizations, Mayans, and Aztecs had Maize/Corn type of grains, Middle East and Europe had Wheat, East Asia had Rice. This is because they were a rather High protein food, that can be easily dried and stored, so average guy didn't need to spend most of his life gathering food, and had time, to think and create and improve.
  So if you are living in a society you also get extra baggage, that often makes you think you want to long for the good old hunter gather days, forgetting about things such as illness, starvation, dehydration... So other then worry about if I will survive the next day, you worry about things like, how am I doing compared to the next guy, I am working too hard and I am not getting a fair pay from it.... While I am not trying to make these issues unimportant, they are an improvement over the problems that existed before. But they are some unnatural side effects such as self imposed stress, and a diet that may not be optimal...
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
2. Re:Wheat and corn fucked over the human race by cheesybagel · 2014-01-27 08:20 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Incas had potatoes. It does not need to be a grain. But starchy foods are usually more effective in useful energy generated per acre.
  In the Pacific breadfruit was the staple. However it was so easy to grow there that there wasn't a lot of work 'farming' anything.
3. Re:Wheat and corn fucked over the human race by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Atkins fanatics are totally myopic. There are countless civilizations around the globe that have subsisted on tubers probably since before humans were humans. Many of the existing ones are archetypical healthy sub-populations, just like other sub-populations with heavily protein based diets.
4. Re:Wheat and corn fucked over the human race by cheesybagel · 2014-01-27 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  That is the 'gatherer' part of hunter gatherer. Humans can digest a lot of starchy foods even without cooking. Pine nuts, walnuts, etc. As for tubers, we can eat carrots even raw. While carrots have been selectively bred, the are precursors to carrots native which can be eaten raw too.
  While it is true some foods are dangerous without cooking this is not specific and doesn't apply to all starches.
5. Re:Wheat and corn fucked over the human race by cheesybagel · 2014-01-27 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  Wheat is particularly hard to eat because it needs milling and cooking. There are dangerous components in it raw.
6. Re:Wheat and corn fucked over the human race by xevioso · 2014-01-27 12:50 · Score: 2
  
  One of the differences Diamond points out in his book is the difficulty in storing foodstuffs in certain climates. It's not too hard to store many grains that are commonly available in Europe and northern Asia, but go south and it becomes much more difficult to store foodstuffs like tubers and breadfruit for any period of time. This is significant because it allowed for people to do things rather than have to hunt for food all the time.
7. Re:Wheat and corn fucked over the human race by codeButcher · 2014-01-27 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  Wheat is particularly hard to eat because it needs milling and cooking. There are dangerous components in it raw.
  Wheat (and most other grains, beans and seeds) can be sprouted easily, which turns them into an easy-to-eat-raw food (which is also more nutritious and easier to digest than the dry kernel), and also makes them easier to fashion into a sort of dough for bread (lightly pounding with hand tools, instead of milling). This is a process that has been in use for thousands of years.
  I have heard it said that before industrial wheat farming, harvesting and storage, bundles of harvested wheat stalks might sit a day or two in the fields, with sufficient moisture from dew to start sprouting some of the grains. Of course, sprouts spoil easily and don't store, so it has been beneficial for modern agriculture to harvest, dry and store the grains as quickly as possible to prevent this.
  
  --
  Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
8. Re:Wheat and corn fucked over the human race by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 23:45 · Score: 0
  
  Hunter gatherers from later times have been shown to have laws and they did have reproduction quotas in order to sustain enough food etc...
  yes, there is cultures that already had overpopulation solved prior they adopted farming/stationary living...
  heck they had even Court systems of sorts and laws despite being illiterate.
9. Re:Wheat and corn fucked over the human race by cheesybagel · 2014-01-28 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  He's a moron then. The fact is the Incas had a vast empire. The largest and most technologically advanced in the Americas. The Aztecs had maize and they did not fare better.
  In the Pacific breadfruit is so easy to plant and harvest people spent most of their days doing something else. Sometimes nothing. In a lot of the early expeditions to the Pacific it was common for sailors to jump ship and go native because they were sick of the harsh conditions at sea and at home.
  The problem is Pacific islands, where breadfruit grows, typically are not resource rich in ore to begin with. While Polynesians did have several advanced designs for sea faring vessels, e.g. trimaran design, they did not bother with much else.
10. Re:Wheat and corn fucked over the human race by cheesybagel · 2014-01-28 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Also ignored is the fact that quinoa was widely available in those places as a replacement. It is not as nutritious but would work in case of dire need.
language of the heart foolproof by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 07:06 · Score: -1

we can also use POT (Personal Open Terminal) to prove without any doubt we have absolutely nothing to hide & are exponentially undangerous
bookings for the great hereafter cruise are now closed. the band of 85, some virgins, a few hymenless monkeys, & of course the gargoyles are taking up more space than ADvertised. double digit perfect balancers in for a big surprise finding herafter to really mean still here after.... for us overwhelming majority unchosens
Paleo diet bro... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 07:06 · Score: 0

I eat four cubits of stegosaurus for breakfast every day. Do you know like the air that we breathe would be like toxic to prehistoric humans.
1. Re:Paleo diet bro... by cayenne8 · 2014-01-27 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  Hey...it does seem to work for many...
  And it does seem to make a bit of sense. In the long timeline of human evolution, we've been 'farmers' for a very short stint overall.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
2. Re:Paleo diet bro... by jellomizer · 2014-01-27 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  It does work, it is in general similar to the Atkins diet, or the Conspiracy Diet.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
3. Re:Paleo diet bro... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  Or any other behavior that includes increased attention to your caloric intake and eating habits. Hell, I know a guy that lost weight eating Subway sandwiches...
Why is he unkempt? by BobMcD · 2014-01-27 07:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

http://news.sciencemag.org/sit...
Who says he let his hair and beard grow long? What evidence from the skeleton would have led to this conclusion?
1. Re:Why is he unkempt? by ackthpt · 2014-01-27 07:14 · Score: 2
  
  http://news.sciencemag.org/sit...
  Who says he let his hair and beard grow long? What evidence from the skeleton would have led to this conclusion?
  Good ol' science, the kind where we immediately imagine things in our own image (he types as he strokes his luxuriant beard.)
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
2. Re:Why is he unkempt? by pesho · 2014-01-27 07:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The five blade flint stone razor blade has not been invented yet.
3. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  the can of ez-style mousse next to the skeleton was empty
4. Re:Why is he unkempt? by netsavior · 2014-01-27 07:17 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Because shaving was all but impossible before metal tools that could be sharpened enough to actually shave... copper tools were some 3000 years after this fossil.
5. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 07:24 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  You don't seem to realize a flint edge is actually much sharper than any metal blade -- that's why they use silica tips in atomic force microscopes; the tip is only a few atoms wide.
  People used to be very, very good at chipping flint blades.
  You may think a piece of plastic with one or metal blades will shave better, but you'd be wrong.
6. Re:Why is he unkempt? by east+coast · 2014-01-27 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they used fire?
  
  --
  Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
7. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Moheeheeko · 2014-01-27 07:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Prehistoric spain was fucking cold, why would he remove a natural head covering?
8. Re:Why is he unkempt? by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-01-27 07:32 · Score: 2
  
  Because he had shaggy hair and a beard before it was cool.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
9. Re:Why is he unkempt? by E++99 · 2014-01-27 07:32 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Flynt is sharper than any copper knife.
  Obsidian is sharper than any copper knife.
  Tribal people shave with flint to this day.
  There is archaeological evidence of shaving going back 20,000 years.
10. Re:Why is he unkempt? by lister+king+of+smeg · 2014-01-27 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  obsidian and flint both are sharp enough to cut hair
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
11. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Moheeheeko · 2014-01-27 07:37 · Score: 2
  
  you try to burn your facial hair off, let me know how that works for you
12. Re:Why is he unkempt? by BobMcD · 2014-01-27 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Even if this were true, and I rather doubt it is, I didn't ask why he wasn't bald.
  We're assuming he was primitive and savage. Do we have science behind that or no?
13. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  go smash up a toilet. strip naked. go jump on it.
  we'll see you on the other side, mr. "only metal tools are sharp enough"
  you'll bleed out in under 2 minutes.
14. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 07:59 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  http://news.sciencemag.org/sit...
  Who says he let his hair and beard grow long? What evidence from the skeleton would have led to this conclusion?
  Look, they found him with a "Cobal Programming in UNIX for Dummies" book. What more evidence do you need?
15. Re:Why is he unkempt? by neo-mkrey · 2014-01-27 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  That's a long time that women have been nagging men to shave.
16. Re:Why is he unkempt? by lagomorpha2 · 2014-01-27 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  If you can demonstrate your assertion I would like to purchase one of your flint edged shaving razers. My face tears up metal blades in no time.
17. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Arker · 2014-01-27 08:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There are actually a handful of tribes that had that custom, the Yahi in california come to mind immediately. Plucking is also useful. But as a couple of other posters pointed out, the point about no shaving was specious to begin with. A high quality flint scraper is actually sharper than the best metal razor and yes they work just fine for shaving, if you are inclined to that activity.
  We really have zero evidence as to what the custom was in the time/space coordinates where the skeleton originates, so his personal grooming style and habits are entirely conjectural. Someone just thought he would look good as a hairy wildman so that is how he was painted.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
18. Re:Why is he unkempt? by east+coast · 2014-01-27 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  It's a real method that has been used for at least hundreds of years and is still practiced today. It's not a clean shaving method but it is one way to get rid of excess hair without the use of a tool.
  
  --
  Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
19. Re:Why is he unkempt? by jellomizer · 2014-01-27 08:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Beards were rather popular in Ancient culture. A sign of manhood and variability. It took Alexander the Great to change that trend, pointing out that a beard could be grabbed in battle, so he ordered his troops to shave them off.
  However, it is a good way to protect your face, while hiding in bushes, and keeps your face warmer in the winter. It makes sense to assume that Hunters (Males) would have beards.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
20. Re:Why is he unkempt? by pjbgravely · 2014-01-27 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  That's probably how Greek woman removed there pubic hair.
  
  --
  Star Trek, there maybe hope.
21. Re:Why is he unkempt? by BobMcD · 2014-01-27 08:32 · Score: 2
  
  I still think he may have fashioned/cut his hair and or beard in some way, rather that just letting it go wild.
22. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  I use one-blade throwaway razors (Bic), they last longer than the well known namebrand three-blade stuff while costing 20x cheaper.
23. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  Obsidian flint are the sharpest edge know to man. But it is a uneven along it length and is a bitch to sharpen, ill keep my superior edge-retention steel blade. Thank you very much.
24. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 09:05 · Score: 0
  
  I use a straight razor. It's lasted since before the war. WW1, not WW2
25. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Oligonicella · 2014-01-27 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  While funny, a simple flake would be sharp enough. Or for that matter, the smoldering end of a burnt twig for beard and mustache shaping.
26. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Oligonicella · 2014-01-27 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  As I pointed out elsewhere, use the smouldering end of a twig. Singing was routinely practiced until the early 1900's, even in the US. Worked fine apparently.
27. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Applehu+Akbar · 2014-01-27 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  You're thinking of obsidian blades. Flint can be made quite sharp, but not as good as modern steel knives. Obsidian fracture edges can be one molecule thick.
28. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 09:35 · Score: 0
  
  I've been using a straight razor for almost 15 years. But I'm too lazy to strop, so mine has disposable blades. A few years ago I upgraded to a Feather razor, from my cheap barber shop aluminum jobs. Those feather blades are crazy sharp. A barber who specializes in straight razor cuts told me one that disposable blades are sharper than straight razor blades, which to him was a bad thing because it meant more razor burn. My Feather blades come crazy sharp, but dull a little after one or two shaves. they're pretty thick so you can keep using them for awhile (your mileage may vary).
  I don't understand why people don't use straight razors more often. When I'm traveling and have to use a safety razor... it just doesn't feel right. And a straight razor will give any man at least an extra half-day with less stubble, even if he's using one of those 5 bladed thing-a-ma-jiggies. I get a full extra day of tolerable stubble. (Did I mentioned I was lazy?)
  Also, nothing wakes you faster in the morning than holding a razor blade to your throat. In my experience (personally, and talking with others) people tend to cut themselves _less_ with a straight razor. It's because you pay a hell of a lot more attention to what you're doing than when you're lazily swiping a safety razor across your face.
29. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  My name is Keith, and I endorse this post. I have a Merkur 180 (http://www.amazon.com/Merkur-Model-180-Handled-Safety/dp/B000NL0T1G) straight razor that I've been using for over a year now. It is expected to last until the end of my natural life. 1 blade lasts about 4 weeks of daily shaving, and can be purchased for $1. I've come to the conclusion that anyone not shaving this way either a) wants a terrible shave, b) wants to pay more money, c) wants to create more waste, d) is a shill of the shitty plastic-and-pretend-blades industry, or e) all of the above.
  Switch NOW. It costs $30 to switch for this year, and shaving is virtually free for the rest of your life.
  NOW.
30. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  Now that is the way I want go die! Except, I'll also put on a clown wig and leave a stereo playing the japanse version of 'Under the Sea'.
31. Re:Why is he unkempt? by ebno-10db · 2014-01-27 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  Why is he unkempt?
  No more unkempt than a Unix programmer of yore. I wonder if he wore sandals with socks?
32. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Tablizer · 2014-01-27 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  If you can demonstrate your assertion I would like to purchase one of your flint edged shaving razers. My face tears up metal blades in no time.
  That's because you have farmer skin.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
33. Re:Why is he unkempt? by bjwest · 2014-01-27 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  Ummm. That's a double-edge razor, not a straight razor. I've been using one for five or so years, and get a years worth of blades for ~$25 or so. I have a disposable blade straight razor I purchased early last year but haven't worked up the nerve to try it yet.
  
  --
  
  --- Keep the choice with the user..
34. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 11:35 · Score: 0
  
  THIS. People who have disdain for wasting money on razor blades are well advised to do themselves a similar favor.
35. Re:Why is he unkempt? by xevioso · 2014-01-27 12:52 · Score: 2
  
  You could do this.
  Or you could grow a beard and a mustache and never have to worry again.
36. Re:Why is he unkempt? by TheloniousToady · 2014-01-27 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  Tribal people shave with flint to this day.
  Very impressive. But can they shave with six blades at the same time?...
37. Re:Why is he unkempt? by ignavus · 2014-01-27 14:37 · Score: 2
  
  http://news.sciencemag.org/sit...
  Who says he let his hair and beard grow long? What evidence from the skeleton would have led to this conclusion?
  They found a selfie on a nearby fossilized cellphone.
  
  --
  I am anarch of all I survey.
38. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 18:54 · Score: 0
  
  > Singing was routinely practiced until the early 1900's, even in the US. Worked fine apparently.
  I don't like the X Factor, but that's a bit Chicken Little.
39. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  I'm in the process of trying that, but it doesn't work out as well as you might expect. You still have to trim your mustache else it likes to follow your food into your mouth. Beards need to be brushed at least as often as hair. However the extra hair does protect much of my face and neck from windchill.
40. Re:Why is he unkempt? by lagomorpha2 · 2014-01-28 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  I am a farmer you insensitive clod.
41. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-29 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  That's because it's disposable bladed, a proper straight razor is nothing to fear at all, a disposable blade one however is a piece of shit that by the second pass will start catching and likely dig in. Don't mess with that noise, spend $60-100 on a simple straight razor and never spend $25 on a years worth of blades again.
42. Re:Why is he unkempt? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  Note that knapped flint blades have very fine serrations. That makes them excellent for slicing, but poor for shaving as the serrations will cut ones skin.
Being Hunter Gatherer... by ackthpt · 2014-01-27 07:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

It means not being too choosy what you om-nom-nom on when the going is lean. Which likely means eating things which may have various parasites, mold spore, other fungi, even partially decomposed. "What luck! A partially decomposed squirrel with red rashes all over its body! Num!" That which didn't kill them, indeed make them stronger (those which survived, that is.)
In today's scrubby, scrub scrubbed world of clean, inspected and otherwise near perfect world of meat, dairy and produce, we're not challenging our bodies very much. Further, we appear to be adapting to eating sugary, fried or other highly processed food, which means we say "Ewww!" when presented with ethnic foods we haven't seen before, which include the globby or wiggly bits of animals we don't see in the meat case at the market (which traditionally were the best parts, unlike the muscle which was often left behind.)
Somewhat disconcerting how we haven't turned into beings which are entirely fed by capsule, a la the Jetsons "Oh, dear, I've overcooked the steak and potatoes pill."
Fortunately, infants keep picking up dead bugs off the carpet and chewing on them, which gives them some bit of a test in developing their immune systems.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
1. Re:Being Hunter Gatherer... by kruach+aum · 2014-01-27 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  And for people like you there's the Road Kill Grill http://johnmullsmeats.com/road...
  I, on the other hand, am ok with taking antihistamines (and the advances of science generally) instead of intestinal parasites to keep my allergies under control.
2. Re:Being Hunter Gatherer... by m00sh · 2014-01-27 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  It means not being too choosy what you om-nom-nom on when the going is lean. Which likely means eating things which may have various parasites, mold spore, other fungi, even partially decomposed. "What luck! A partially decomposed squirrel with red rashes all over its body! Num!" That which didn't kill them, indeed make them stronger (those which survived, that is.)
  In today's scrubby, scrub scrubbed world of clean, inspected and otherwise near perfect world of meat, dairy and produce, we're not challenging our bodies very much. Further, we appear to be adapting to eating sugary, fried or other highly processed food, which means we say "Ewww!" when presented with ethnic foods we haven't seen before, which include the globby or wiggly bits of animals we don't see in the meat case at the market (which traditionally were the best parts, unlike the muscle which was often left behind.)
  Somewhat disconcerting how we haven't turned into beings which are entirely fed by capsule, a la the Jetsons "Oh, dear, I've overcooked the steak and potatoes pill."
  Fortunately, infants keep picking up dead bugs off the carpet and chewing on them, which gives them some bit of a test in developing their immune systems.
  Nobody knows what was going on then. Everyone (the Paleo community included) stop saying how you know humans lived so and so many years ago.
  For all we know, they had an organic food paradise. Fresh fruits and vegetables right off the plants and fresh just-slaughtered grass fed meat to eat.
3. Re:Being Hunter Gatherer... by AMSmith42 · 2014-01-27 08:02 · Score: 2
  
  ...we appear to be adapting to eating sugary, fried or other highly processed food...
  I wouldn't consider epidemic rates of diabetes, cancer, heart disease and obesity "adaptation".
4. Re:Being Hunter Gatherer... by operagost · 2014-01-27 08:13 · Score: 2
  
  Further, we appear to be adapting to eating sugary, fried or other highly processed food, which means we say "Ewww!" when presented with ethnic foods we haven't seen before
  
  Who is this "we" you are talking about?
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
5. Re:Being Hunter Gatherer... by Oligonicella · 2014-01-27 09:17 · Score: 2
  
  Those are major now prevalent in our culture because we've basically done away with the things that typically killed you first. Things that killed you more horribly and with greater percentages of the population, by the way.
  
  It's not epidemic, it's disclosure.
6. Re:Being Hunter Gatherer... by ackthpt · 2014-01-27 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  ...we appear to be adapting to eating sugary, fried or other highly processed food...
  I wouldn't consider epidemic rates of diabetes, cancer, heart disease and obesity "adaptation".
  Yet some people eat horribly unhealthy and live to their 80s or 90s, while others religiously dine on healthy foods and die of cancer, contract diabetes or other such maladies. Don't imagine there isn't some evolution at work here. Those who can adapt, will and when their food of choice vanishes they suffer terribly.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
7. Re:Being Hunter Gatherer... by Oligonicella · 2014-01-27 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, that *is* how they lived. You just neglected the part about the rest of the world trying to kill them during acquisition.
8. Re:Being Hunter Gatherer... by ackthpt · 2014-01-27 09:21 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Nobody knows what was going on then. Everyone (the Paleo community included) stop saying how you know humans lived so and so many years ago.
  For all we know, they had an organic food paradise. Fresh fruits and vegetables right off the plants and fresh just-slaughtered grass fed meat to eat.
  Rather like you can read the life of a tree by its rings, you can tell a lot about the diets of people by the condition of their teeth at death, build of their bones and some of the elemental composition. Science is more scientific than ever, which is cursed on a regular basis by those who won't credit it.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
9. Re:Being Hunter Gatherer... by CastrTroy · 2014-01-27 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  How does evolution shape a species when almost everyone makes it past the age of raising children? No matter what life style you choose, apart from some very destructive ones, you are most likely going to live to at least 50. By that time your kids are pretty much grown. Any bad genes you had have already been transferred to your offspring.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
10. Re:Being Hunter Gatherer... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  Americans eat a tremendous amount of offal. Chicken nuggets? Sausage? Cheap hamburger? We probably eat more icky bits than most people in developed or semi-developed areas.
  It's just ground up and, in the case of chicken nuggets or Arby's, liquified.
  Also, nobody in their right mind threw away meat. That's ridiculous. It was just really expensive and often sold. And on many wild animals there's more offal than meat, anyhow, so naturally you'd end up eating more of it if you had to economize.
11. Re:Being Hunter Gatherer... by cusco · 2014-01-27 11:05 · Score: 2
  
  Nobody knows what was going on then.
  We know exactly what they ate and how it was prepared. We have their copralites, their fossilized crap. We have their homes. We have their garbage dumps. We have their skeletons. It's not deep dark mystery, basic scientific analysis of human remains can let us know how far they traveled from their birthplace (isotopic analysis of bone growth), how often they experienced food shortages (bone density), what type of diet they had (trash midden excavation), what intestinal parasites they had (copralite analysis), what the climate was like (pollen analysis), how food was prepared (fire pit excavation, trash midden excavation, copralite analysis), and so on. If you were at all aware of the advances in archeological techniques of the last half century you would realize how incorrect your statement was.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
12. Re:Being Hunter Gatherer... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  In a society where you can continue to accumulate wealth into your twilight years, there might be selection for those who live long and share their wealth with their children and grand-children. Of course, you only share like 25% of your DNA with a grand-child, so there are diminishing returns.
  Presumably humans die precisely because living too long is (or was) disadvantageous to off-spring. There are animals who live and reproduce forever. So it's not like there's no environmental pressure to live longer. There are simply stronger counter-veiling pressures to die.
13. Re:Being Hunter Gatherer... by rubycodez · 2014-01-27 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  actually, we know man and his ancestors were cooking for 250,000 at least
14. Re:Being Hunter Gatherer... by hey! · 2014-01-27 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think this is entirely right. You'd see this scavenging behavior in modern hunter gatherer societies.
  I think we tend to conflate a lot of things that nature of course does not, e.g. health and longevity with local carrying capacity. Paleolithic humans were evidently a very healthy bunch, judging from the skeletons they left behind. They were slightly taller than humans are today, and had a life expectancy that was unequalled until the 20th Century. This is indicative of a very high quality diet.
  The thing you get with agriculture is the ability to support a larger population within a fixed area. With that you get all the stuff that requires scale: specialization in occupations, social stratification, and the power that comes with controlling a fixed population.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
15. Re:Being Hunter Gatherer... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 21:44 · Score: 0
  
  This would be more informative if you listed the assumptions made along with the technique. While I know nothing in particular about them I know that you have presented an overconfident picture.
Are we regressing then? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 07:14 · Score: 0

I keep hearing about more and more people having issues with foods like dairy and wheat...
1. Re:Are we regressing then? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  I keep hearing about more and more people having issues with foods like dairy and wheat...
  Not necessarily a regression, more of an indicator that the zombie apocalypse will soon be upon us.
2. Re:Are we regressing then? by WindBourne · 2014-01-27 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  we are no longer in contact with our food, so our evolution is changing. But add in antibiotics and you realize that we are destroying some needed gut bacteria that helps us digest these foods.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Handful of genome samples does not a species make. by zooblethorpe · 2014-01-27 07:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

What is this silliness, that "humans" in the broad, blanket sense could not digest starch? Feh.
We already know from analysis of Neanderthal remains that they could digest starch, and did in fact eat things like starchy tubers and grains. By 8000 years ago, it's generally accepted that the Neanderthals were no more, at least as a distinct population, and that any remaining Neanderthal-specific genes had been absorbed by the wider Cro Magnon population. (Interestingly, it sounds like the Neanderthal genes might give their descendants, i.e. non-sub-Saharan-Africa humans, extra resistance to viral infection.)
This study, where evidence from one individual is extrapolated to the entire human population, sounds silly in the extreme. "One Size Fits All!" never really does.
Cheers,

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Re:Handful of genome samples does not a species ma by geekoid · 2014-01-27 07:20 · Score: 1

Yes, but this evidence points to that may be wrong.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Inability to digest milk by kruach+aum · 2014-01-27 07:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

makes breasts a curious adaptation.
1. Re:Inability to digest milk by WillAffleckUW · 2014-01-27 07:38 · Score: 2
  
  You're confusing the milk from other animals with human breast milk.
  Humans can - and have, historically - use that as their sole food source up to 5 years old.
  The problem arises from using milk from other creatures.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
2. Re:Inability to digest milk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  Which, unfortunately, is making me fart a lot, as I grow older. Damn intolerance to lactose.
3. Re:Inability to digest milk by kruach+aum · 2014-01-27 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  No, the ambiguity lies in the summary (and possibly TFA). I posted to point out the absurdity.
4. Re:Inability to digest milk by goombah99 · 2014-01-27 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  You're confusing the milk from other animals with human breast milk.
  Humans can - and have, historically - use that as their sole food source up to 5 years old.
  The problem arises from using milk from other creatures.
  THe article says they could not process lactose, the major carbohydrate in all milk, human and otherwise. So no this is not about processing the species specific milk, but milk in general. That's too surprising to be credible without further explanation-- mammal infants live on milk.
  
  --
  Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
5. Re:Inability to digest milk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  TFA says lactose. AFAIK human milk carbs are mainly lactose but the "hind milk" (that comes after feeding a little while) includes the lactase enzyme needed to digest it.
6. Re:Inability to digest milk by alvinrod · 2014-01-27 07:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The composition of the milks are different. Cow milk contains more protein in general, and some proteins that are not found in human milk. Some people are unable to process those proteins. Also, intolerance to milk of any kind generally occurs later in life. If an individual were not able to digest it in infancy they would die and their genes would not be passed on. Perhaps with modern medical science, they would live, but this would not have been the case thousands of years ago.
7. Re:Inability to digest milk by Valdrax · 2014-01-27 08:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Humans, like most mammals, can universally digest lactose in childhood. Also, like most mammals, the gene for producing lactase largely shuts down in adulthood, since in nature, it's largely unneeded and a waste of energy resources. People descended from milk-drinking cultures (mostly Europeans) have variations of a gene that prevent lactase production from turning off in adulthood.
  Of course, this has little to nothing to do with breasts, since humans are the only primates that have visible breasts when not nursing their newborn young, and even then they are much, much smaller than in humans. It's most likely they exist purely for sexual signalling (like a peacock's tail), since their size is mostly irrelevant to their function in child-rearing.
  
  --
  If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
8. Re:Inability to digest milk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 08:30 · Score: 0
  
  Many people do have lactose intolerance after this period even now; it's a genetic mutation (that happened two places separately) that has allowed many humans to digest milk when they're older.
9. Re:Inability to digest milk by orient · 2014-01-27 08:56 · Score: 2
  
  My friend's kid is intolerant to some component in the milk found in North American stores - at least Canada and US. However, he has no issue drinking milk originating from Central and Eastern Europe.
  
  --
  Laudele lor desigur m-ar mahni peste masura.
10. Re:Inability to digest milk by psithurism · 2014-01-27 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  since humans are the only primates that have visible breasts when not nursing their newborn young, and even then they are much, much smaller than in humans. It's most likely they exist purely for sexual signalling
  Though it must also be pointed out that other primates have mouths that stick out while human's have theirs set back below their noses, and therefore humans need something to stick out in order to suck on it. Of course, breasts are way to big for that to be the sole driving factor in their development, and I would blame sexual signalling for getting them to the size that they are.
11. Re:Inability to digest milk by wisnoskij · 2014-01-27 11:40 · Score: 0
  
  It is possible that humans just have more babies than other primates. Size definitely does matter for milk production. We might have ridiculously enlarged breasts for primates, but we have tiny breasts compared to some other mammals.
  Possibly we are just more fertile, or more likely to use wet-nurse babysitters throughout history?
  And we have to remember, not all cultures have any interest at all in breasts. If it is not even close to universal today, we have no reason to believe that they were sexualised at all throughout history.
  Though that does not really explain why they remain so big between use.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
12. Re:Inability to digest milk by shrewdsheep · 2014-01-28 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  The claim that proteins cause intolerance seems wrong. Proteins are chains of amino acids for which a broad arsenal of digestive enzymes exist. Deficiencies in those lead to severe disease. Parent probably meant lactose intolerance (thus sugar digestion).
13. Re:Inability to digest milk by trout007 · 2014-01-28 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  This doesn't necessarily mean humans didn't drink milk. If you leave milk out for any period of time it naturally ferments into yogurt (or something similar). This process the bacteria converts the lactose into lactic acid. This acid then denatures the proteins which is why yogurt is more of a gel. Many people that can't drink milk have no problem eating fully fermented milk products.
  
  --
  I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
14. Re:Inability to digest milk by Your.Master · 2014-01-28 01:59 · Score: 2
  
  Size definitely does matter for milk production
  Nope. The size (when not breastfeeding) is from the amount of fatty tissue, which is unrelated to the amount of milk-producing glandular tissue. It's possible to have not enough glandular tissue but it's very rare and takes insignificant space (enough glandular tissue to nurse exists in flat chested women).
  Higher fertility wouldn't explain things because 97% of the time, humans have only one child at a time. And humans make enough milk for twins anyway, even conveniently having two breasts for simultaneous feeding.
  I find it harder to gather information on wet nursing (we know that chimpanzees do wet nurse, but can't really give a rate) but let me express extreme skepticism that we had a significant selective pressure toward more milk production due to wet nursing. I can see *less* milk production as a plausible result of wet nursing, since it allows an optimized reallocation of milk resources. But regardless of whether wet nursing may or may not have increased or decreased human milk production, that's unrelated to breast size.
  As for the cultures, that's a very good point but the thing is, non-sexualized breasts doesn't mean they aren't a sexual signal. Men (straight men) are undoubtedly attracted to women's faces, and yet faces are not generally considered sexualized, and (depending on where you live etc.) you can see hundreds or more women's faces every day and think nothing of it. The theory would be that breasts are the same way. Even in cultures that don't hyper-sexualize breasts, and women walk around topless without drawing any stares or raised eyebrows, the men can be attracted.
15. Re:Inability to digest milk by wisnoskij · 2014-01-28 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  "97% of the time, humans have only one child at a time."
  Depends. Did the average human 100,000 years ago breastfeed until 12 years old, or until 6 months old. I doubt that we have any idea.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
16. Re:Inability to digest milk by Valdrax · 2014-01-29 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Did the average human 100,000 years ago breastfeed until 12 years old, or until 6 months old. I doubt that we have any idea.
  Hunter-gatherer populations are a good proximate for human behavior that long ago. It varies by culture, but the average seems to be 3-5 years of age. Inuit are kind of an outlier at 7 years of age, but it makes sense given their environment. That's also about the same age at which most non-agricultural societies considered it safe to raise another child. Infanticide is common as a means of birth control until that age.
  It is interesting though that we didn't evolve a means of controlling fertility until children are old enough to be semi self-sufficient (or dead of unfortunate events) the way, for example, lions do.
  
  --
  If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
At the time .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 07:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

At the time, we humans needed a steady food supply. Hunting and foraging is too sporadic - and hence why we developed this ability to gain fat easily and it's a bitch to get rid of it. Feast or famine.
Agriculture and the the high calorie grains like wheat and corn allowed us to survive and develop a society where we have farmers and other professions.
Now that model is obsolete in the modern Western World, we are paying the price of our inability to adjust our taste buds.
High calorie food tastes great! But we're not suffering from food shortages or doing enough physical work to justify those tastes.
Wheat and corn didn't fuck us - our inability to judge our caloric needs is what screwed us.
1. Re:At the time .... by jellomizer · 2014-01-27 08:18 · Score: 2
  
  The issue I am trying figure out about the new problems with getting fat. What is new that happened in the past 20 years?
  We had a lot of the same bad for us foods 20 years ago, and no food shortages either.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
2. Re:At the time .... by PhxBlue · 2014-01-27 08:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Possibly the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup into everything that's artificially sweetened.
  
  --
  !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
3. Re:At the time .... by suutar · 2014-01-27 08:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  and a reduction in average physical activity
4. Re:At the time .... by HiChris! · 2014-01-27 08:37 · Score: 2
  
  High-fructose corn syrup is a not artificial - it's processed perhaps, but's it's natural. Loads of artificial sweeteners might indeed be an issue, but it's separate for HFCS.
5. Re:At the time .... by drinkypoo · 2014-01-27 08:41 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Possibly the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup into everything that's artificially sweetened.
  No, and also no. It's the rise of processed foods, which come without the enzymes which break them down and thus help regulate blood sugar, and then the substitution of vegetable oil with HFCS, not simply its inclusion. Using HFCS instead of sugar is barely different. Using HFCS+Citric Acid instead of vegetable oil packs food with unnecessary sugar instead of the fats which give long-term energy. Thus, HFCS is used to do evil, but it's not really inherently evil in its own right. Like a gun, or a bomb.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
6. Re:At the time .... by jxander · 2014-01-27 08:41 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Corn subsidies, mostly. The middle of the US is nothing but giant flat open space, making it uniquely suited to growing a TON of corn.
  So the government pays farmers to grow corn. It's a US crop, and we really can't import it (no one else grows it) so corn subsidies get the "America F*** YEAH!" vote
  But then we have just too much corn. Way WAAY too much corn. So we try to turn it into Ethanol gas for our cars, and high-fructose-corn-syrup for our foods.
  Both failed miserably, but when the Ethanol screwed up a bunch of cars, people just bought new cars. When HFCS ruined peoples figures, well going to the gym is hard, and buying a new less-fat ass is expensive
  And we still have way too much freaking corn.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
7. Re:At the time .... by mrvan · 2014-01-27 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget that this is not an American issue, it is more or less common to the developed world. Sure, the US has a worse case of obesitas than other countries, but also in Europe the percentage of people overweight and obese is increasing quickly. So, the answer does not lie with corn subsidies or corn syrup, or at least not solely.
  I think the main reason is simply affluence and the displacement of industry by services. Sure, that was also the case 20 years ago, but in much lesser degree, and especially 40 years ago. It takes time to grow fat. Less regard for traditional family life and lack of a person dedicated to running the household also results in more junk food and less attention for eating.
8. Re:At the time .... by DuckDodgers · 2014-01-27 09:05 · Score: 2
  
  Keep in mind that, despite all the headlines built to grab ad revenue, the obesity epidemic in the US reached its peak in the late 1990s and obesity rates have been high but stable (not increasing further) since then. So the real question is what changed in food, plastics, personal eating habits, and social patterns from 1980 to 2000 but then stopped getting worse from 2000 until now.
  
  The other interesting thing to note is that much of the rest of the world - except the parts where people are starving - is experiencing its own growth in obesity rates.
9. Re:At the time .... by Derec01 · 2014-01-27 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  This is just my take. The average intake of the American consumer has increased steadily, I believe. However, weight gain happens at the margins. If you eat 2200 calories a day and burn 2000, you are gaining weight twice as fast as someone who averages 2100 with the same burn rate, even though your intake is less than 5% higher.
  As the average intake passes the burn rate, a little exercise helps. However, with a small percentage-wise increase in your intake, you can double or triple the amount of exercise required to get back to equilibrium. My guess is that in the 60s and 70s, adding exercise worked for many people. Now, the necessary exercise is much, much higher and caloric restriction is necessary in a way it wasn't for the average person 30 years ago.
10. Re:At the time .... by LifesABeach · 2014-01-27 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  The Teeth will show what this person ate, the back molars in particular.
11. Re:At the time .... by rubycodez · 2014-01-27 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  no, not when it contains amounts the inversion catalysts for the reaction. toxic shit.
12. Re:At the time .... by gander666 · 2014-01-27 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  I used to think that weight problems were endemic to the US, and that Europe pretty much skated by it. Sure, I used to see "fat" people in Europe, but far far fewer than in the US.
  
  But I just got back from 2 weeks in Europe (Austria, Germany, and UK) and the number of muffintops, sagging beer bellies, and plumber's crack, that the gap to the US is much less than it was.
  
  --
  Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
13. Re:At the time .... by mcgrew · 2014-01-27 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  Not just in things that are sweetened, but literally everything. I won't buy Green Giant vegetables because they taste simply terrible, highly dosed with that damned sweetener. Damn it, vegetables aren't supposed to be sweet! Why should brocolli, cheese, and macaroni taste like candy??
  But it isn't just HFCS, it's portions. When I was ten there were no Big Macs or Quarter Pounders, let alone the half and three quarter pound burgers you see a lot of places. The amount of food on a restaurant plate has at least doubled if not tripled in the last 50 years. Take soft drinks at again, McDonalds. Small, medium, large. Just like now, right? Nope. A small was eight ounces, medium was twelve, large sixteen. Now the sixteen ounce is the "small" size.
  And real restaurants are just as bad or even worse than McDonalds. I always wind up taking half the meal home, because they serve one person enough food for two. Speaking of, protip: if you visit Springfield, do NOT order a horseshoe unless you're grossly obese and used to huge quantities of food. No matter what establishment, get a ponyshoe. It's enough for two people, a horseshoe would feed an entire African village. THAT's why we're fat, we burn fewer calories than we consume.
  Also, food was more expensive back then, its price hasn't risen nearly as much as other things.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
14. Re:At the time .... by Wycliffe · 2014-01-27 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  obesity rates have been high but stable (not increasing further) since then. So the real question is what changed in food, plastics, personal eating habits, and social patterns from 1980 to 2000 but then stopped getting worse from 2000 until now.
  
  Just because something has plateaued doesn't necessarily means that something has changed. It could mean that it is saturated and that the rest of
  the population is not prone to getting fat either because of genetics, activity level, etc.... I know plenty of people (including myself) who eat like crap,
  don't exercise at all and are still not overweight. I'm not saying that I'm healthy but I'm not overweight.
  It's kindof like the war on drugs. Approx. 3% of the population is addicted to drugs and this holds true whether drugs are legal, illegal, or whether you
  spend billions of dollars fighting it.
15. Re:At the time .... by TheRhinoplast · 2014-01-27 20:18 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, I have a glandular problem, you insensitive clod.
16. Re:At the time .... by Zorpheus · 2014-01-28 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  Fructose occurs naturally in fruits, but not in that large amounts and only combined with fibre. You would never eat that much fruits, and the fructose would be taken up slower.
17. Re:At the time .... by DuckDodgers · 2014-01-28 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Right, right. I think that's the most likely explanation too. But I didn't want to open another can of worms by making that point, because every Slashdot discussion remotely related to food or health has a tendency to deteriorate into a flame war in which we the fatties are demonized.
  
  Regardless how much personal responsibility is related to the obesity epidemic, the headlines and promotions based on the idea that it's getting worse are mostly just sales vehicles for the diet, fitness, and liposuction industries.
Re:Handful of genome samples does not a species ma by Moheeheeko · 2014-01-27 07:34 · Score: 1

This is the equivalent of me saying all humans cannot process lactose or gluten because I cant. Everyone is different.
Lack of milk digestion seems dubious by goombah99 · 2014-01-27 07:34 · Score: 3, Informative

All mammals are, by definition, born with the ability to digest milk, therefore they have the genes to do that. It can happen that those genes are epi-genitically turned off in adults that are not exposed to milk. However, the genes would be still there.
Thus I'm extremely doubtful that any genetic studies could have revealed the lack of milk digesting genes. And since I don't see how they could assess any epi-genetic state of a long dead individual I really wonder about how they arrived at that conclusion.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
1. Re:Lack of milk digestion seems dubious by Baloroth · 2014-01-27 07:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  All mammals are, by definition, born with the ability to digest milk, therefore they have the genes to do that. It can happen that those genes are epi-genitically turned off in adults that are not exposed to milk. However, the genes would be still there.
  The genes for digestion are still there, yes, but they shut off after childhood unless you have a specific genetic mutation that allows lifelong production of lactase. Source 1, source 2.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
2. Re:Lack of milk digestion seems dubious by Tablizer · 2014-01-27 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  Mine shut off at about 35 years of age (European descent). Odd.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
3. Re:Lack of milk digestion seems dubious by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 14:53 · Score: 0
  
  Which is what the poster said.... exactly, except his answer was on point and yours was a confused tangent. What the article said was they were lacking properly evolved lactose digesting genes.
4. Re:Lack of milk digestion seems dubious by trout007 · 2014-01-28 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  This would make sense though since only a baby typically would drink fresh milk unless you refrigerate it. If you leave fresh milk out the bacteria and enzymes in the milk and environment quickly digest the sugars (on the order of hours) and ferment the milk which also helps preserve it.
  
  --
  I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Re:Handful of genome samples does not a species ma by m00sh · 2014-01-27 07:35 · Score: 1

What is this silliness, that "humans" in the broad, blanket sense could not digest starch? Feh.
We already know from analysis of Neanderthal remains that they could digest starch, and did in fact eat things like starchy tubers and grains. By 8000 years ago, it's generally accepted that the Neanderthals were no more, at least as a distinct population, and that any remaining Neanderthal-specific genes had been absorbed by the wider Cro Magnon population. (Interestingly, it sounds like the Neanderthal genes might give their descendants, i.e. non-sub-Saharan-Africa humans, extra resistance to viral infection.)
This study, where evidence from one individual is extrapolated to the entire human population, sounds silly in the extreme. "One Size Fits All!" never really does.
Cheers,
Or they could have been using something starchy as a toothbrush.
evolution via virus by WindBourne · 2014-01-27 07:40 · Score: 1

Far too many think that evolution is a relatively simple thing. A bit of radiation, some changes, and then genetic selection occurs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our DNA is designed to solve the radiation issues (otherwise, you get cancer and die quickly). Instead, there are a large number of unknown virus that move from eukaryote to eukaryote. It will take a sequence of genes from one species, to another. Basically, animals that are in close contact will get genes from the other.

One of the implications for this, is that the more that we remove wildlife, the more that we are destroying our own evolution. It is a mistake to do that. In fact, when we move off the planet, unless we bring a large numbers of animals and plants, the off-planet colony will come to a near halt WRT evolution.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:evolution via virus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  when we move off the planet, unless we bring a large numbers of animals and plants,
  
  I remember that episode! It was a cow fetus.
2. Re:evolution via virus by Whorhay · 2014-01-27 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Unless of course the new colony is in an environment filled with new wildlife that also uses DNA. If that happened to be the case then we could possibly see evolution in progress.
Ugg say: by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 07:46 · Score: 0

No. Boobs still awesorne
FuckE,r by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 08:02 · Score: -1

The NetBSd project,
Re:Handful of genome samples does not a species ma by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 08:10 · Score: 0

It also seems rather dubious from an evolutionary selection pressure standpoint. Are we to take from TFA that not being able to digest starches in particular, among all the available food options, was sufficient to wipe out the entire population genetically lacking this capability?
Ep... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 08:44 · Score: -1

to be about doing Rea7 problems you loved that whether to repeat (Click Here troubled OS. Now isV EFNet, and you questions, then
Bad link in summary by Opyros · 2014-01-27 09:03 · Score: 1

I can't get the "dark skin and blue eyes" link to work.
1. Re:Bad link in summary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  dark skin and blue eyes
  That's because it truly is a bad link... .how was that not caught?
Prehistoric Lactose-Intolerant Celiac by Irate+Engineer · 2014-01-27 09:32 · Score: 3, Funny

Remains have been found of the first known lactose-intolerant celiac! Research is continuing, but he may have died of starvation as he had to send all his restaurant dishes back to the kitchen for including allergens. A compounding factor was all of his friends wouldn't eat out with him anymore because it was such a picky eater.

--
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
North African - by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 09:48 · Score: 0

Dark skin/ blue eyes could be North African. Blue eyes also occurs in non European population. Although some people could say that the blue eyes can from the Vandals. You should be careful extrapolation from a single individual. I would wait for some more DNA studies of ancient skeletons.
What the hell by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 09:53 · Score: 0

The link won't open in FF 26 on Fedora for me for some reason
Re:Handful of genome samples does not a species ma by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 09:56 · Score: 0

You a big dummy!
Re:Handful of genome samples does not a species ma by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 11:56 · Score: 0

Sure. Throughout human history our populations have hovered as low as a few thousand or at times even a few hundred or less. There are billions of us today and you understandably wonder how the heck evolution could produce profound changes so quickly. It's easy: we usually had very low population numbers.
Also, I'm no geneticist but I believe there's some quirky phenomenon with the calculus of reproduction where it's almost guaranteed that over the course of some time period it's nearly inevitable that a small number of chromosomes will come to completely dominate a breeding population, irrespective of environment. It's why every living human being can trace their mitochondrial DNA to a single "Eve", even though there were many carriers of other mitochondrial lineages both before and after our shared Eve. There's no reason to believe our shared Eve ancestor had superior mitochondrial DNA; she just happened to win the numbers game.
Everybody loves to focus on Darwinian evolution, but there are other evolutionary phenomena that don't strictly involve reproductive success viz-a-viz mutations. Sometimes it simply involves entropic behaviors or other weird mathematical functions.
WTF? OMG! DNA reveals mutant squence: E.I.E.I.O by Bob_Who · 2014-01-27 12:24 · Score: 1

That must be the "Old MacDonald had a Farm" genome ...or Mr. Green Genes.
OMGWTFBBQ Humans adapt to environmental pressures by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 13:16 · Score: 0

genetically? Steven J Gould is firing up the typewriter right now! Heresy!
6000!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 17:31 · Score: -1

The earth is only 6000 years old. Created by the God of the Bible. All the evolution theory is all fake and made up "science". Deluded people who don't want there to be a God.
1. Re:6000!!! by rs79 · 2014-01-27 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  Try to prove there is a god. You can't, cause there isn't.
  You're the one who's deluded, buddy.
  
  --
  Need Mercedes parts ?
Rubbish by rs79 · 2014-01-27 18:30 · Score: 0

" unable to digest starch and milk"
Newsflash: we still can't digest starch. Nor is there any dietary need for it. Only 2/3 of the world carries the gene to digest gluten.
Everybody can digest milk, it's our first food. 1/3 of the world can digest lactose past childhood. Article makes no sense.

--
Need Mercedes parts ?
What about groups who never started farming? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-27 22:23 · Score: 0

If modern people are adapted then wouldn't the lack of adaptation show up in indigenous groups who never developed agriculture?
Wait! they infer this on the basis of one sample? by Senosaloma · 2014-01-28 01:24 · Score: 1

> ...a new ancient DNA study of a nearly 8000-year-old human skeleton from Spain _these_ pioneers did already possess immune defenses against some of the diseases that would later become the scourge of civilization... What?
Re:Handful of genome samples does not a species ma by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 08:25 · Score: 0

You may be thinking of The Hardy Weinberg equation, but it's not quite the way you phrased it.