Slashdot Mirror


How Sliced Meat May Have Driven Human Evolution (sciencemag.org)

sciencehabit writes: The most tedious part of a chimpanzee's life is chewing. Our primate cousins spend six hours a day gnashing fruits and the occasional monkey carcass — all made possible by the same type of big teeth and large jaws our early ancestors had. So why are our own teeth and jaws so much smaller? A new study credits the advent of simple stone tools to slice meat and pound root vegetables, which could have dramatically reduced the time and force needed to chew, thus allowing our more immediate ancestors to evolve the physical features required for speech. The abstract for the (paywalled) article is more informative than many.

132 comments

  1. Beef Jerky is Devolution by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    along with Pilot Bread (hard tack)

    1. Re:Beef Jerky is Devolution by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Pilot bread is next to inedible, but a godsend when you are desperate.

    2. Re:Beef Jerky is Devolution by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 2

      It's amazing what you'd be willing to eat when the alternative's pilot bread.

    3. Re:Beef Jerky is Devolution by srmalloy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Putting it in the bottom of a bowl before filling it with lobscouse will render it edible by the time you're down to it. Or you can pound it back to flour, mix it with suet and some leavening, and bake it again to make duff, or bag the dough and boil it to make pudding duff.

    4. Re:Beef Jerky is Devolution by mspohr · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sounds great! I would like to subscribe to your cooking blog.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    5. Re:Beef Jerky is Devolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But even that's not a good as Proper Dwarf Bread.

    6. Re:Beef Jerky is Devolution by TWX · · Score: 1

      Based on what he said I sure as hell don't want to subscribe to his cooking blog.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:Beef Jerky is Devolution by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      I always thought they were for building emergency shelters....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Beef Jerky is Devolution by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Actually, I looked up "lobscouse" and it's a stew of meat and vegetables traditionally eaten by sailors (with pilot bread). Despite the name, it looks like it could be good.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    9. Re: Beef Jerky is Devolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or dwarf bread for that matter

    10. Re:Beef Jerky is Devolution by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      Sounds like my ex.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    11. Re: Beef Jerky is Devolution by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Despite the name, it looks like it could be good.

      Even better with weevils. Hardtack just isn't the same without the meaty bits.

    12. Re:Beef Jerky is Devolution by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      When I took a Civil War History class in middle school, we made some and ate it with chicory coffee substitute. You just soak it in the hot beverage and every few minutes you can get another couple nibbles off the end.

      If I didn't have any hot water, I'd probably need a large flat rock and a smaller rock. In a survival situation, add some fresh grubs after it is mostly broken up, mix them in with the last few smashes.

    13. Re:Beef Jerky is Devolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After reading up on it it appears to be an inedible version of crisp bread.
      Hard bread that lasts forever with the difference that crisp bread is edible if you run out of food.

    14. Re:Beef Jerky is Devolution by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Sounds great! I would like to subscribe to your cooking blog.

      Savoring the Past

    15. Re: Beef Jerky is Devolution by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Even better with weevils. Hardtack just isn't the same without the meaty bits.

      Adds protein! 8-)

    16. Re:Beef Jerky is Devolution by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      If you lived i nBritain, you'd know that Liverpudlians (inhabitants of Liverpool) answer to being "Scousers," and you'd likely know that "scouse" is a local (to Liverpool) potato stew with anything else to hand being chucked in. So the composition of "lobscouse" doesn't come as a surprise.

      Went shopping today. Amongst other things, I brought an oxtail, precisely to make a stew with.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. If being gay were "against" natural selection.. by Rujiel · · Score: 0

    There would be no homosexuals, would there? Don't say dumb things.

    1. Re:If being gay were "against" natural selection.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its clinically proven that the reason we have homosexuals is that the gene which makes them horny for men also affects their sisters and the sisters of homosexual men have more children (forget the last 100 years before that more sex meant more kids).
      It however does not make it normal.
      Many kids are born blind, deaf or crippled in other ways. E.g. Many in Africa suffer from Sickle cell anaemia. Its because the same gene when inherited from one parent gives a milder case of sickle cell anaemia which gives protection against malaria but when inherited from both parents it causes the disease. The gene does not die out because in Africa protection from Malaria is a positive reinforcement which outweighs the negative reinforcement of sickle cell anaemia.
      However noone celebrates their kid being born blind,deaf,sickle celled and they definitely should not celebrate their sons being born gay.
      There should not be any discrimination for what is at the root a genetic disease but it makes as much sense to have a gay pride parade as a born blind parade.
      Further hman genetics is complicated and its been shown that all humans are on a spectrum from 100% hetero to 100% gay. For those who are 70-100% gay there probably is no hope other than to take monastic orders but for those in the 40-70% gay could probably lead happy hetero lives. Society should encourage these fringe folks to adopt the Hetero lifestyle rather than a gay lifestyle (and thorughout history where gaydom has been frowned upon such folks have married and have had children)

      Further with birth control the sisters of gay men no longer have more kids and the marginal gay/hetero men no longer lead hetero lifestyles. In fact with the celebration of the gay lifestyle (and its benefits. Not having to deal with female tantrums) and hence even these marginal gays are not having children.
      So what the gay pride movement has done is that pretty much in a few 100 years the gay gene will almost die out.

    2. Re:If being gay were "against" natural selection.. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You go astray when you just wave your hands and presume that it is not normal for some people to have good eyes, and some not to.

      When you let accidental assumptions sneak in like that, you build a house of cards instead of a solid idea. The theory you claim at the start would actually be proof that is both normal and beneficial.

  3. BAHfest methodology by Empiric · · Score: 1, Insightful

    All such "explanations" backed primarily by feelings of vague plausibility should be required to show how they are better supported than ones such as BAHfest.

    Maybe early proto-Republican campfire debates caused the evolution of "large hands" as selective advantage for tribal power struggles. Probably not. Show me specifically how their conjecture is scientifically stronger.

    --
    ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    1. Re:BAHfest methodology by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      proto-Republican

      That's redundant ;-)

    2. Re:BAHfest methodology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, for one thing they first formed a hypothesis (that cut meat is substantially easier to chew) and then tested the hypothesis (by having volunteers chew on various cuts of meat).

      Granted, it's thin evidence. Moreover, it's confounded by the fact that human teeth in their present condition co-evolved with fire.

      I've read much mumbo-jumbo about how fire is *the* cause for the present condition of our teeth and digestive tract. But to me it seems quite a leap to say that humans miraculously harnessed fire and _then_ evolved the physical attributes that are argued to be a prime factor in the evolution of intelligence. The use of rudimentary stone tools to preprocess food seems to provide a critical stepping stone. But that's, of course, pure conjecture. As problematic as the article is, it at least has more substance, in the sense that experimental results and the underlying premises are things you can hang your criticisms on.

    3. Re:BAHfest methodology by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      That was a perfectly cromulent analysis.
      Except for the sys.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    4. Re:BAHfest methodology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about "Use it or lose it?"

    5. Re:BAHfest methodology by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If they are right, you know what it means don't you?

      It means that God doesn't want you to chew with your mouth open. He gave us sliced meat and small mouths to separate us from animals.

    6. Re:BAHfest methodology by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I've read much mumbo-jumbo about how fire is ...

      You missed the dates, and the discussion of the time frame where our teeth changed to near-modern form compared to when we started using fire.

      That is the whole point... we've only been using fire for a tiny bit of time, and our teeth changed shape towards the modern shape hundreds of thousands of years before that, and in the opposite direction than would normally be the case for an animal with the diet that we had. We know at least some dietary information from the fossil record. So it is pretty clear that some sort of tool use was involved. This work tests the most obvious potential answers, and included cooked meat as a comparison.

      Stop reading mumbo-jumbo that tells you anything is *the* cause, solution, question, answer, or whatever to anything. Close the tab and find better information sources.

    7. Re:BAHfest methodology by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That explains why storks are used for delivery; they are also designed not to chew with their mouths open!

      Almost makes me want to be a religious writer.

    8. Re:BAHfest methodology by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      Now it's more like brush it or lose it

    9. Re:BAHfest methodology by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Granted, it's thin evidence.

      Doesn't that depend on how they cut the meat...?

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    10. Re:BAHfest methodology by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Evidence of widespread control of fire puts it about 125,000 years ago and earlier, with wide scholarly support for evidence for controlled use by Homo erectus beginning 400,000 years ago or earlier, with claims of definitive evidence of control of fire ranging from 200,000 to 1,7000,000 years ago. And check out the jaw on that sucker at the top of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

      Meanwhile our teeth began their rapid shrinking about 100,000 years ago, when they were about twice the current size, with the rate doubling to 1% per 2000 years in the last 10,000 years. So fire as a primary driving cause for the current rapid shrinkage is a plausible theory.

      However, there was a great deal of slower shrinkage before that. Homo habilis still had the chimpanzee/Australopithecus-style large molars 2.8Mya, while a million years later Homo erectus had a considerably smaller jaw and more humanlike small molars, and by 600,000 years ago Homo heidelbergensis had almost doubled their brain-case size, giving their skull much more human proportions. Reconstructions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  4. Tooth longevity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Surprised they didn't mention that a longer lasting tooth would have been a huge advantage as well:

    "Slicing, whether with a knife or a sharp stone flake, changes all that. Suddenly, hominins could cut up the elastic muscles of a carcass into smaller bits before putting them in their mouths, making them chewable and easier to digest. Pounding has a similar effect on tough, fibrous root vegetables. “What we found is that by simply slicing meat and pounding vegetables, a hominin would be able to reduce the number of chews they use by about 17%,” Zink says. “That equates to 2-and-a-half million fewer chews per year.”

    Imagine a 17% less worn tooth. Tooth loss is a huge disadvantage in the wild, just look at how desperate large predators get when they cannot hunt effectively.

    An individual living 17% longer would be able to learn and pass on their knowledge and build a more effective society, perhaps even helping invent fire along the way.

    1. Re:Tooth longevity by avandesande · · Score: 0

      It's easy to argue exactly the opposite. Tools and fire have let us get away with having crappy teeth resulting in devolution- look how ugly and crooked human teeth (without orthodontics) are compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. You never see bad teeth in a chimp, wolf or lion.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Tooth longevity by TWX · · Score: 2

      I donno, allowing a person with otherwise-awful teeth to survive seems like a good personal survival tactic. Granted, it may not be that good for the species, but remember, at one time the British ruled much of the planet even with their bad teeth.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Tooth longevity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How fo they know it wasn't pounded meat and sliced vegetables?

      Maybe schnitzel is older than we realize.

    4. Re:Tooth longevity by avandesande · · Score: 1

      And they have- which allows them to reproduce and pass on their crappy teeth to their children. Not sure why evolution/devolution is so hard to understand.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re:Tooth longevity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than 90% of any species are never around long enough to have kids late to pass on longer lasting teeth.

      Longevity is one of those things extremely hard to pass on in the wild.
      And look at what it has done to humans, disease has skyrocketed due to people putting off births to later stages in life. (especially in the west with the horrifically crappy diets most people have which gets passed to offspring, worse yet puberty starting even earlier because of this)

      We know that the sight of some things, in fact, just general exposure to some things, can lead to genetic changes, inheritable changes at that, but we don't know whether longevity is one of those things that our genetics can understand in any reasonable way.
      In fact, most life around now is only around simply because they died off at a good pace, which helped weed out old genes and made space for new ones, prevented a food source from being exhausted.
      Originally there were almost certainly creatures around that were genetically perfect and immortal, but, well, you can already tell what happened, OOPS, there goes the food supply.
      Perfection and wilderness doesn't go well together. Except crocs. Those motherfuckers kicked natural selections ass.
      It can certainly become a thing if a species lives beyond its host planet, but even humans are getting to the point of another all-out war.
      We are about to come up against The Great Filter as a species. I think we will fail it. Humans are too shit.

    6. Re:Tooth longevity by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wolves and lions with bad teeth simply die.

      Also, these animals are a rather poor example of why living longer than one generation needs to procreate has a benefit. They do not tend to live in multi-generation packs. We do. Even today having parents to rely on when you have offspring is a huge advantage compared to those who cannot drop their young on their own parents to go out and earn a living. Consider how much higher the chances for your pack were when you went out hunting while your young were protected by your own parents who not only provide protection but can also aid you with their experience in rearing offspring.

      IIRC the life expectancy of an early human who survived the first 5 years of his life was in the area of 35 years. 17% only means about 5-7 extra years, but it can make a huge difference for the chance of your kids' survival if your parents are around an extra 5-7 years. Considering that a woman can bear children about roughly once a year, this can mean an extra 5 offspring surviving.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Tooth longevity by TWX · · Score: 1

      Yep. A negative trait has to impact reproduction rates fairly significantly for it to matter.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    8. Re:Tooth longevity by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      For bacteria, you are correct.

      For organisms that form groups and bond with members in the group, know who their offspring are, learn from their peers, and live long enough for their offspring to reach sexual maturity your "ideas" are complete whack.

      There are HUNDREDS of species that fulfill the stuff above where grandpa and grandma with experience and a body that works more or less would have a huge impact. Teeth that last a long time means grandpa is around to fidget all night for no reason and throw rocks at the dingos in the middle of the night.

    9. Re:Tooth longevity by Muros · · Score: 1

      And today, the world power is the USA, with worse teeth than the British.

    10. Re:Tooth longevity by AC-x · · Score: 1

      look how ugly and crooked human teeth (without orthodontics) are compared to the rest of the animal kingdom.

      Actually pre-agricultural peoples had very good teeth, our recent change in diet has just happened to quickly for evolution to compensate.

    11. Re:Tooth longevity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wolves and lions with bad teeth simply die.

      Uh, except they don't. And wolves and lions with good teeth die all the time. It seems your theory isn't borne out in reality - empirical observation is a bitch, ain't it? :)

      Here in reality, over the course of millennia, animals with better teeth have more sexual opportunities and raise more young successfully - on average. Individual organisms can and do defeat the odds all the time, which is why evolution doesn't happen in single generations except when there is considerable outside pressure (such as geologic events, predation, &etc. - google "punctuated equilibrium" for that).

      A man with good teeth and a ready smile gets more opportunities to make babies then one with brown stumps in his mouth. Fact. As Darwin observed, the primary evolutionary force acting on humans is sexual selection.

    12. Re:Tooth longevity by Immerman · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as devolution - that implies that there is a preferred direction for evolution, which has no basis in fact (other than increasing genetic complexity, which has little relevance to specific features).

      Is it devolution that our appendix has shrunk almost to nonexistence? No, that's simply evolution gradually removing something that's no longer particularly relevant to our survival. Similarly if our teeth fade away to nothing because we don't really need them anymore, that's also evolution just getting rid of "dead weight". Or if our intelligence plunges because stupid people breed a lot more, well that's also evolution in action - if intelligence no longer gives a significant survival/reproductive advantage, then from an evolutionary perspective the substantial metabolic cost of all that extra intelligence is just wasted energy better spent on things that *do* give an advantage.

      TL;DR: evolution cares nothing for our puny value judgments, it optimizes for one thing, and one thing only: long-term reproductive success.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    13. Re:Tooth longevity by avandesande · · Score: 1

      When I talk about bad teeth I mean irregular/crooked etc. which is why I mention orthodontics. I am not talking about dental caries....

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    14. Re:Tooth longevity by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Wolves and lions with bad teeth simply die."

      After getting desperate enough to go after humans, who are normally untouchable because whilst they may be easy to hunt individually, the predators learned long ago that this is a prey animal which forms groups and hunts back.

      This is what the OP was referring to about them getting desperate.

    15. Re:Tooth longevity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chinese do not have teeth in the brain. Very convenient that Human happened to have worse teeth and baldness and fatness and cancers..., otherwise we would all be mocking the Chinese figure an stoning first. If it all could not be achieved with food recipes... this planet would be different. - Indeed, in this model (cfr. ext.), _tooling_ is a direct and immediate consequence of environmental pressure to evolutively adapt.

  5. Let the bacon thread begin. by Jahmbo · · Score: 1

    Bacon, it's your evolutionary duty!

    1. Re:Let the bacon thread begin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's the case, then Spam or potted meat is the final evolutionary stage.

    2. Re:Let the bacon thread begin. by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Let the feast of a thousand hams begin!

    3. Re:Let the bacon thread begin. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Let's leave that challenge on the table, lest we be faced with squeezable pouches of spam puree.

    4. Re:Let the bacon thread begin. by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      I didn't readily find anything for squeezable Spam, but I did find squeezable sauerkraut.

      There is even squeezable bacon if you so choose.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    5. Re:Let the bacon thread begin. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, Spam is where the fine line between culture and decadence has been crossed.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Let the bacon thread begin. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The feast of a thousand unchewable raw goat flanks!

      We're going to need a lot of meat slicers to prove how far our tools have evolved.

  6. Lorena Bobbitt the mother of all humanity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or was John Wayne Bobbitt just a misunderstood pilgrim?

  7. Hi I'm a meatatarian by monkeyman.kix · · Score: 1

    POSSUM

    Ef dey 's anyt'ing dat riles me
    An' jes' gits me out o' hitch,
    Twell I want to tek my coat off,
    So 's to r'ar an' t'ar an' pitch,
    Hit's to see some ign'ant white man
    'Mittin' dat owdacious sin—
    Wen he want to cook a possum
    Tekin' off de possum's skin.
    W'y dey ain't no use in talking',
    Hit jes' hu'ts me to de heart
    Fu' to see dem foolish people
    Th'owin' 'way de fines' pa't.
    W'y, dat skin is jes' ez tendah
    An' ez juicy ez kin be;
    I knows all erbout de critter—
    Hide an' haih—don't talk to me!
    Possum skin is jes lak shoat skin;
    Jes' you swinge an' scrope it down,
    Tek a good sha'p knife an' sco' it,
    Den you bake it good an' brown.
    Huh-uh! honey, you 's so happy
    Dat yo' thoughts is 'mos' a sin
    When you 's settin' dah a-chawin'
    On dat possum's cracklin' skin.
    White folks t'ink dey know 'bout eating',
    An' I reckon dat dey do
    Sometimes git a little idea
    Of a middlin' dish er two;
    But dey ain't a t'ing dey knows of
    Dat I reckon cain't be beat
    Wen we set down at de table
    To a unskun possum's meat!

  8. Sliced meat is for LUDDITES. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modern app appers know that only apps can eat apps, which is why app appers only eat other apps, NOT LUDDITE SLICED MEAT!

    Apps!

    1. Re:Sliced meat is for LUDDITES. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If you read the article, you might discover that sliced meat is technology, and luddites are stuck eating leaves and berries.

      Can your app slice meat, or do you not know how to app with a rock? I can rock your apps with a rock, and rock doing it.

  9. Disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Small teeth can just as easily eat a whole animal as big teeth. Teeth aren't just used for chewing but for attacking and taking down prey. It was tools that allowed humans to take down prey without the need for biting that allowed smaller mouths to be evolutionarily OK.

    And beyond that, COOKING the meat was far more advantageous than tools to slice it.

    "Sliced bread makes us evolutionarily superior"

    Yeesh.. this isn't science, this is drunken bar talk...

    1. Re:Disagree by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      I wonder if you've ever actually hunted. Not with a rifle which is a remote action but by running your prey to the ground and killing it. I've done it to prey far larger than me. It's not all that hard. We are evolved for doing this. We work as packs, running our prey in a grand circle, always turning. Eventually the prey is exhausted. Humans and wolves are particularly good at this hunting tactic and were long before the use of firearms, bows, spears or even knives or stone kludges. The run down and kill is the easy part. Breaking it up into easily digestible pieces is much harder. I can well see how cutting predated fire as a method of improving this process. It's all evolutionary steps.

    2. Re:Disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not with a rifle which is a remote action but by running your prey to the ground and killing it. I've done it to prey far larger than me. It's not all that hard.

      Not many have, for many reasons. But your size argument is specious, since in some sense that type of hunting becomes easier with larger prey, no?

    3. Re:Disagree by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      It works very well with small prey too. The only reason I mentioned size is I anticipate people saying they can't take down prey larger than themselves.

    4. Re:Disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Persistence hunting is easier with larger prey. Larger body equates to a lower surface area ratio equates to exhaustion setting in faster. Helps that bison have a really hard time hiding in a rabbit hole.

    5. Re:Disagree by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      It works with small prey too. I watch our dog pack do it all the time. The squirrel or other small animal dodges away from one of them right into the jaws of another. Team work does wonders.

    6. Re:Disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was this prey, a farm cow drunk on cider?

  10. Fire by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Knives don't really replace chewing, fire does that.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Fire by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Knives don't really replace chewing, fire does that.

      Well, knives do make it a little easier to get the mammoth over the fire.

    2. Re:Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. There's even been a book out for years on it:
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catching_Fire:_How_Cooking_Made_Us_Human

      Cooking is essentially external digestion.

    3. Re:Fire by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Jeez - read the linked abstract in TFS. It talks about cooking and fires. Problem is our first clear evidence of controlled fires for human ancestor use was somewhere around 250,000-300,000 years ago, maybe 500,000 at the most. On the other hand, TFA points out that Homo erectus was already showing smaller jaws, reduced bite force, and smaller gut over a million years earlier. So, how did this evolution happen unless Homo erectus was somehow able to extract more calories more efficiently? Well, the first stone tools start appearing almost 3 million years ago, long before Homo erectus was around. So, perhaps stone tools could have aided chewing and digestion... cooking obviously did even more, but we have no evidence of that until long after these evolutionary changes clearly began. Is this theory the correct explanation? I don't know -- but it's at least possible, whereas your fire theory requires us to believe controlled fire usage by human ancestors was going on much earlier than we currently have evidence for.

    4. Re:Fire by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Except, I see no way that a stone tool can be used instead of chewing, unless they want us to believe that they used a mortar and pestle and made a meat paste.

      Far more likely, and this is a use that is provably plausible, they used the stone tools so that they no longer had to bite animals to death, meaning that far less biting strength was needed. And with the increased hunting success, which tools gave them, they no longer needed to wring every last calorie out of food. It was more effective to be lean and fast, instead of an efficient digester.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    5. Re:Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except, I see no way that a stone tool can be used instead of chewing

      Not instead of, but it does make it easier. Which you would know if you'd ever eaten bacon.

    6. Re:Fire by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I agree that relieving our teeth of hunting duty was probably the bigger contributor. But stone tools also contribute closer to digestion as well. Cutting through the hide certainly, and cutting off more manageable size chunks of meat - I imagine tearing a raw chunk of meat off an animal takes a fair bit more peak jaw strength than chewing it. And while does seem unlikely that the stone tools of the age were sharp enough to encourage the slicing of lunchmeats, even thick steaks cut across the grain would be much easier to chew than individual mouthfuls torn straight off the animal (which would be biased by muscle and jaw geometry to have the grain running along the longest dimension.

        And of course vegetable pastes does seem likely - breaking down fiberous tubers, stems, etc. into something easier and more palatable to eat, to say nothing of grains with their tough fiberous sheaths. Especially if you mash in some herbs and maybe some fat for added richness. After all plants probably made up the majority of our caloric intake in most locales.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  11. I say BALONEY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No matter how you slice it

  12. so what the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    happened to explain Gary Busey?!

  13. This is news? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
    As in, it wasn't accepted scientific theory that a combination of fire and stone knives are responsible for our decreased gastrological abilities?

    It seemed patently obvious to me and should have been accepted fact 50 years ago, if not 100 years ago.

    Humans can not live without knives and fire. We can't kill large animals or microscopic parasites because our biological tools for consuming unprepared foods are practically non-existent. But we evolved from animals that a) did not have fire or knives and b) have much better teeth, claws, and digestive systems that can handle a lot more than we can.

    The obvious conclusion is that we must have lost our claws, teeth and seriously weakened our digestive systems after developing fire and knives, both of which are far better than the natural versions other primates have.

    Next thing you know, someone is going to say that walking upright freed our hands to carry things, as if it's a big 'discovery'.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:This is news? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      We can't kill large animals or microscopic parasites because our biological tools for consuming unprepared foods are practically non-existent.
      That is complete nonsense.

      Hint: Sushi, Salad, Tartar.

      Or: Inuit, or other indigenous tribes that still eat stuff raw or merely fermented. Ever seen Japanese people falling over fresh delivered whale meat? They eat stuff raw, I would womit on, like the blubber. But so do Norwegians, can't be a "trait".

      Perhaps you don't know what tartar is .. but keep in mind even T-Bone steaks are usually served in the US mainly raw.

      You must have never been eating a decent meal. Decent as in: high quality.

      Don't get me wrong: cooking makes food more digestible, and often more taste. But you will survive just fine on raw food, especially if you "go indigenous" and eat larvae of bugs etc.

      However honestly: fish I either eat cooked Thai style or raw. Or as a last resort: grilled over a char coal or wood fire.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:This is news? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      T-bones/porterhouses are such large steaks they are usually cut too thin. Hence overcooked (not raw in the middle).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You suck! I don't need to read what you wrote. You are an idiot and therefore your post will suck, and therefore I will not read it! You suck! I don't!

    4. Re:This is news? by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      Eating food raw requires you to eat it very fresh, or have refrigerated storage. Since cavemen didn't have fridges, that leaves the fresh option.

      Eating things fresh implies that you have space to eat it, and only gather a small amount at a time, That's not a very reliable survival option and leaves you a high risk of starving if a few hunts are unsuccessful.

      Fire and knives allow for larger kills to be made, and older meat to be consumed safely. It even allows for preservation of meat through drying and smoking etc. This is a great survival technique to help survive periods where fresh food is unavailable.

    5. Re:This is news? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      It even allows for preservation of meat through drying and smoking etc. This is a great survival technique to help survive periods where fresh food is unavailable.

      That latter part also puts tremendous selective pressure that benefits smarter people that can think ahead and get around the "instant gratification" trap.

    6. Re:This is news? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      1) If you think sushi, salad and tartar are created without knives, you are an idiot. Worse, sushi consists of rice, which needs at the very least fire to boil the water. Tartar is made with a massive amount of knife work. Salad is the closest, and we can't live on raw vegetables alone, except in very rare circumstances where certain plants all grow in the same area.

      2) The Inuit and Japanese all use knives. The fact you don't think they do indicates either extreme ignorance, or racism. Hell, most of them use microwaves and freezers.

      It is true we can eat larvae of bugs without knives or fire - but are far more likely to die of vitamin deficiency and/disease from eathing raw foods like that.

      Note I did say 'practically non-existent', rather than actually non-existent. It is theoretically possible for a human to catch and safely consume non-cooked, un-cut plants/animals, but it is VERY difficult to do.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    7. Re:This is news? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That comes down entirely to cooking technique. Throw a thin steak sucker over a hot fire just long enough to sear the juices in and caramelize the surface and it can still be cold inside.

      The reason most modern meat is served over-cooked is, I would suggest, twofold:

      1) Modern meat is hideously diseased due to industrial farming practices - milk from your typical dairy cow for instance has something like 100x the bacterial load as from a free-range cow, despite heavy antibiotic use. Plus the meat's been dead and decaying for days or weeks before it sells at the store.

      2) Modern legal and media liability meas that nobody wants to risk being the source of a food-born outbreak - better to serve only well-done meat than risk the loss of business and potential legal liablity.

      So basically, if you want raw or semi-raw meat you mostly need to prepare it yourself. Preferably from freshly slaughtered animals raised in healthy environments. Or you can go to a higher-end restaurant wiling to go to the added expense of acquiring meat that can be (relatively) safely eaten under-cooked.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:This is news? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Not really. Plenty of animals will hide their kill to continue eating it over the course of many days. It gets to tasting funny after a while, but most of the stuff that thrives in dead meat isn't actually terribly dangerous to the living. And most of the stuff that is dangerous to the living was already present in the live animal, so you're getting it regardless of how fresh the kill. Also, being hungry and not having any concept of the microbial theory of disease would drastically reduce your hesitancy to eat decaying meat.

      Knives, which we've had for ~5-10x as long as fire, also allow for long-term meat preservation - cut thin slices and lay them in the sun to make jerky. I don't know if there's any evidence for such things, but I can't think of what sort of evidence would be left even months later, much less after a million years.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    9. Re:This is news? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Minimum cook time on a side is the time it takes for the meat to seer and release from a screaming hot grill/grill pan.

      The way most T-bones are cut, the release flip leaves you at about medium.

      You're just wrong about most beef. Ground beef needs to be cooked. But any solid chunks of beef are fine to eat raw. As long as it's fresh and you seer the surface.

      I do make a point of buying the slaughter house vacuum packs. But that's because of the minimum wage scumbags that work at the local groceries.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:This is news? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >But any solid chunks of beef are fine to eat raw. As long as it's fresh and you seer the surface.

      As long as it doesn't contain mad cow disease, or any other infectious agents capable of jumping the species barrier. Cow is fairly distantly related to us, so there aren't too many. Not nearly as bad as raw pig, but not nearly as safe as raw fish (and you can still get a lethal case of liver-flukes from fish).

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    11. Re:This is news? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Eating food raw requires you to eat it very fresh, or have refrigerated storage.
      Like cheese, beer, suaerkraut and thousands of fermented meals the planet is offering?
      Ever looked how Eskimos/Inuit store/prepare food for the next year? Or how Dogs, Lynx, Wolves do it for the next week? Or even month? Or squirrels? Or Ravens?

      Well, be happy with your fridge. You likely die if you have none.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    12. Re:This is news? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      If you think we where talking about knives, you are an idiot.
      We were talking about food that is eaten raw. The parent claimed we cant do that .... no idea if you were that parent.
      If you want to nitpick on rice in suhi, then substitute sushi for sashimi, in case you even know what that is.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  14. Re: If being gay were "against" natural selection. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Exactly. Homosexuality is as normal as other variations. Like DOWN'S SYNDROME. Yep. All perfectly normal.

  15. Re: If being gay were "against" natural selection. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You would know, being stone age, I can tell because I hear the rocks rattling when you shake your head

  16. Re: If being gay were "against" natural selection. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a terminal mutation, no reproduction possible. What's that have to do with rocks? I'd rather have rocks in the head that cocks in the rear, BTW.

    Intestines are for food, not cocks, silly faggot.

  17. Cooking.. by thesupraman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And the other small factor they missed.. Cooking!
    Cooking has a large known effect on consumption and abduction of food. Especially meat. Resulting in needing to eat less quantity and being easier to chew..

    No.. That couldn't be a factor.. Must have been those thin slices. Sigh.

    Chewing cooked food is much much easier.. Making a larger difference than sliced meat (you don't think stone tools produce nice thin slices do you?)

    Sounds a lot like someone flash of the moment idea that they rushed to publish rather than something with much backing

    1. Re:Cooking.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing cooking came after the cutting but it's possible fire came first or at the same time.

    2. Re:Cooking.. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Figured that out all by yourself, did you? TFA even talked about that.

      The thesis is that stone tools preceded evidence of cooking by some long period of time. So the tools were used to beat the food into submission. Barbecue came later.

      Might be where the term 'beating a dead horse' came from.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Cooking.. by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      Figured that out all by yourself, did you? TFA even talked about that.

      The thesis is that stone tools preceded evidence of cooking by some long period of time. So the tools were used to beat the food into submission. Barbecue came later.

      Might be where the term 'beating a dead horse' came from.

      Actually no, I didnt 'figure that out all by myself', because, as you say, it is well known.
      As far as I can tell they dont provide any solid evidence that stone tools actually drove such changes. They seem to be just deciding that arbitrarily, then thrashing around looking for possible reasons for it.

      Cooking has very well documented and researched effects on physiology, perhaps you should do a little research. Their theory has much less behind it.

      Cooked your dead horse enough for you?

    4. Re:Cooking.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point. Nobody is disputing the role cooking seems to have had on evolution. The pertinent question is how does a primitive ape jump straight to harnessing fire? The advantages of preprocessing food with stone tools provide evolutionary stepping stones in terms of developing the physical and cognitive attributes which make harnessing fire more likely.

      Of course, maybe primitives apes did jump straight from unprocessed food to sustaining and cooking over a fire. It just seems less plausible. And while plausibility is not the cornerstone of science, as a practical matter its highly relevant.

    5. Re:Cooking.. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      No, this is where slicing a dead horse came from.

      The part about beating stuff was about root vegetables.

      We didn't start beating dead horses until we acquired abstract language.

    6. Re:Cooking.. by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Informative

      And the other small factor they missed.. Cooking!

      They "missed" it, huh? Why is cooking discussed in detail in TFA and even mentioned twice in the abstract then?

      Cooking has a large known effect on consumption and abduction of food. Especially meat. Resulting in needing to eat less quantity and being easier to chew..

      Yes. No one disputes it. It's mentioned in the article. Problem is: best evidence now is that cooking only started in a controlled way a few hundred thousand years ago, maybe 500,000 at the most. Meanwhile, the changes actually mentioned in TFA began perhaps as early as 2 million years ago. Stone tools were around then (and had been used perhaps as much as 3 million years ago).

      No.. That couldn't be a factor.. Must have been those thin slices. Sigh.

      Uh, or TFA could explicitly acknowledge multiple times that cooking was a major evolutionary factor, but they're perhaps hypothesizing about a different earlier stage?

      Sounds a lot like someone flash of the moment idea that they rushed to publish rather than something with much backing

      Rather ironic to read this coming from someone who didn't even take the time to find out what the article was about before posting in ignorance. Is TFA conclusive evidence of anything? Absolutely not -- it's just throwing out a possible idea for a stage of evolution where jaw size and strength decreases, etc. before we have any solid evidence of cooking.

      What's your theory?? What's the backing for it?

    7. Re:Cooking.. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Cooking plausibly drove the recent rapid shrinkage of our teeth, halving in size in the last 100,000 years. Not only does it make food easier to eat (vegetables as well as meat - modern vegetables bear little resemblance to the durability of wild plants), but it increases the accessible calorie content as well, breaking down fiber, etc. into forms that our digestive system can process, so that you don't need to eat as much. (something like a 15-20% calorie increase if I recall correctly)

      But we've only harnessed fire somewhere in the last 200k to 1.7M years ago (with wide scholarly support for 400kya), while our jaws have been shrinking much longer than that. Homo habilis still had a fairly chimpanzee-like jaw with oversized molars 2.8Mya, while a million years later Homo Erectus had a substantially smaller jaw with human-scale molars, and the jaw kept shrinking over the next ~1.5My until we get into the range where fire may have started becoming commonplace.

      So what drove that shrinkage? Well, we were using increasingly sophisticated stone tools throughout that time period, and that seems like a plausible candidate for relieving the evolutionary pressure towards large teeth. After all they can do a lot of the initial high-stress processing that we'd otherwise need to use our teeth for. Ever tried ripping through the hide of a freshly killed deer using only your teeth, and then tearing off chunks of raw meat the same way?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  18. Tear by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    To eat tough meat, chewing is almost futile. Grab one part in your hands, the other in your teeth, and tear it. That's what the canines are for, that's what wild predators like wolves and big cats do. The premise of the article is flawed by not considering all possibilities.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:Tear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, because you're the expert.

    2. Re:Tear by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Only problem is we don't have canines worth speaking of, and had largely lost them even before we had stone tools.

      Also, canines are typically considered to have their primary usage a little earlier in the process - in order to keep a grip on your prey while it's still struggling to get away, as well as making it easier to inflict internal damage likely to actually kill it. Catching lunch the first time is hard enough, you don't want to have to catch it again for the second attack.

      And then there's the fact that we don't really have throats designed to swallow mouth-sized chunks of meat, even if it were cleanly sliced from the animal. Just watch wild chimpanzees eating monkeys, etc. They chew.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  19. Re:...and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what if it is "against evolution?" Evolution is not a moral cop. It is just a process that happens, like a thunderstorm.

    Surgical procedures are "against evolution," as is working on a computer, brushing your teeth with tooth paste, circumcision, and watching TV.

    We do what pleases us, whether our evolutionary ancestors did it or not.

  20. Re: If being gay were "against" natural selection. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sitting in your mom's basement, you're probably thinking to yourself that this lame comeback is "gold."

  21. Nailed it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people, like the troll to which you replied, are uncompromisingly stupid. They think of themselves as being smart while staunchly refusing to do the things necessary to become smart. So, they spout thoughtless nonsense and feel like they just won an argument.

    They think this makes them happy, though really the constant need to argue, and the habit of producing such inane and nonsensical drivel, winds up significantly limiting their options for professional and romantic success.

    It's sad, really, but as free citizens they can choose to stay stupid, and there isn't much we can do about it.

    1. Re: Nailed it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And some of us are married to someone of the (complimentary, not redundant) opposite sex and have children, because we are NORMAL. Our mental and psychological facilities are not compromised by bizarre, albeit common, sexual identity disorders.

      Homosexual attractions are abnormal, and the decision back in 73 to declassify it as a mental illness was not unanimous, or even a landslide vote for that matter.

      It was and always will be a psychological aberration, regardless of how the word "normal" is defined to apply to it.

      Oh, and that same "some of us" make 6 figures annually in our engineering jobs in the defense industry. So, suck it.

    2. Re: Nailed it. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      So is religion. The only reason it's not a mental illness is that the definition of delusion explicitly exempts religion.

      Still, there's millions of people suffering from it. And unlike homosexuality, millions who do not share that mental illness have to suffer from it, too.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re: Nailed it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and that same "some of us" make 6 figures annually in our engineering jobs in the defense industry.

      Not you, though.

    4. Re: Nailed it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who says that abnormal is automatically bad?

      "Normal" is not automatically "correct." It's just popular.

      Some people are born with only one arm. That is abnormal. But so what? We don't pass laws forcing them to have artificial arms attached, or forcing them to be aborted, or forcing them to try and pretend to live the life of a two-armed person. That would all be absurd.

      So if homosexuality is abnormal, fine, it is abnormal. And homosexuals should be free to live their abnormal lives to their heart's content, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else.

      Normal is boring.

    5. Re: Nailed it. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Actually, being married and yet worried about the sexual identity of other people is not "normal" at all. It is indeed proof of being psychologically compromised. Negative emotions about things that don't relate to your life are harmful, abnormal, an aberration that is socially harmful to yourself, your family, and your community.

      Also, believing that income of level n implies that you are not reducing your horizons is illogical and implies further dysfunction relating to your work life. If it is true that you're an engineer, you seem pretty narrow minded and uninterested in potentially superior thought patterns. That is disappointing if you truly work in an important industry.

    6. Re: Nailed it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing we live in a free country, where people can be abnormal and it is ok (so long as they don't hurt anyone else).

      Also, you sound like an asshole.

    7. Re: Nailed it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha! Yes, me :) And the VERY best part is that some of your tax dollars eventually find their way back to my bank account, in payment of contributions I make on defense contracts.

      So, homos like you pay for normal people like me to make a pretty damn good living, and support my family, including my children who are learning what's right, rather than what "culturally trending" :)

    8. Re: Nailed it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about religion? But since you're stating numbers, it's more like BILLIONS (not millions). I guess you suffer your own "demons of delusion", and maybe a problem with simple math ;)

    9. Re: Nailed it. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Since there is no sane reason to oppose something that doesn't affect you, I assumed that it needs a reason from lalaland.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  22. I don't all BS on many things, this article I do. by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 2

    I don't spend this much time on many things like this but for some reason this came across as bad science.

    A session with Google and no knowledge anthropology I found this:

    Chimpanzee's habit was an entire Continent away from H. erectus
    http://www.janegoodall.ca/abou...
    (not that big of a deal we do have Hurricanes, Cyclones and Typhoons to mix the groups)

    Chimpanzee's are a different time line than humans
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    So what do the modern apes—and in particular our closest relatives the chimpanzees and bonobos—eat? Plants. Yes, plants. ... But most chimps don’t eat such meaty treats often. Three percent of the average chimp diet comes from meat. On average, nine days a year are meat days for chimps.
    http://blogs.scientificamerica...

    Despite their hunting behavior, however, only a very tiny percentage–perhaps as small as two percent–of a wild chimp’s diet consists of meat or insects.
    http://www.allaboutwildlife.co...

    Google this phrase: what do you feed a chimpanzee - give one this blurb:
    It also eats leaves and leaf buds. Seeds, blossoms, stems, pith, bark and resin, insects, and meat make up the rest of its diet. While the common chimpanzee is mostly herbivorous, it does eat honey, soil, insects, birds and their eggs, and small to medium-sized mammals, including other primates.

    http://www.janegoodall.org/ is a worthless site unless you wish to give money.

    Topic: H. erectus meat consumption is associated with __________.
    Not one answer includes teeth
    http://science-forums.com/inde...

    The only thing that associates chimpanzee (meat eating) and evolve of humans jaws to is the submitted article itself.

  23. Genuine Plastic by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    So, sliced bread is the greatest thing since sliced bread, eh?

  24. Does not make sense. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1, Interesting
    How old are the tools? Oldest things recognizable as human made tools are some 2.8 million years old. Tool use must be older than that but the tools they used were indistinguishable from ordinary natural rock. May be there were wooden tools too which did not survive.

    All the hominids with robust skulls and jaws are that old. Tool use did not change the anatomy of hominids when they were invented.

    Fire was tamed some 500K years ago. There was a gradual change, even Homo sapien neanderthalis had less robust skulls than previous hominids. That was 200K years ago. The Homo sapien sapiens, anatomically modern human beings, also 200K years had definitely smaller jaws and teeth. It was due to fire, not due to tool use. Homo sapien skulls changed from "robust" to "gracile" gradually over the last 100K years. Definite evidence having a strong skull as protection against random enemy bashing the head with a stone tool was not that important. They attribute this change to either language or culture being developed that allowed less lethal interactions between strangers.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Does not make sense. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Firstly, 500kya for fire mastery is being generous. Solid evidence starts around 125kya, though 400kya has wide scholarly acceptance. But yes, even 125kya lines up nicely with the rapid tooth shrinkage that has been occurring for the last 100ky.

      But, our jaws started shrinking long before that. 2.8Mya Homo habilis had a chimpanzee-like jaw with oversized molars. A million years later Homo erectus had much smaller human-like molars. And there's no fire mastery that far back, so what allowed for that shrinkage? Stone tools seem a plausible candidate.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  25. More bad science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's already out there - read "What it Means to be 98% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and their Genes" by Jonathan Marks, that one of the largest differences between us and our more ape like ancestors was a mutation that weakened (!) our jaw muscles. Apes and Chimps have something like 6x stronger jaw muscles - which requires a lot more skull thickness to support - which means less room for brains. To compensate - sliced meat, cooking, growing plants, domesticating animals, etc.

  26. Re:Humans are naturally vegan... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Meat is tasty. 'nuff said.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  27. Re: If being gay were "against" natural selection. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd rather have rocks in the head that cocks in the rear, BTW.

    The difference is that you're not constantly preoccupied with thinking about rocks in your head.

  28. Re:Humans are naturally vegan... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    Primates only went up into the trees to eat the bugs, silly.

    We "naturally" have eaten many things. For long periods it has been mostly meat. We're evolved to eat a wide variety of things "naturally."

    I don't even eat mammal, and this is obvious stuff. Stop letting your moral decisions confuse your factual understanding of nature.

    When we were cynodonts, we ate lots of meat.

  29. homer says by slazzy · · Score: 1

    bacon, is there anything it can't do?

    --
    Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    1. Re:homer says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sliced meat only drives how I forage through the refrigerator!

  30. Re:...and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Longer penis is required to stimulate the prostate during anal sex, therefore nature clearly favours homosexuality. Just be thankful a few of our ancestors went against the grain and chose bisexuality to spread their long-penis genes.

  31. Re:I don't all BS on many things, this article I d by AC-x · · Score: 1

    Talking about "bad science"

    Chimpanzee's habit was an entire Continent away from H. erectus

    Huh? Homo Erectus finds very much overlap with even the modern Chimpanzee ranges in Africa you linked to, and it's not hard to imagine that Chimpanzees' range extended much further 2 million years ago than it does today.

    Chimpanzee's are a different time line than humans

    They covered that already - they're talking about our ancestors, who had chimp-like jaws: "all made possible by the same type of big teeth and large jaws our early ancestors had."

    So what do the modern apes—and in particular our closest relatives the chimpanzees and bonobos—eat? Plants.

    Again, already covered - "A new study credits the advent of simple stone tools to slice meat and pound root vegetables"

  32. Re:...and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't reproduce, and yet in each generation many of us are born. More evidence that faggotry is favored by evolution. And if you think straight males have bigger cocks, that just shows that you haven't seen many cocks in your life. You're probably afraid of looking because it would make you aware of how gay you are.

  33. Re:...and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be fair, in the Science mag illustration the female has bigger genitals than the two males. I don't know what that proves but I'm sure you can come up with something.

  34. You could look like a monkey..... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    ...and be human-smart? If I (still) had monkey teeth, would I still need a bottle opener?

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  35. Cold water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cold water. Cold water allowed for that shrinkage. Everyone knows that cold water shrinks things!