Profound articles of interest

Kick back and relax. Anything that does not have to do with footbag goes here!
Post Reply

BainbridgeShred
Post Master General
Posts: 2352
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Contact:

Post by BainbridgeShred » 22 Apr 2012 07:55

Let the record show I spent absolutely no time looking for something as perfect as this, despite knowing it was out there.
Image

User avatar
Allan
Posts: 933
Joined: 30 Aug 2003 20:44
Location: Victoria BC

Post by Allan » 22 Apr 2012 11:08

The second sentence:
However, the specific impact of carnivory on human evolution, life history and development remains controversial

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 22 Apr 2012 14:11

I repeat again the claim that I was asking for a reference for;
Dan Feary wrote:It's pretty well accepted today that what allowed humans brains to grow to the size they are today was the scavenging of meat on the African Savannah, specifically cracking the bones of prey animals with crude tools, and sucking the bone marrow out.
The article you've quoted, that you think supports your claims, actually begins by demonstrating that it's Not well accepted that human brains grew due to scavenging meat or bone marrow. It provides evidence that humans are omnivores, something that has never been disputed, and that aspects of our biology have evolved due to us being omnivores. These are all facts I've repeated in this debate as well!

BainbridgeShred
Post Master General
Posts: 2352
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Contact:

Post by BainbridgeShred » 22 Apr 2012 14:51

Read the entire thing not the first paragraph kiddo. In fact, just read the discussion portion.
The critical link between time to weaning and dietary profile adds to the general notion that the evolution of the hominids - and that of Homo in particular - was associated with a change towards higher-quality diet. Specifically, it has been proposed that with a given metabolic rate a large brain could have evolved only if another metabolically expensive tissue, such as the gut, would be reduced in size. But to maintain an energy intake sustaining that metabolic rate despite a reduced gut size, food quality must have been improved [41], for example by increased meat consumption.Our model suggests that the contribution of carnivory in this evolutionary context was to shorten the duration of lactation and suckling despite the overall prolongation of development associated with increased adult brain mass [14]. The resulting decreased interbirth intervals and increased rates of reproduction must have affected population dynamics profoundly. Our findings highlight therefore the emergence of carnivory as a process fundamentally determining human life history and evolution.


Our model indicates that carnivory has a specific and quantifiable impact on human development and life history and, crucially, explains why Homo weans so much earlier than the great apes. Such an effect would have been impossible to evaluate in a model or data synthesis restricted to hominids or primates, which is an important reason why the ‘natural’ age of weaning in humans suggested by our model differs from that suggested by previous accounts [16].
The remarkable precision of this prediction suggests that carnivory per se may provide not only a necessary but also a sufficient explanation for the difference between humans and the great apes with respect to the timing of weaning. Factors influencing diet quality, such as cooking [39], or behavioural and social factors influencing food abundance, such as alloparental or allomaternal help [40], may certainly have played important roles for aspects of human development and evolution in general or for human lactation practice and weaning patterns in particular [8]. However, in view of the high degree of similarity in relative time to weaning between humans and species that eat unprocessed meat and do not usually have helpers in parenting (Felidae, Mustelidae, Procyonidae, Ursidae; [40], as shown in the present analysis (cf. Table S1), it appears that neither human-specific food processing practices nor various forms of cooperative breeding have had a major influence on lactation duration per se in humans as a species. On the other hand, the importance of the different potential sources of variance in time to weaning, as outlined above, may be reflected in the large range of lactation durations across human societies and cultures [5], [16].
Image

BainbridgeShred
Post Master General
Posts: 2352
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Contact:

Post by BainbridgeShred » 22 Apr 2012 15:02

And yes, the introduction does spend a little time explaining that the authors claims about carnivory leading to our development are only a theory. As you (should) know, no hypothesis is every truly proven; only substantiated by experimentation and data. Lots of peer reviewed articles begin in such a manner. Anyways, you and Alen need to read the entirety of the article, and maybe take a basic refresher course to familiarize yourself with deductive reasoning and the scientific method. :wink:

I get a warm feeling when I win an argument. Especially if I don't have to really do anything. Thanks @NewsYouCanAbuse
Image

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 22 Apr 2012 23:27

I read the entire article, thanks. Your quotes don't contradict what you've said, and I repeat, what I questioned was that your "bone marrow" theory was "well accepted." Clearly this paper does not back up that claim. Claiming that you've won an argument doesn't mean you won it. This study doesn't support the things you've claimed that were questioned. It doesn't support the "bone marrow" idea at all, it doesn't support that it's "widely accepted," and it doesn't even support that idea that that's the cause for the growth in human brain mass.

Here is what it does say;

Human brains were growing, but guts were shrinking, therefore to maintain the amount of energy needed, despite shrinking guys, higher quality diet was needed. Note that this isn't the same as saying that diet was leading to human brains bringing. In fact it would have to be the other way around, change would have to happen before diet changed, otherwise humans would get fat. Eating more doesn't give you a bigger brain, you have to start with the genetic mutation giving you a bigger brain to be able to take advantage of a better diet.

Eating meat allowed humans to spend less time suckling milk. Amount of time spent suckling milk is usually associated with the most development, and humans have short times but long development. Replacing milk with increased meat allowed humans to shorten their suckling time.

I've read the article, twice now, and it just doesn't support your claim. You've now used two articles and pretended they support your claims (this one and Allan's one), and neither of them do. What you have demonstrated is that you make things up and can't comprehend scientific papers.

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 22 Apr 2012 23:46

What I asked you to provide evidence for;
Jeremy wrote:
It's pretty well accepted today that what allowed humans brains to grow to the size they are today was the scavenging of meat on the African Savannah, specifically cracking the bones of prey animals with crude tools, and sucking the bone marrow out.
Bullshit. Provide some evidence for this claim please. It's clearly not "well accepted" at all. There are actually multiple competing and complimentary theories about why our brain development is so big - tool use, cooking, increased life spans, increased social behaviour due to decreased time needed to search for food, development of language, etc. Yes there are people who think it was an increase of meat in our diet, but that's not the accept view at all - the issue is still widely debated.
So when I say humans "need" meat, I'm definitely not being as clear as I need to be. I should say that the vast majority of humans need to consume meat to be at their athletic and physiological peaks. If you simply want to "survive", then certainly you can live off black beans and spinach, and indeed for much of the world that'd be a pretty luxurious diet. But most people do best on a diet that contains plenty of high quality meat.
Bullshit. Provide some evidence for this please.
When most Vegans/Vegetarians start to experience problems is when they hit the 30 year mark or so, and their bodies start revolting against them.
Any evidence, or is this another claim you just made up?
Jeremy wrote:I also note you still have provided any evidence at all that your bone marrow hypothesis is the most widely accepted explanation for brain growth. Do you actually have any evidence for that, or are you making it up? I note that everybody else can provide evidence for their claims, except you...
Jeremy wrote:Still no references hey?

When you say;
It's pretty well accepted today that what allowed humans brains to grow to the size they are today was the scavenging of meat on the African Savannah, specifically cracking the bones of prey animals with crude tools, and sucking the bone marrow out.
Then surely it should be easy for you to provide evidence that it is widely accepted, because there should be a wide amount of evidence?
Jeremy wrote:I'm still waiting for Dan to provide any evidence for your case. Merely asserting things is meaningless. I've managed to provide alternative evidence from an Oxford Evolutionary Anthropology Professor, a University of Missouri Anthropology Professor, and the Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of New Mexico. These aren't just anecdotal claims that evidence exists, this is actual published peer reviewed science by experts in their field, and none of them agree with you! Where is your evidence rebutting those papers? Where is your evidence supporting your own claims?
Jeremy wrote:Nobody in this topic has denied that humans or chimps eat meat. What is debated is whether the theory that eating bone marrow is "widely accepted" as the cause of the evolution of large brains, or whether it's just one of many debated theories. You claimed that it was widely accepted and that you'd soon be able to provide evidence that you weren't making stuff up when you made that claim. Virtually everybody else in this topic have supported their claims with evidence, while we are still all waiting for you. Which supports my theory, that you have little clue what you're talking about, on this topic, and pretty much every post you've ever made on modified. I look forward to being corrected when you provide your evidence that the bone marrow theory actually is "widely accepted."
Jeremy wrote:What I can't appreciate, is why you keep saying you'll provide evidence that your claims are true, without actually doing so, and instead have relied only on misrepresenting the pop-science article that Allan posted, that doesn't support your claim at all.

If you've got no actual evidence, just say so. Your continued efforts at conflating the issues are clearly an attempt to avoid responding to the fact that you're just talking bullshit without any meaningful knowledge base.

If you don't have a scientific knowledge base, the things you say will probably be wrong, and no amount of pontification and confabulation while change that. You can only demonstrate that you're not making stuff up by providing actual evidence - not showing that some people have come up with theory you've proposed, but that it's "widely accepted."
Jeremy wrote:I repeat again the claim that I was asking for a reference for;
Dan Feary wrote:It's pretty well accepted today that what allowed humans brains to grow to the size they are today was the scavenging of meat on the African Savannah, specifically cracking the bones of prey animals with crude tools, and sucking the bone marrow out.
The article you've quoted, that you think supports your claims, actually begins by demonstrating that it's Not well accepted that human brains grew due to scavenging meat or bone marrow. It provides evidence that humans are omnivores, something that has never been disputed, and that aspects of our biology have evolved due to us being omnivores. These are all facts I've repeated in this debate as well!

Do you understand what you're being asked to provide evidence for? It's not that humans have evolved to eat be able to eat meat, that's obvious. These are the points;

1. Humans ate bone marrow, and this caused our brains to expand.
2. This is a "widely accepted" theory.

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 22 Apr 2012 23:52

I also note that if you did ever manage to provide evidence for the claims you made that people don't accept, it still doesn't support the argument the scientifically illiterate article you originally posted tried to make, that because certain diets impacted on our evolution, therefore people should eat those foods. That argument is still a logical fallacy of an argument from evolution. All that is being debated here is whether your understanding of the premise of that claim is bullshit or not; the actual argument is still a fallacy, whether the premise is true or not, or whether your view is the same as the premise or not.

BainbridgeShred
Post Master General
Posts: 2352
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Contact:

Post by BainbridgeShred » 27 Apr 2012 06:04

Hahaha grasp at straws more, no?
Image

BainbridgeShred
Post Master General
Posts: 2352
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Contact:

Post by BainbridgeShred » 27 Apr 2012 08:36

Look, I know this stuff is probably tough for you to handle being that you grew up eating a strict diet of kale and seaweed that your nutcase parents probably foraged directly out of the ocean, but it's time to face facts, young Jerome. Carnivory was the leading cause of the rapid increase in human cognition between h. Erectus and h. Sapien. Game over.
Our findings highlight therefore the emergence of carnivory as a process fundamentally determining human life history and evolution.
Holy shit though that article is so perfect. <3 <3 <3 winning arguments w/o trying.

Edit: Also, your grammar and syntax in the last few posts has been lacking; and combined with your usual proselytizing rantiness, it's making whatever points you're trying to make less than coherent. I'll chalk that up to the frustration you must be feeling after digesting that peer-reviewed article :wink:
Image

BainbridgeShred
Post Master General
Posts: 2352
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Contact:

Post by BainbridgeShred » 27 Apr 2012 09:03

The impact of carnivory on time to weaning in humans and mammals in general demonstrated by our model supports the hypothesis that meat-eating even at levels below fully specialized carnivory may have had a major evolutionary effect on mammalian development and life history [4]. With respect to time to weaning specifically, our findings appear to confirm, on two accounts, the notion of a threshold effect of carnivory, postulated to correspond to a dietary shift from 10% to 20% of food from meat [1], [4]. First, we found no difference between herbivores and omnivores. Second, despite the moderate meat consumption of Homo sapiens [1], humans fit the prediction of time to weaning based on fully specialized carnivores although humans differ from these species with respect to gut anatomy, milk composition and suckling behaviour and are more similar to the great apes in these respects [2].
Our findings highlight therefore the emergence of carnivory as a process fundamentally determining human life history and evolution.
Image

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 27 Apr 2012 15:45

You understand what the term "life history" means right?

They're saying eating meat was a major factor in humans weaning faster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_history

Their study was looking at a comparison between diets and weaning times in a range of animals, and looking for correlations.

It doesn't support your claims, and it's sad that you've resorted to self proclamations of winning a debate that you're so ignorant of.

BainbridgeShred
Post Master General
Posts: 2352
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Contact:

Post by BainbridgeShred » 28 Apr 2012 08:16

Yes, and faster weaning times have huge repercussions for a given population.

In the face of all this information I've presented thus far, you're basically falling back on the fact that article didn't specify "bone marrow" as the specific animal food source that allowed us to wean faster as early Hominids. Instead the article uses "Carnivory" as a all encompassing term. In other words, Jerome, you're a joke who can't admit when he's lost an argument, and is now grasping at semantic straws in order to keep telling yourself that you haven't been made a fool of.

<3 Jerome :wink:
Image

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 28 Apr 2012 16:24

I never claimed that eating meat had had no influence on our evolution, in fact I have repeatedly stated it myself (I note that although the article uses the word "carnivore" it also says that it's talking about an increase in meat in the diet from 10% to 20%, so it's clearly talking about omnivorism, With meat being a minority component of the diet, just as I have since my second response to you).

This is just a strawman argument. You've distorted to position against you so that you can pretend to have a defenceble position. Go back through my posts and quote the ones that your article refutes.

And even better, quote the parts of Lierre Kieth's article that you think your article supports. This all still an "argument from evolution" logical fallacy.

Edit; see this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

BainbridgeShred
Post Master General
Posts: 2352
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Contact:

Post by BainbridgeShred » 04 Jun 2012 11:20

Saw this profound article of interest on the bulletin board of my physics building. Keep an eye out for the marrow reference

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ans_2.html
Image

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 04 Jun 2012 19:11

I can only repeat again, that what I was questioning was your claim that the theory was "well accepted," not that it existed. I have never doubted that it existed, and was published somewhere. The article you've posted contradicts your claim, because it's clearly discussing an academic dispute - with the author of the study being reported on on your side, but acknowledging that many scientists disagree.

Here's what you said;
It's pretty well accepted today that what allowed humans brains to grow to the size they are today was the scavenging of meat on the African Savannah, specifically cracking the bones of prey animals with crude tools, and sucking the bone marrow out.
And here was my response;
Bullshit. Provide some evidence for this claim please. It's clearly not "well accepted" at all. There are actually multiple competing and complimentary theories about why our brain development is so big - tool use, cooking, increased life spans, increased social behaviour due to decreased time needed to search for food, development of language, etc. Yes there are people who think it was an increase of meat in our diet, but that's not the accepted view at all - the issue is still widely debated.

I wonder if you've seen this article too;

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-04/s ... hs/4050144
The findings, published today in the Medical Journal of Australia Open, show a well-planned, plant-based diet can meet the nutritional needs of all adults and children, whatever their age.
It seems to pretty strongly contradict some of the other ridiculous claims you've made in this topic;
However, for the vast majority of human beings, having meat in your diet is a big net benefit.
When most Vegans/Vegetarians start to experience problems is when they hit the 30 year mark or so, and their bodies start revolting against them.

edit; I note too, that since this debate started, it is now "pretty much accepted" that eating too much meat causes cancer, heart disease, and premature death;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ ... art-cancer

The weekly recommended intake for meat is 360 to 480 grams. This is clearly not the majority of a person's diet, and means that still, just as I have said, humans should eat diets that are mainly not meat. That we are omnivores, not carnivores, and that we've evolved to eat a diet that is mainly not meat. This has been my position since this debate started, despite your best efforts at pretending that I don't think eating meat has had an impact on human evolution, or that I think we should be vegetarians.

BainbridgeShred
Post Master General
Posts: 2352
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Contact:

Post by BainbridgeShred » 15 Jun 2012 12:14

Jeremy, the piece stands alone as a profound article of interest, which after all, is the topic of this thread. I've had no shits left to give about your arguments after I crushed them with my peer-reviewed article.

Goodbye!
Image

BainbridgeShred
Post Master General
Posts: 2352
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Contact:

Post by BainbridgeShred » 15 Jun 2012 12:17

Also, I shouldn't have to explain to you that their are contradictory studies coming out about meat/plant consumption all the time. Two articles mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Goodbye!
Image

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 16 Jun 2012 03:20

1. Exactly - to say that a particular theory is "widely accepted" in these kinds of debates is foolish - which is what you said to begin with, that I suggested was overstating your position.

2. If it was meant to be a "stand alone" article of interest, why did you mention marrow?

Post Reply