Support NeoGAF

[OnkelC]

Meat is basically a grass concentrate.

 

[The Real Abed]

Have you ever eaten grass? It's terrible. It's the worst kind of green I'd want to eat.

 

[Extra Sauce]

Can you imagine the amount of additional methane if 7 billion humans ate only grass?

 

[Kraftwerk]

Have you ever eaten grass? It's terrible. It's the worst kind of green I'd want to eat.

I was hiking with some friends a year or two ago. We took a break to eat in a really beautiful spot. We had food, some beers and then smoked some weed.

I was laying on the ground, and for some reason I started chewing on the grass around me. I'm pretty sure my friend still has that video of me.

It wasn't horrible at that moment, but I specifically remember that my shit the next day was unusual and took a long time to come out.

 

[y2dvd]

Yeah but why didn't the grass evolve to eat us doe?

 

[Burbank_]

Dem glutes.

Do you even squat bro?

Custom paint job?

 

[QuicheFontaine]

No he can't

Eh? The first sentence of that article:

In principle, people can eat grass; it is non-toxic and edible.

So...he can!

 

[CornBurrito]

I'm going to guess that at some point in our evolution, we realized that it was easier to obtain energy from eating other animals rather than just plants and fruits, and we evolved towards the omnivore route.

And I'm getting the vibe that plant eating animals are dumb - I would disagree since Elephants are one of the most intelligent animals on the planet.

This isn't how evolution works. You don't get an animal consciously deciding how to evolve.

 

[GungHo]

This isn't how evolution works. You don't get an animal consciously deciding how to evolve.

I just made myself a tetrachromat two weeks ago.

 

[CornBurrito]

I just made myself a tetrachromat two weeks ago.

Octachromat here. Get on my level

 

[Muppet of a Man]

No need to eat grass when we can just eat things that eat grass.

I like my macro and micro nutrients aggregated, thank you very much.

Seriously though, we evolved from primate ancestors that were already relatively high on the food chain.

 

[happypup]

This isn't how evolution works. You don't get an animal consciously deciding how to evolve.

No they don't, but changes in behavior, specifically when dealing with high competition, or unexploited resources will setup new evolutionary pressures that cause adaptations that reinforce those behaviors. So before you can become a specialist plant eater, for example, you first have to start eating some plants.

If you are interested check out 40 Years of Evolution by Peter and Rosemary Grant. In it there is a story of a drought. During the drought a seed eating Galapagos bird that primarily fed on small seeds from a particular plant lost that food source. They began eating seeds that were larger. Within only a few generations the average beak size of the bird grew. The behavior preceded the evolution. Of course the small seeds came back and the beak sizes returned to a more standard size after those few generations.

In some ways an animal has control over their evolution, many animals can adopt new food gathering, or mate getting strategies through learned behaviors, these then will cause evolution to select for the traits that benefit that new behavior.

 

[Seanspeed]

Since when can we not eat grass? :/

 

[Christberg]

Deal is, the juxtaposition between us being physically weaker than most animals but on the top of the food chain contains a significant portion of us being predatory.

Humans are good at:
Being smart
Running really long distances

Beyond that, we pretty much suck. The evolutionary timeline for us to get a digestive tract suited for savannah herbivorous diet is far longer than the one for us to become highly intelligent predators. And the end result of us being herbivorous doesn't lend itself to high intelligence in most cases.

 

[Skeyser]

Well for one it tastes like shit.

 

[braves01]

We evolved to smoke it

#420 #smokeweederryday

Lol

 

[Afrodium]

Because evolution doesn't mean that the traits that are most convenient get adapted, it means that the ones that get you laid get passed on. It just so happens that more useful traits often make a mate more attractive to the opposite sex.

The cavemen who were hunting their food were getting more pussy than the ones chomping on grass all day like fucking cattle. It's that simple.

 

[CornBurrito]

No they don't, but changes in behavior, specifically when dealing with high competition, or unexploited resources will setup new evolutionary pressures that cause adaptations that reinforce those behaviors. So before you can become a specialist plant eater, for example, you first have to start eating some plants.

If you are interested check out 40 Years of Evolution by Peter and Rosemary Grant. In it there is a story of a drought. During the drought a seed eating Galapagos bird that primarily fed on small seeds from a particular plant lost that food source. They began eating seeds that were larger. Within only a few generations the average beak size of the bird grew. The behavior preceded the evolution. Of course the small seeds came back and the beak sizes returned to a more standard size after those few generations.

In some ways an animal has control over their evolution, many animals can adopt new food gathering, or mate getting strategies through learned behaviors, these then will cause evolution to select for the traits that benefit that new behavior.

Yes, but I think it is better if we avoid words and phrases that suggest animals consciously choose the path they evolve in.

Because evolution doesn't mean that the traits that are most convenient get adapted, it means that the ones that get you laid get passed on. It just so happens that more useful traits often make a mate more attractive to the opposite sex.

The cavemen who were hunting their food were getting more pussy than the ones chomping on grass all day like fucking cattle. It's that simple.

You also have to live long enough to pass off your genes, so sexual selection and sometimes cause members of a species to develop traits that otherwise harm their ability to survive.

 

[Brakke]

Every single time I see this thread title I sigh with frustration.

Any question involving evolution and "why not" is answered thoroughly with "because it didn't".

 

[kswiston]

I am pretty sure eating meat is the main reason we have higher brain function compared to other apes.

Chimps eat meat as well (and socially hunt for it). It's not just a human thing.

 

[Aeriscloud]

We eat lots of other greens and grass is so plentiful it seems like an obvious food source.

If you want some just go eat some.

 

[akira28]

We can eat grass, it just usually doesn't do shit for us. We didn't evolve to gain major nutrition from grass because we ate the other animals which give us even more nutrition. We just have to come to terms with it.

We evolved to eat the things that evolved to eat grass.

 

[hiryu]

We eat lots of other greens and grass is so plentiful it seems like an obvious food source.

Because our brain uses healthy fats as fuel. None of that exist in grass.

 

[Shabutaro]

No they don't, but changes in behavior, specifically when dealing with high competition, or unexploited resources will setup new evolutionary pressures that cause adaptations that reinforce those behaviors. So before you can become a specialist plant eater, for example, you first have to start eating some plants.

If you are interested check out 40 Years of Evolution by Peter and Rosemary Grant. In it there is a story of a drought. During the drought a seed eating Galapagos bird that primarily fed on small seeds from a particular plant lost that food source. They began eating seeds that were larger. Within only a few generations the average beak size of the bird grew. The behavior preceded the evolution. Of course the small seeds came back and the beak sizes returned to a more standard size after those few generations.

In some ways an animal has control over their evolution, many animals can adopt new food gathering, or mate getting strategies through learned behaviors, these then will cause evolution to select for the traits that benefit that new behavior.

I think that in itself is assigning a little too much in regards to evolution. Animals arent really in control of their evolution. It just happens. The scenario describing the Galapagos bird is kind of backwards. Its not that the birds decided to eat larger seeds and then got larger beaks, its more so that the birds with larger beaks had the advantage in consuming the more available large seeds as opposed to the smaller beaked birds. The population's average beak size then shifted to represent the more present larger beaked birds that were able to successfully eat and reproduce while the smaller beaked birds became more rare, because they were selected against. When the seed population returned to normal, there was no longer any directional selection occurring, so whatever positive effect associated with having a larger beak was no longer strong enough to out compete the smaller beaked members of the population.So its not really behavior that determines the evolution in this case, just the fact that there happened to be birds in the population with genes for larger beaks, that had a selective advantage over smaller beaked birds thus driving the evolution.

I think I also disagree with learned behaviors. Only behaviors that are genetically linked can really lead to evolution. The new behaviors are genetically linked, in the sense that there was a new mutation that allows for a new method for selecting a mate that is reliable, or there is better depth perception or senses for gathering food. If a bird learns that it can gather food a certain way, its not like its off spring will know how inherently unless its linked to some genetic capacity to learn or ability it can be born with.

 

[robochimp]

Every single time I see this thread title I sigh with frustration.

Any question involving evolution and "why not" is answered thoroughly with "because it didn't".

That's the answer.

A grass eating ancestor would spend all day having to eat grass just to live. Now throw in being out in the open eating grass and something is likely to eat you.

Next they need to produce offspring and they need even more energy. Grass isn't going to take them very far.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

so how do big animals like Elephants and Buffalo live off of it?

 

[happypup]

I think that in itself is assigning a little too much in regards to evolution. Animals arent really in control of their evolution. It just happens. The scenario describing the Galapagos bird is kind of backwards. Its not that the birds decided to eat larger seeds and then got larger beaks, its more so that the birds with larger beaks had the advantage in consuming the more available large seeds as opposed to the smaller beaked birds. The population's average beak size then shifted to represent the more present larger beaked birds that were able to successfully eat and reproduce while the smaller beaked birds became more rare, because they were selected against. When the seed population returned to normal, there was no longer any directional selection occurring, so whatever positive effect associated with having a larger beak was no longer strong enough to out compete the smaller beaked members of the population.So its not really behavior that determines the evolution in this case, just the fact that there happened to be birds in the population with genes for larger beaks, that had a selective advantage over smaller beaked birds thus driving the evolution.

I think I also disagree with learned behaviors. Only behaviors that are genetically linked can really lead to evolution. The new behaviors are genetically linked, in the sense that there was a new mutation that allows for a new method for selecting a mate that is reliable, or there is better depth perception or senses for gathering food. If a bird learns that it can gather food a certain way, its not like its off spring will know how inherently unless its linked to some genetic capacity to learn or ability it can be born with.

learned behaviors are generational. They go through a cultural evolutionary process not unlike the biological kind. My point, which still stands, is that modifications in behavior alter the evolutionary pressures which then direct evolution. Not all behaviors are acquired through evolution but a change in any behavior will likely cause the selective pressures to change as well.

Take for example an unusual fairly recent change in Capuchin monkeys. A small tribe has begun hitting clams on rocks repeatedly to get at the yummy clam meat. This behavior is a learned one that can take years to master, and it is spreading to other groups. This change in behavior has altered the Capuchin's realized niche, and as such the evolutionary forces being applied to the organism. Natural selection will now favor traits that help the Capuchin benefit from this behavior, where it would not without it. In a very real way these Capuchin have changed their evolutionary path.

With the birds, yes there were outliers in beak size among the population pre-drought, and it was from this variation that that feature were being selected out of, but again that they were being favorably selected was due to a change in behavior among the entire population. Those with smaller beaks were not as successful in utilizing the new food source and so those with larger beaks survived, but that selective pressure would not have manifested without the need to change their behavior.

 

[akira28]

so how do big animals like Elephants and Buffalo live off of it?

they eat tons of it, as well as tons of everything else.

 

[Mrs. Manky]

Because the bible would be a lot less interesting if they sacrificed dandelions instead of lambs.

Actually, there was a vegetable sacrifice. In Genesis. By Caine. And if you know the story, you know what happened.

 

[felipeko]

Why is not a good question, because it assumes purpose. Evolution has no purpose, it is mutation that just happens naturally, and sometimes it works because of the environment.

 

[Stet]

so how do big animals like Elephants and Buffalo live off of it?

It's like you've never heard of peanuts

 

[Shabutaro]

learned behaviors are generational. They go through a cultural evolutionary process not unlike the biological kind. My point, which still stands, is that modifications in behavior alter the evolutionary pressures which then direct evolution. Not all behaviors are acquired through evolution but a change in any behavior will likely cause the selective pressures to change as well.

Take for example an unusual fairly recent change in Capuchin monkeys. A small tribe has begun hitting clams on rocks repeatedly to get at the yummy clam meat. This behavior is a learned one that can take years to master, and it is spreading to other groups. This change in behavior has altered the Capuchin's realized niche, and as such the evolutionary forces being applied to the organism. Natural selection will now favor traits that help the Capuchin benefit from this behavior, where it would not without it. In a very real way these Capuchin have changed their evolutionary path.

With the birds, yes there were outliers in beak size among the population pre-drought, and it was from this variation that that feature were being selected out of, but again that they were being favorably selected was due to a change in behavior among the entire population. Those with smaller beaks were not as successful in utilizing the new food source and so those with larger beaks survived, but that selective pressure would not have manifested without the need to change their behavior.

From my understanding of evolution, (and im always willing to learn) All changes in a population must be genetic and heritable. I agree that learned behaviors can change a population, but I think its important to look at the genetic basis behind it. The passing of the clam eating technique is also dependent on the genetically determined cognitive, communication and tool utilizing abilities of the species. If they lacked those genetic elements, the fact that one Capuchin learned how to use tools would not have swept across the population. However ,because as a whole, the species ( I believe at least) is capable of this type of information sharing, and learning, the fact that one group stumbled across this info, perhaps do to a more intelligent Capuchin or happenstance, they are able to change the population as a whole, extending their niche. If the other members of the species lack the physical (therefore genetic) capacity to learn this ability then it wouldn't really be passed on.




But it wasn't the change in behavior that caused the change. I mean literally I suppose, because there was no smaller seeds so now they had to literally attempt to eat the larger seeds. But I think to call this a behavioral change is too broad. Its the lack of seed availability and it was the presence of genetic variation that serve as the factors that drive evolution in this case. Without the variation, it wouldn't have mattered if they changed behavior, the population would have died out. I still hesitate to call the changing behavior specifically the leading force in the population change. The birds had to eat something. They ate the only available post drought food source. The change in seed population drove change. You stated that the selective pressure would not have manifested without the need to change behavior, however I would say that the inverse is more accurate. The need to change behavior was due to the selective pressure of the change in available resources. I don't really think this example counts as a change in behavior exactly though. Its very similar to different example of evolution. If a predator evolves faster speed, so does the prey. If the prey has a stronger shell the predator has stronger teeth. I would hesitate to call any of these behavioral changes as well. I consider this an extremely fast version of a similar evolution. The smaller seeds very quickly changed into a larger seed population, and in turn the bird population changed quickly in response. I'm familiar with the premise of the study but not the exact points. were the seeds the same species, but only the larger seeds survived the drought? because if so, it wasn't a change in behavior, they just literally had to eat the larger seeds. And only the larger beaked birds were capable of doing so effectively.


Hmm, i hope that makes sense, rereading it it sounds kind of redundant and not clear, so if its weird I apologize! I wasn't sure how to fix it (sigh)

 

[dabig2]

Because we evolved to be alpha as fuck and grass is beneath our stature. Cows eat grass. We eat the cows. It's the circle of life.

 

[Mario]

Evolution is half complete as a theory.

The theory of evolution is one of the most detailed, well understood and well supported theories in all of science.

It is far more "complete" than, say, the theory of gravity.

 

[Asbel]

so how do big animals like Elephants and Buffalo live off of it?

They have specialized bacteria in their digestive track able to break down grass into a fuel their body can use. Humans do not have these bacteria.

[me being wrong about lactose intolerance] Similarly, a non-lactose intolerant person has a different specialized bacteria in their digestive track that would break down dairy into a fuel their body can use. Lactose intolerant people are missing this specialized bacteria.

 

[JordanN]

Evolution is based on natural selection.

Humans wouldn't evolve to eat grass. There would already be humans with a mutation that allowed them to digest grass. Unless eating grass was critical to human survival, there would be no reason the grass eating hominid would exist or dominate.

 

[Spinluck]

Can you imagine the amount of additional methane if 7 billion humans ate only grass?

Methane gwass.

I'll be here all night folks.

 

[Lesath]

They have specialized bacteria in their digestive track able to break down grass into a fuel their body can use. Humans do not have these bacteria.

Similarly, a non-lactose intolerant person has a different specialized bacteria in their digestive track that would break down dairy into a fuel their body can use. Lactose intolerant people are missing this specialized bacteria.

Actually, the lactose intolerant simply lose their ability to produce lactase in adulthood. Since all that sugar is just sitting there, our gut bacteria give it a go, which results in er...metabolic byproducts.

 

[crazy monkey]

we need wings.

 

[B.K.]

Watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vee4HUvi5GQ

 

[entremet]

Deal is, the juxtaposition between us being physically weaker than most animals but on the top of the food chain contains a significant portion of us being predatory.

Humans are good at:
Being smart
Running really long distances

Beyond that, we pretty much suck. The evolutionary timeline for us to get a digestive tract suited for savannah herbivorous diet is far longer than the one for us to become highly intelligent predators. And the end result of us being herbivorous doesn't lend itself to high intelligence in most cases.

Way too underestimate Homo sapiens. We're the greatest of the great apes and the apex predator. The human brain is an evolutionary marvel.

 

[rokkerkory]

We eat lots of other greens and grass is so plentiful it seems like an obvious food source.

Dood cuz of proteins from MEATS

 

[mantidor]

so how do big animals like Elephants and Buffalo live off of it?

Elephants don't eat grass.

Buffalo are just wolly cows. They eat and eat and roam.

 

[nephilimdj]

nom nom nom

from earlier this year: http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/SA-pastor-under-fire-over-grass-eating-followers-20140113

 

[mantidor]

OP question is kind of funny the more I think about it, why don't we then evolved to eat air? nitrogen? is plentifully abundant, far more than grass. But chemistry doesn't work that way.

Living organisms need an energy source, it's not just about consuming whats there and the rest happens by magic.

 

[ElFly]

Way too underestimate Homo sapiens. We're the greatest of the great apes and the apex predator. The human brain is an evolutionary marvel.

I have a graphic here from a documentary I was watching the other day

 

[Asbel]

Actually, the lactose intolerant simply lose their ability to produce lactase in adulthood. Since all that sugar is just sitting there, our gut bacteria give it a go, which results in er...metabolic byproducts.

You're right and I understood it wrong. There are bacteria that can produce lactase in food like yogurt so that anyone can consume said food but, as you said, bacteria is not the reason for humans having lactase.

 

[Mineshaft_Gap]

I wrote a research paper on this topic my freshman year in college.

Since the dawn of man, we humans have roamed the surface of the earth in search of num-nums. From our ape ancestors to our present day ape-selves, the quest to stuff our faces with objets d'elicious has been paramount to our species existence. As members of the exclusive tribe Hominini, we have inherited an omnivorous diet which allows us to eat… well… pretty much anything we want. Unless it’s crawling with insects, and even then that doesn’t stop some people. I digress. My point is that we humans have the privilege of being able to eat just about anything we god damn please so long as it won’t poison us.

Have you ever tried to feed a cat a turnip? They won’t touch that shit. That’s because they’re carnivores. Ever try feeding a horse a ham and cheese sandwich? Again, they’ll look at you like you’re an asshole. That’s because those fuckers only eat vegetables. That cuz dey Herbivores. We’re omnivores. That’s like a sort of digestive bisexuality. If you can think of a thing chances are that once upon a time a person has tried to eat that thing, to varying degrees of success. Contrary to what you might think, our willingness to put seemingly anything we find on the ground into our mouths is a trait commonly shared by our planets more intelligent creatures. Corvidae, great apes, pigs, etc. That kid you remember from kindergarten? The one who would always eat his paste? He turned out to be Stephen Hawking.

I went on to point out famines on the African continent where they have a ton of grass. Ultimately, my research question was "why don't starving people just eat leaves and grass?"

I interviewed a biological anthropologist as part of my research for this dumb writing assignment and he didn't think it was funny.

 

[happypup]

From my understanding of evolution, (and im always willing to learn) All changes in a population must be genetic and heritable. I agree that learned behaviors can change a population, but I think its important to look at the genetic basis behind it. The passing of the clam eating technique is also dependent on the genetically determined cognitive, communication and tool utilizing abilities of the species. If they lacked those genetic elements, the fact that one Capuchin learned how to use tools would not have swept across the population. However ,because as a whole, the species ( I believe at least) is capable of this type of information sharing, and learning, the fact that one group stumbled across this info, perhaps do to a more intelligent Capuchin or happenstance, they are able to change the population as a whole, extending their niche. If the other members of the species lack the physical (therefore genetic) capacity to learn this ability then it wouldn't really be passed on.




But it wasn't the change in behavior that caused the change. I mean literally I suppose, because there was no smaller seeds so now they had to literally attempt to eat the larger seeds. But I think to call this a behavioral change is too broad. Its the lack of seed availability and it was the presence of genetic variation that serve as the factors that drive evolution in this case. Without the variation, it wouldn't have mattered if they changed behavior, the population would have died out. I still hesitate to call the changing behavior specifically the leading force in the population change. The birds had to eat something. They ate the only available post drought food source. The change in seed population drove change. You stated that the selective pressure would not have manifested without the need to change behavior, however I would say that the inverse is more accurate. The need to change behavior was due to the selective pressure of the change in available resources. I don't really think this example counts as a change in behavior exactly though. Its very similar to different example of evolution. If a predator evolves faster speed, so does the prey. If the prey has a stronger shell the predator has stronger teeth. I would hesitate to call any of these behavioral changes as well. I consider this an extremely fast version of a similar evolution. The smaller seeds very quickly changed into a larger seed population, and in turn the bird population changed quickly in response. I'm familiar with the premise of the study but not the exact points. were the seeds the same species, but only the larger seeds survived the drought? because if so, it wasn't a change in behavior, they just literally had to eat the larger seeds. And only the larger beaked birds were capable of doing so effectively.


Hmm, i hope that makes sense, rereading it it sounds kind of redundant and not clear, so if its weird I apologize! I wasn't sure how to fix it (sigh)

It was different seeds from a different plant. The birds really didn't have a choice, they were hungry and the seeds they relied on were gone so they began eating seeds that were not on the regular menu. However it was a change in behavior, and had it not been that change, but a different one, perhaps eating insects or small lizards then the evolutionary change would have been different.

As to the Capuchin's I am not talking about the evolutionary path that allowed them the ability to change their behavior, but on the evolution that in occupying a new niche they will inevitably experience.

In evolution we like to call these precursors like the ability to share their knowledge in Capuchin's an exadaptation. They had features formed by evolution for a different purpose than the one that they are currently using it for, This allowed them to make the behavioral change that alters their niche, which alters the selective pressures, which then directs their evolution.

Let's go back to the earliest land vertebrates, They had some great exadaptations, first they had looping intestines instead of spiral ones. Two strategies to increase the surface area in the nutrient gathering small intestine exist, one to create ridges inside the intestine, eventually making a spiral, the other is to make it longer and have it loop around inside. The first poses a problem on land, specifically gravity is now pushing the foodstuffs down, but the intestine can only squeeze like a tub of toothpaste. The foodstuff/almost waste would have difficulty getting through the spiral on land, where it did not have that difficulty while suspended in a material that shares the same density (approximately) as the organism. The looping though that works just fine. Next these pre amphibians had simple lungs, being in warm still water means the water is oxygen poor, air gulping (a fairly common strategy among fish) is better served if you can take some of that air down with you. Any living cell will diffuse oxygen, so increasing blood flow to a sac that is being used to hold air will oxygenate the blood. Vasal constriction and dilation can then cause the blood flow to increase when needed to these new lungs and then through the body. These things evolved for a different purpose, but in a pinch they can allow for a puddle hopping behavior. If that behavior starts showing up then other features, like a wrist, or a neck, or a structural connection between the illium and the backbone can be selected for.

So exadaptations allow for a behavior change, the behavior change occurs, selective pressures for new features that aid in that new behavior emerge, and Natural Selection goes to work. Many of these behavior changes could be a result of genes, but they don't have to be for the niche to change.

 

[endresults]

We evolved to smoke it

#420 #smokeweederryday

hhhehehe

If evolution wanted us to eat only grass it wouldn't have made us tree-swinging bipeds with no chance to compete against the fast-ass deer-like animals. Or maybe it would, who knows.