-5

votes

Why dont you wanna participate in Evolution?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created April 21, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Evolution means adapting to the environment. If you don't eat the grains and standard foods your offspring will be less evolved and less suited for the current environment we live in.

E7adfe31507efb7c935f618a829f56d6

(1507)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:05 PM

loving the computer science analogy.

Ef228708abd5f082f633b1cd1d64eee1

(892)

on April 22, 2012
at 05:06 AM

Maybe he meant "evolution" the way they use the term in Pokemon. Grokgrok, I choose you!

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 09:46 PM

Aw Shari this is water cooler stuff...small talk while the osso bucco was cooking in the oven and Siegfried was on the Met broadcast. That's about as paleo as opera gets.

9ba98ff40c0c4045be98682fa3e4d819

(141)

on April 21, 2012
at 09:24 PM

The domestication of humans into herd-like and flock-like behavior accompanied the development of these new domesticated grain feed stocks which now could be fed to the slaves/serfs of the human "herd" by the priest class and nobility, since the upper classes had priority (and sometimes exclusive) access to good healthy sources of nutrition and lots of animal protein. Meanwhile the domesticated "masses" could be fed in the same manner as cattle, sheep and goats with ground up grasses.

9ba98ff40c0c4045be98682fa3e4d819

(141)

on April 21, 2012
at 09:20 PM

Notice how the first letter of "Evolution" was capitalized to indicate its status as an official religion or ideology, rather than a science. Much of what I observe about human "nature" in this society shows evidence of devolution rather than evolution. Especially the documented ascendancy of sociopaths in the major institutions of government, business, media and academia. But that's a subject for another thread perhaps ?

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on April 21, 2012
at 08:25 PM

It's frustrating to see people waste their time and energy on trolls. We're so trigger happy around here, lol.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on April 21, 2012
at 08:25 PM

Feel free to vote to close this if you think it's not a real question or argumentative or spam or whatever. Need two more votes and its a done deal.

Ba09704971e33481f5716c4790648966

(1794)

on April 21, 2012
at 07:25 PM

Interesting. I would agree on grain consumption, it isn't just grains, there is more to it than that nor do I think it's just dairy. I think diet does; however, play a large part in inflammation and that inflammation is not always outright but that does not mean it isn't there. My Grandfather was very active, and ate moderately but quite enjoyed his ice cream after dinner, but developed Alzheimer's later in life. As this isn't necessarily a genetic disease, I see an explanation in the paleo movement. Perhaps I only hope that diet plays a role in order to save my own father from the same fate.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 06:49 PM

Chris I argue environmental causes for all those: overeating for what we do. Further I cannot see why this is suddenly, in this generation exclusively, caused by grain consumption. Nor can I see how it has any relevance on the next 500 generations, because I don't think it's sustainable. It's an aberration of overabundant food, limited to today's affluent cultures.

C4f1a0c70c4e0dea507c2e346c036bbd

on April 21, 2012
at 06:46 PM

Its a troll question because its his first question. Its also not really a question since its proceeded by a lecture about how we won't evolve if we don't eat bread. If I eat bread will I grow gills or wings?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 06:36 PM

When domestication occurred I'll posit that it was done in Msybe 50 human generations. Breeding for trait is what you read about in Origin of Species. No time or effort is spared in getting fast racehorses or good hunting dogs, and the same thing applied in creating the agricultural grains and animals we have today. I believe that human selection was no less rigorous. Paleo humans longer exist, though we are genetically similar.

80890193d74240cab6dda920665bfb6c

(1528)

on April 21, 2012
at 06:29 PM

Dude, Chris is correct. In particular, women's fertility is highly affected by diet - the ovaries have leptin receptors, so leptin resistant lowers fertility and egg quality. Also, obese pregnant women with poor diets often get gestational diabetes, which affects the growth of their children epigenetically. Moms having GD often get T2D later, and their kids are determined towards obesity from infancy on. (http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/22/8/1284.short) Since GD was often undiagnosed, it's probably behind much childhood obesity now.

Ba09704971e33481f5716c4790648966

(1794)

on April 21, 2012
at 06:05 PM

Can I hear your thoughts on possible explanations of the rising occurrences of disease? Diabetes, Alzheimer's, Obesity, you pick.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 06:00 PM

I've said several times that I don't believe that diet matters but I'm all ears if you have some studies that show that eating a paleo diet would make a significant difference. Surviving on a near-starvation diet might matter positively if you're a male (or negatively if not) and I'm sure our ancestors were familiar with that.

5e36f73c3f95eb4ea13a009f4936449f

(8280)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:59 PM

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:54 PM

The ironic thing is : if I eat lots of bread my libido disappears. Not very handy evolutionary-wise huh?

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:53 PM

What question does it raise? I don't think the question should be deleted, but *If you don't eat the grains and standard foods your offspring will be less evolved and less suited for the current environment we live in.* is pretty weird stuff.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:40 PM

yuppity yup. Not to mention that you couldn't in this way.

Ba09704971e33481f5716c4790648966

(1794)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:40 PM

Or maybe I have been confused all along, and you were the first to point that out.

Ba09704971e33481f5716c4790648966

(1794)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:40 PM

Does diet not affect epigenetics? Why would watching TV or playing golf affect epigenetics? Are you saying diet does not matter? Now I am the one who is confused.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:34 PM

How can I disagree with epigenetics @Chris? I'm just a little hazy on why eating (or not eating) a paleo diet would positively imprint the next generation any more than watching TV or playing golf.

Ba09704971e33481f5716c4790648966

(1794)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:30 PM

You're right. Most of what I say, I have no idea what I'm talking about. Carry on.

Fe6e37f8d4c49de1ecbc926c8900cd54

(1902)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:27 PM

I disagree with your claim that there is no selection pressure re: grains. Grains have become a staple of the human diet. Because they have deleterious effects on health, there is indeed a pressure to be able to tolerate them *if you eat grains* because people who do have slightly better tolerance will produce more viable offspring than others. However, it would be correct to say that as the number of people who eat grains declines, the selection pressure to tolerate them would become weaker.

345c1755efe005edd162b770dc6fb821

(8767)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:24 PM

interesting, made me think about the fact that out of 6 siblings of mine, 3 after 40 started having major food allergies/intolerance, some more severe than others (me more immflamation, sister anafalactic, brother more lactose issues)...one of the later siblings (20 year age difference) had TONS of allergies/astma at an early age, he's under 40 so yet to see if he developes more issues...

Fe6e37f8d4c49de1ecbc926c8900cd54

(1902)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:20 PM

+1 because ignorance of the evolutionary process isn't a crime. The question raises a valid discussion of how selection works.

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:17 PM

Because I only care about me.

Ba09704971e33481f5716c4790648966

(1794)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:15 PM

Do you not believe in epigenetics?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:13 PM

Do you like Flaubert too?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:09 PM

Cheap food for the masses and keep it coming!

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:04 PM

Because...it.just.doesn't.matter...

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:02 PM

Not exactly beside the point @Chris. What is the expected effect of your eugenic experiment on your children? Your argument is the same as the OP's, except that he predicts a dysgenic result. I predict null effect for both of you. Your diet will have an insignificant effect on your ability to procreate.

Ba09704971e33481f5716c4790648966

(1794)

on April 21, 2012
at 04:31 PM

By mitigating inflammation through diet and adaptive exercise, I will pass on favorable genes to my children. Whether that is to say they will have celiac or lactose intolerance is completely besides the point. Nutrition and a healthy lifestyle lead to better genetic expression improving my chances of procreation and survival.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 04:25 PM

And so by eating paleo your children will be celiac and lactose intolerant? References please.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 04:21 PM

But like violet says, there's some misunderstanding. Human adaptation doesn't happen in one generation, and human selection is affected by much stronger pressures than diet tweaks. War, famine and disease for starters. Eat paleo for your health, yes. Eat paleo to affect evolution, no.

Ba09704971e33481f5716c4790648966

(1794)

on April 21, 2012
at 04:16 PM

Yes dear, that is what epigenetics is. How you express your genes here and now. I still have 8/10 of my life to go, thanks.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 04:12 PM

500+ generations of grain eating and you think eating paleo for 1/10 of your lifetime is going to affect epigenetics?

3b0b95dfc6dc5c18e535945f4aab0866

(2392)

on April 21, 2012
at 04:12 PM

Its a valid question, don't downvote him. I spent 1000+ hours studying paleo blogs, research articles, etc over the past year and am sold on Paleo. I pondered the exact same question.

C4f1a0c70c4e0dea507c2e346c036bbd

on April 21, 2012
at 03:58 PM

First post and another troll.

E68bdbd83e45fd5be130e393ace9c9a9

(2063)

on April 21, 2012
at 03:53 PM

I'm not sure you understand how evolution works

Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

13 Answers

14
E7adfe31507efb7c935f618a829f56d6

on April 21, 2012
at 05:01 PM

maybe if i eat enough poison, my children will be immortal.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:13 PM

Do you like Flaubert too?

8
Ba09704971e33481f5716c4790648966

(1794)

on April 21, 2012
at 03:57 PM

We can't adapt to neolithic foods, such as grains and "standard foods" because there is no evolutionary pressure to do so.

By avoiding things we are not adapted too, we are improving our epigenetics. This will ensure that we pass a favorable gene profile to our children and provide them with the optimal nutrition in order for them to grow and survive. The cycle will continue with their generation. They will prosper.

You on the other hand, through eating grains and other neolithic foods, will develop a wide variety of nutritional deficiencies. Your deficiencies in nutrition will lead to a poor gene profile and one mostly likely lead to mating with another who is your equal. This will inevitably lead to children with the same deficiencies as you and your mate and your line will eventually die out.

Survival of the fittest.

80890193d74240cab6dda920665bfb6c

(1528)

on April 21, 2012
at 06:29 PM

Dude, Chris is correct. In particular, women's fertility is highly affected by diet - the ovaries have leptin receptors, so leptin resistant lowers fertility and egg quality. Also, obese pregnant women with poor diets often get gestational diabetes, which affects the growth of their children epigenetically. Moms having GD often get T2D later, and their kids are determined towards obesity from infancy on. (http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/22/8/1284.short) Since GD was often undiagnosed, it's probably behind much childhood obesity now.

Ba09704971e33481f5716c4790648966

(1794)

on April 21, 2012
at 04:16 PM

Yes dear, that is what epigenetics is. How you express your genes here and now. I still have 8/10 of my life to go, thanks.

Ba09704971e33481f5716c4790648966

(1794)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:30 PM

You're right. Most of what I say, I have no idea what I'm talking about. Carry on.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 04:25 PM

And so by eating paleo your children will be celiac and lactose intolerant? References please.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:02 PM

Not exactly beside the point @Chris. What is the expected effect of your eugenic experiment on your children? Your argument is the same as the OP's, except that he predicts a dysgenic result. I predict null effect for both of you. Your diet will have an insignificant effect on your ability to procreate.

Ba09704971e33481f5716c4790648966

(1794)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:40 PM

Or maybe I have been confused all along, and you were the first to point that out.

Fe6e37f8d4c49de1ecbc926c8900cd54

(1902)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:27 PM

I disagree with your claim that there is no selection pressure re: grains. Grains have become a staple of the human diet. Because they have deleterious effects on health, there is indeed a pressure to be able to tolerate them *if you eat grains* because people who do have slightly better tolerance will produce more viable offspring than others. However, it would be correct to say that as the number of people who eat grains declines, the selection pressure to tolerate them would become weaker.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 04:12 PM

500+ generations of grain eating and you think eating paleo for 1/10 of your lifetime is going to affect epigenetics?

Ba09704971e33481f5716c4790648966

(1794)

on April 21, 2012
at 06:05 PM

Can I hear your thoughts on possible explanations of the rising occurrences of disease? Diabetes, Alzheimer's, Obesity, you pick.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:34 PM

How can I disagree with epigenetics @Chris? I'm just a little hazy on why eating (or not eating) a paleo diet would positively imprint the next generation any more than watching TV or playing golf.

Ba09704971e33481f5716c4790648966

(1794)

on April 21, 2012
at 07:25 PM

Interesting. I would agree on grain consumption, it isn't just grains, there is more to it than that nor do I think it's just dairy. I think diet does; however, play a large part in inflammation and that inflammation is not always outright but that does not mean it isn't there. My Grandfather was very active, and ate moderately but quite enjoyed his ice cream after dinner, but developed Alzheimer's later in life. As this isn't necessarily a genetic disease, I see an explanation in the paleo movement. Perhaps I only hope that diet plays a role in order to save my own father from the same fate.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 06:00 PM

I've said several times that I don't believe that diet matters but I'm all ears if you have some studies that show that eating a paleo diet would make a significant difference. Surviving on a near-starvation diet might matter positively if you're a male (or negatively if not) and I'm sure our ancestors were familiar with that.

Ba09704971e33481f5716c4790648966

(1794)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:40 PM

Does diet not affect epigenetics? Why would watching TV or playing golf affect epigenetics? Are you saying diet does not matter? Now I am the one who is confused.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 06:49 PM

Chris I argue environmental causes for all those: overeating for what we do. Further I cannot see why this is suddenly, in this generation exclusively, caused by grain consumption. Nor can I see how it has any relevance on the next 500 generations, because I don't think it's sustainable. It's an aberration of overabundant food, limited to today's affluent cultures.

Ba09704971e33481f5716c4790648966

(1794)

on April 21, 2012
at 04:31 PM

By mitigating inflammation through diet and adaptive exercise, I will pass on favorable genes to my children. Whether that is to say they will have celiac or lactose intolerance is completely besides the point. Nutrition and a healthy lifestyle lead to better genetic expression improving my chances of procreation and survival.

Ba09704971e33481f5716c4790648966

(1794)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:15 PM

Do you not believe in epigenetics?

7
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 21, 2012
at 04:53 PM

Why dont you wanna participate in Evolution?

Because I don't care.

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:17 PM

Because I only care about me.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:04 PM

Because...it.just.doesn't.matter...

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:40 PM

yuppity yup. Not to mention that you couldn't in this way.

4
3b0b95dfc6dc5c18e535945f4aab0866

on April 21, 2012
at 04:18 PM

One could say that, grain-fed diets aren't YET strongly selective from an evolutionary standpoint because the health issues for many people didn't become terrible until after successful procreation. However, we do see every year the age at which health problems occuring coming earlier in time, impacting not only capability to successfully procreate, but capability to successfully wean the children. Paleo eating may be the healthiest, but it still is a significant minority against strong forces that are unnatural in influence - government health and food policy combined with large corporate control of food production.

345c1755efe005edd162b770dc6fb821

(8767)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:24 PM

interesting, made me think about the fact that out of 6 siblings of mine, 3 after 40 started having major food allergies/intolerance, some more severe than others (me more immflamation, sister anafalactic, brother more lactose issues)...one of the later siblings (20 year age difference) had TONS of allergies/astma at an early age, he's under 40 so yet to see if he developes more issues...

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:09 PM

Cheap food for the masses and keep it coming!

3
B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:49 PM

I want to participate in evolution, but I wouldn't call the new foods from the last century evolution, unless you're an economist or you like to spend all your time on things other than cooking. Health-wise, I would not say McDonalds is evolution.

We're all for evolution here : as you might have read often, this movement is not about re-enactment. The perspective of re-enactment is just handy when science doesn't have an answer yet. I study computer science, and there is a thing called genetic algorithms, where the process of evolution is used as a basis for computing a solution to a problem. It's not based on logic, but it works great and comes pretty close to artificial intelligence. My point is : science doesn't have an answer for everything, and if it doesn't, evolution is a great second option.

This is why I like Ray Peat so much. The idea of the paleo diet in itself (a la Cordain) is a bit ridiculous in the sense that we live in a totally different world. We can't go back to paleo good timez, so I'd say we need more than just real food to tolerate this stress. I don't think many people here still believe in the lean meats, super-duper-high-veggies diet anymore, especially since the introduction of safe starches etc.

E7adfe31507efb7c935f618a829f56d6

(1507)

on April 29, 2012
at 07:05 PM

loving the computer science analogy.

2
7d01d86c539003eed77cf901bf037412

(1076)

on April 21, 2012
at 08:16 PM

The model you describe -- where children pick things up off their parents because of what their parents do -- is the theory put forward by Lamarck in the 19th century. Unfortunately, research has shown that inheritance doesn't work that way. If I work out and grow big muscles, my children will not inherit big muscles; if I practice the piano they will not be natural pianists. The alternative theory, Darwin's theory, is natural selection of the fittest. In that model, inbuilt traits make it more likely that some will survive in a given environment that other, so over repeated generations selection will change the traits present in a population. Later research on genetics has confirmed that this is (mostly) how inheritance works.

If I already have genes that let me tolerate wheat well, I can only hope that my children get them (maybe my wife doesn't, and the kids will get her copy). And if I don't have those genes, the kids are outta luck. Either way nothing I do will make a difference -- it's about the genes that I have.

The other misconception is that evolution is some sort of force with goals. It isn't. It's just a name for the more or less random changes that you get when organisms reproduce over many generations. Evolution isn't a thing that wants outcomes. I can't help it, and I can't hinder it.

Get yourself over to Wikipedia and read the articles on evolution, Darwin, Lamarck and natural selection.

2
4ec0fe4b4aab327f7efa2dfb06b032ff

(5145)

on April 21, 2012
at 06:05 PM

Wow, congrats to the paleos for giving thoughtful and reasonable responses to the troll and showing way more knowledge about evolution than he did. Too bad he's long gone and won't learn anything from it.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on April 21, 2012
at 08:25 PM

It's frustrating to see people waste their time and energy on trolls. We're so trigger happy around here, lol.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 09:46 PM

Aw Shari this is water cooler stuff...small talk while the osso bucco was cooking in the oven and Siegfried was on the Met broadcast. That's about as paleo as opera gets.

2
Fe6e37f8d4c49de1ecbc926c8900cd54

on April 21, 2012
at 05:06 PM

This is how it would play out in an evolutionary sense:

If a group of individuals eats Food A--a food that in general reduces fitness--the individuals in that group who tolerate Food A a little better will have a better shot at producing viable offspring, and after many generations, the gene pool will be dominated by individuals who do tolerate Food A. But that happens via the death/non-reproduction of all the individuals who do NOT tolerate Food A.

So if you want to eat grains--even though you don't tolerate them well--so that you limit your chance of reproduction and thus help the gene pool to become dominated by grain-toleraters, go right ahead.

But I'm not that altruistic. I'll stay away from grains, and produce grain-intolerant but healthy babies.

1
24fcc21452ebe39c032be6801d6bbadd

(9812)

on April 21, 2012
at 10:00 PM

The evolutionary pressure isn't there- poor diets don't typically kill people until after childbearing age. We aren't doing the human race any favors by eating shit foods.

1
5b5abb28f3cacf4f5a01497f2895d072

(238)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:57 PM

Evolution forces organisms to provide the best answer to the question asked by the environment and factors such as sexual competition, disease and obtaining food. Since the advent of agriculture and settled communities obtaining food, and to an extent sexual competition, ceased to be drivers of human evolution. These questions were now controlled by us, rather than external pressures. Disease is one current driver of human evolution, but medicine works in such a way to ensure that its role is reduced and controlled somewhat. Easting in a certain way does not put us outside of evolution, although our own role in the process is essentially negligible. We can't change our own genes and those we can pass on are limited in part by our own genetics. Agriculture has caused massive social changes but it has only been in existence for 10,000 years. That's 300ish generations. And we're part of a species that is possibly as young as 1200-1500 generations.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 06:36 PM

When domestication occurred I'll posit that it was done in Msybe 50 human generations. Breeding for trait is what you read about in Origin of Species. No time or effort is spared in getting fast racehorses or good hunting dogs, and the same thing applied in creating the agricultural grains and animals we have today. I believe that human selection was no less rigorous. Paleo humans longer exist, though we are genetically similar.

9ba98ff40c0c4045be98682fa3e4d819

(141)

on April 21, 2012
at 09:24 PM

The domestication of humans into herd-like and flock-like behavior accompanied the development of these new domesticated grain feed stocks which now could be fed to the slaves/serfs of the human "herd" by the priest class and nobility, since the upper classes had priority (and sometimes exclusive) access to good healthy sources of nutrition and lots of animal protein. Meanwhile the domesticated "masses" could be fed in the same manner as cattle, sheep and goats with ground up grasses.

0
Af3e3615beba642bcafd0f21d64d74f7

on April 21, 2012
at 08:09 PM

To participate in sports, you don't necessarily have to play Golf. You have your sport, we have ours.

0
782d92f4127823bdfb2ddfcbcf961d0e

on April 21, 2012
at 05:33 PM

I'm waiting until my DNA spontaneously mutates.

0
Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 21, 2012
at 04:09 PM

The amylase in our mouths is adaptation at work. Survival of the fittest.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!