Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8943 total)
37 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, GDR, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (6 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 864,070 Year: 19,106/19,786 Month: 1,526/1,705 Week: 332/446 Day: 71/59 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why do apples taste good?
taylor_31
Member (Idle past 4215 days)
Posts: 86
From: Oklahoma!
Joined: 05-14-2007


Message 16 of 41 (402885)
05-30-2007 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Adequate
05-30-2007 10:34 AM


Thanks for your post! You obviously made an effort to explain the answer to my question and I appreciate that. Everybody else has made postive contributions, as well.

In addition, thanks for defending the sincerity of my question.

You are correct in that multitudes of people are deceived by creationist propaganda. Though I asked one of the creationists' favorite talking points, I'm glad that you gave me the benefit of the doubt and gave me a strong and satisfying answer. (Many others did as well, and I appreciate all of their help.)

As a nervous newbie with less than twenty posts, I definitely appreciate your support and offer you my sincere thanks :).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2007 10:34 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 41 (402906)
05-30-2007 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by taylor_31
05-30-2007 1:51 PM


He claims when his body is thirsty, it tells him to drink water. When his body is tired, it tells him to sleep. In addition, when his body is hungry, it tells him to eat. His body doesn't tell him to eat salad; instead, it tells him to eat ice cream or something similar.

That is how he justifies his eating habits.

Right, exactly. It's not a conspiracy of the universe that the foods that are bad for us are the ones that taste the best; the foods that are "bad" for us are actually really great foods that you would want to eat if you knew that they were going to be the last things you might eat for a long time.

It's true that our bodies "tell us" what they want; those sensations are information about your body, like the way pain is. The problem is that our bodies don't know the future. While people living in our society are nearly always guaranteed a next meal, humans evolving on the African steppes most definitely had no such guarantee.

What the body wants is not necessarily what the body should have.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by taylor_31, posted 05-30-2007 1:51 PM taylor_31 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Neutralmind, posted 05-30-2007 5:54 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
tudwell
Member (Idle past 4270 days)
Posts: 172
From: KCMO
Joined: 08-20-2006


Message 18 of 41 (402908)
05-30-2007 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by taylor_31
05-30-2007 2:25 PM


Consider yourself fortunate, because I never learned anything about the mechanics of evolution at my school.

Same here, pretty much. I took biology freshman year (of high school) and didn't learn jack squat about evolution. The only time evolution has ever been mentioned in any of my classes is in psychology, where we spent about half of a class period on evolutionary psychology. We talked about the evolution of the "sweet tooth" (pretty much your OP). If it weren't for my extracurricular studies I would be terribly ignorant about evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by taylor_31, posted 05-30-2007 2:25 PM taylor_31 has not yet responded

    
Neutralmind
Member (Idle past 4415 days)
Posts: 183
From: Finland
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 19 of 41 (402920)
05-30-2007 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
05-30-2007 5:11 PM


While people living in our society are nearly always guaranteed a next meal, humans evolving on the African steppes most definitely had no such guarantee.

So, is it likely, that in later human evolution we will evolve to like vegetables and "healthy" products more?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 05-30-2007 5:11 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2007 7:33 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 05-30-2007 8:14 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 20 of 41 (402935)
05-30-2007 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Neutralmind
05-30-2007 5:54 PM


So, is it likely, that in later human evolution we will evolve to like vegetables and "healthy" products more?

Not necessarily: because alternatively our metabolisms can evolve to adapt to our diet. Indeed, this has already happened: look at how much more lethal a Western diet is to Polynesians than to Europeans. Or consider the geographical distribution of lactose tolerance, or alcohol tolerance. Or think of the fact that Britain has rodents which have adapted to live off discarded hamburgers.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Neutralmind, posted 05-30-2007 5:54 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by taylor_31, posted 05-31-2007 2:39 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 21 of 41 (402943)
05-30-2007 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Neutralmind
05-30-2007 5:54 PM


Neutralmind writes:

So, is it likely, that in later human evolution we will evolve to like vegetables and "healthy" products more?


No. One reason is that there is currently no visible sexual selection against people who don't eat vegetable. If there's no selection against people who don't eat vegetable or a selection for people who do, people who tend to like vegetables and "healthy" products more don't really have an advantage over those woh don't.



We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Neutralmind, posted 05-30-2007 5:54 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4201 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 22 of 41 (402952)
05-30-2007 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Adequate
05-30-2007 10:34 AM


Dr Adequate writes:

I think we can rule out option 2 --- clearly having tasty fruit makes it more likely that the seeds will be eaten.

Not really what taylor was saying. He was saying that perhaps the plant could accidently become tasty by using a defence mechanism that some creatures found quite palatable.

As posted by Coragyps, chilli peppers (and bell peppers especially :)) are yummy to many of us, but evolved that 'yumminess' (which, as you say, isn't inherent in the plant) to protect themselves.


Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2007 10:34 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
taylor_31
Member (Idle past 4215 days)
Posts: 86
From: Oklahoma!
Joined: 05-14-2007


Message 23 of 41 (402970)
05-31-2007 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Adequate
05-30-2007 7:33 PM


Dr Adequate writes:

Not necessarily: because alternatively our metabolisms can evolve to adapt to our diet.

I'm not sure I understand. You're saying that our metabolisms can adapt to our diet, but I thought Western diets were actually worse for our bodies than other cultures (*cough* McDonalds *cough*). Have our metabolisms sped up or something to compensate for the unhealthiness? Have they adapted for survival benefits?

Sorry, I'm having a mental block right now :confused:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2007 7:33 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2007 2:53 AM taylor_31 has responded
 Message 25 by Doddy, posted 05-31-2007 7:32 AM taylor_31 has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-31-2007 10:39 AM taylor_31 has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 41 (402971)
05-31-2007 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by taylor_31
05-31-2007 2:39 AM


You're saying that our metabolisms can adapt to our diet, but I thought Western diets were actually worse for our bodies than other cultures (*cough* McDonalds *cough*).

I think the food police exaggerate a little bit, and c'mon, a hamburger can't be that bad - cows are made out of it, after all, and being made out of cow isn't bad for cows, is it?

Starvation is always worse for your body than food. And there's a population of people in Italy who have evolved a mutation that protects them against heart disease (I think) resulting from high-fat diets.

(Don't make me look up the cite at 2 in the morning, ok? Go use Google Scholar if you're really dying to know.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by taylor_31, posted 05-31-2007 2:39 AM taylor_31 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by taylor_31, posted 05-31-2007 12:07 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Larni, posted 06-05-2007 11:07 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4201 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 25 of 41 (402980)
05-31-2007 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by taylor_31
05-31-2007 2:39 AM


taylor_31 writes:

I'm not sure I understand. You're saying that our metabolisms can adapt to our diet, but I thought Western diets were actually worse for our bodies than other cultures (*cough* McDonalds *cough*). Have our metabolisms sped up or something to compensate for the unhealthiness? Have they adapted for survival benefits?

Well, this is in fact getting away from the topic, but in fact those high fat, high sugar diets would have been great if you were a palaeolithic hunter - you would want all that energy. That's why they taste so good. The main problem is that now we don't have to hunt down our hamburger or trek across the forest for our sugary drink - we just drive through and don't even get up off our seats.


Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by taylor_31, posted 05-31-2007 2:39 AM taylor_31 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 26 of 41 (402999)
05-31-2007 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by taylor_31
05-31-2007 2:39 AM


I'm not sure I understand. You're saying that our metabolisms can adapt to our diet, but I thought Western diets were actually worse for our bodies than other cultures (*cough* McDonalds *cough*). Have our metabolisms sped up or something to compensate for the unhealthiness? Have they adapted for survival benefits?

Sorry, I'm having a mental block right now.

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. When I said that "our" metabolisms can adapt to our diet, I wasn't talking about individuals adapting to the Western diet, but about the European lineage evolving.

When Europeans pursued an unnaturally fatty diet, this tended to kill off those Europeans who were genetically less able to cope with animal fats. This gave a selective advantage to Europeans who could cope with such a diet, and so by natural selection Europeans are better able to tolerate such a diet than, for example, Polynesians. Polynesians have not gone through this evolutionary process, so the result is that if you feed 'em on a Western diet, they get obese and then die of heart disease.

This is not to say that a diet of burgers and chips is healthy --- but people of European stock are much better adapted to such a diet.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by taylor_31, posted 05-31-2007 2:39 AM taylor_31 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by taylor_31, posted 05-31-2007 12:14 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
taylor_31
Member (Idle past 4215 days)
Posts: 86
From: Oklahoma!
Joined: 05-14-2007


Message 27 of 41 (403014)
05-31-2007 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
05-31-2007 2:53 AM


crashfrog writes:

I think the food police exaggerate a little bit, and c'mon, a hamburger can't be that bad - cows are made out of it, after all, and being made out of cow isn't bad for cows, is it?

This is probably off-topic, but it's sort of relevant.

I don't think a hamburger every now and then is bad, but certainly a diet consisting of hamburgers would be bad for you. Then again, I'm guessing that a diet consisting of any one food is bad for you, including "healthy" foods. For example, if I only had fruit all day, then I don't think it's any healthier than eating Twinkies all day.

It's just that with Twinkies, you become fat, while for the fruit, you look good. :p


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2007 2:53 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
taylor_31
Member (Idle past 4215 days)
Posts: 86
From: Oklahoma!
Joined: 05-14-2007


Message 28 of 41 (403015)
05-31-2007 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dr Adequate
05-31-2007 10:39 AM


Dr Adequate writes:

When Europeans pursued an unnaturally fatty diet, this tended to kill off those Europeans who were genetically less able to cope with animal fats. This gave a selective advantage to Europeans who could cope with such a diet, and so by natural selection Europeans are better able to tolerate such a diet than, for example, Polynesians. Polynesians have not gone through this evolutionary process, so the result is that if you feed 'em on a Western diet, they get obese and then die of heart disease.

Okay, that makes more sense, thanks.

The question was would a diet of healthy foods have selective advantage over the course of human evolution. If our metabolisms did not evolve, then the selective advantage would take place, because people eating the unhealthy foods would die; but since our metabolisms did evolve, any selective advantage is gone, because people eating unhealthy foods do not die.

Is that right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-31-2007 10:39 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-31-2007 1:01 PM taylor_31 has not yet responded
 Message 31 by AZPaul3, posted 05-31-2007 3:11 PM taylor_31 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 41 (403019)
05-31-2007 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by taylor_31
05-31-2007 12:14 PM


The question was would a diet of healthy foods have selective advantage over the course of human evolution.

I don't think it would. We don't have enough non-sexual selective pressure.

If our metabolisms did not evolve, then the selective advantage would take place, because people eating the unhealthy foods would die; but since our metabolisms did evolve, any selective advantage is gone, because people eating unhealthy foods do not die.

That's sounds alright, but remember that everyone dies. What is really important is if you reproduce before you die. The selective pressure wouldn't be from not surviving the diet, it would be from being to fat to get laid, to put it bluntly.

Its not happening because people aren't selective enough in their mate choice. Or maybe they are selective enough, but so low on the selective meter that its going to take forever for anyone to see any change.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by taylor_31, posted 05-31-2007 12:14 PM taylor_31 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Taz, posted 05-31-2007 1:20 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 30 of 41 (403023)
05-31-2007 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by New Cat's Eye
05-31-2007 1:01 PM


CS writes:

That's sounds alright, but remember that everyone dies. What is really important is if you reproduce before you die. The selective pressure wouldn't be from not surviving the diet, it would be from being to fat to get laid, to put it bluntly.

Its not happening because people aren't selective enough in their mate choice. Or maybe they are selective enough, but so low on the selective meter that its going to take forever for anyone to see any change.


Funny how you mentioned this. Virtually all my fat and obese friends got married and produced children long before I even met my wife.



We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-31-2007 1:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019