Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: Punctuated Equilibrium? page

  1. #1
    dragonmamma's Avatar
    dragonmamma is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,765

    1

    Shop Now


    punctuated equilibrium A model that holds that the evolutionary process is characterized by long periods with little or no change interspersed with short periods of rapid speciation.


    Assuming that the theory of punctuated equilibrum is correct, how many generations would it take for us humans to adapt to new food sources?


    Considering the wildly different environments where humans live, isn't it possible that those of us with different ancestry have different nutritional needs? For example, people from tropical islands thrive on coconut, French people need wine and french bread, etc.


  2. #2
    chocolatechip69's Avatar
    chocolatechip69 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6

    1



    The big problem is that even IF our bodies successfully adopt to grains and starches, I don't know how many of our kind will make it that far seeing how majority of food supply is leaning towards highly processed and genetically modified foods.


  3. #3
    dragonmamma's Avatar
    dragonmamma is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,765

    1



    But, there are plenty of folks out there who are into whole grains; sprouted Ezekiel bread, steel cut oats, that sort of thing. Isn't it possible that their ancestors are the founding fathers of agriculture who planted the first wheat fields?


  4. #4
    dragonmamma's Avatar
    dragonmamma is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,765

    1



    I'm bumping this back to the top, because I think it's a crucial issue to address as far as defending the Primal Blueprint from an evolutionary standpoint.


    If humans are able to adapt to a new food supply within 500 generations (I arrived at that number using 10,000 years ago as the advent of agriculture and 20 years per generation) then that means there are a great many people who may react best to a high-grain diet.


    (I'm just playing devil's advocate here, since I personally avoid grains.)


  5. #5
    Shine's Avatar
    Shine is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    53

    1



    This adaptation would require a random genetic mutation that somehow lessened grain intolerance. Members of the species possessing this mutation would then have to outbreed the members who do not possess it. Therefore, increased grain tolerance would have somehow have to dramatically increase fecundity. I suppose you could make the argument that individuals who are able to successfully consume more grain products would be more likely to thrive and produce more offspring in an agricultural society. I am not sure how a causal link between successful grain consumption and increased reproductive capability would be established; I assume it would involve identifying a "grain-consumption" gene.


    I think that your reasoning aligns more with Lamarckian evolution rather than Darwinian in that it seems to infer a linear, deliberative process. Was that the idea that the original quote was based upon?


  6. #6
    SerialSinner's Avatar
    SerialSinner is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    286

    1



    dragonmamma, PE is useful to describes different rates of speciation, but does not mean that organisms can dramatically change in short periods of time.


    That being said, and taking into account that the main driver of evolution is natural selection, I think Humans are an interesting case.


    The human gene pool is probably much more diverse than before due to the fact that we can survive and reproduce today regardless of being blind, handicapped, etc.


    Does the above make humans more readily adaptable to new environmental variables such as diet? Maybe.


    Every human being is unique and so will be it's reaction to a given diet.


    However, the above does not contradict the fact that, as human beings, we evolved to take advantage of a certain range of environments by developing complex anatomical and physiological mechanisms to do so.


    Again, can a small amount of time and random mutations trigger changes in human anatomy and physiology resulting in the general population being able to *thrive* with tubers/grains? Maybe. But I think it is very unlikely.

    “Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.” -Oscar Wilde
    "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." -George Bernard Shaw
    "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." -Martin Mull

  7. #7
    dragonmamma's Avatar
    dragonmamma is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,765

    1



    I don't think so. You're assuming that there was a grain intolerance in everyone to begin with, rather than a range of reactions to it. It seems quite possible to me that the agricultural revolution could have favored the humans who were well able to utilize those food sources, and that there were groups in different areas that came in contact with various cultivated carb sources (rice, corn, tubers, wheat) at different times.


  8. #8
    SerialSinner's Avatar
    SerialSinner is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    286

    1



    dragonmamma, where are you going with this? Are you suggesting that human beings today could possibly have evolved to thrive on grans and tubers due to punctuated equilibrium? Or maybe that we have been able to thrive on grains/tubers all along?

    “Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.” -Oscar Wilde
    "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." -George Bernard Shaw
    "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." -Martin Mull

  9. #9
    dragonmamma's Avatar
    dragonmamma is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,765

    1



    Ha, ha, you discovered my hidden agenda!


    Where I am going with this is that perhaps not EVERYONE thrives on the same diet. Some of us may be healthiest on the primal diet, while others may be better off as vegetarians.


  10. #10
    grandma's Avatar
    grandma is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    64

    1

    PrimalCon New York


    I feel that there is no pressure from the environment to selects these grain tolerant genes. The typical intolerant individual today does not develop a disease which kills them before they pass on those genes. We develop many of the symptoms later in life. The other thing is that the time frame since industrial gains have been around is more like 100 year. Heck hybridization has only been widespread for about 60 years. Today we are seeing new foods that never existed before. I'm just the heretic muttering to himself on the street corner, but our food supply is nothing like it was 100 years ago and guess what we are sicker than we ever have been. I know I'm the crazy guy.

    It's grandma, but you can call me sir.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •