Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 95

Thread: Are we really genetically similar to the paleo men and women? page 3

  1. #21
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    4,306
    Quote Originally Posted by paul900 View Post
    Paleo man was NEVER obese so clearly the way we use grains today is quite different.
    Don't be too sure about that! Here Venus from Willendorf, 20.000 AC:


  2. #22
    The Scientist's Avatar
    The Scientist is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    96
    I will if there is something I can add to. It seems like al the OP's original questions have been addressed. I'm off now for a date with a bird.

  3. #23
    The Scientist's Avatar
    The Scientist is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorbag View Post
    Don't be too sure about that! Here Venus from Willendorf, 20.000 AC:

    A fertility goddess – the ideal baby maker. Ironic how they idealized fat and probably made all the unlucky thin women feel insecure.

  4. #24
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    4,306
    Quote Originally Posted by The Scientist View Post
    A fertility goddess the ideal baby maker. Ironic how they idealized fat and probably made all the unlucky thin women feel insecure.
    Yep, that's Grok's ideal woman, the female standard that every respected woman at the time wanted to look like...

  5. #25
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,405
    Quote Originally Posted by The Scientist View Post
    I will if there is something I can add to. It seems like al the OP's original questions have been addressed. I'm off now for a date with a bird.
    Scientist -

    Thanks for the posts. You said basically what most of us here understand but couldn't have said in a way that was nearly as concise, understandable, or accurate. Hope you enjoyed your avian adventures.

  6. #26
    AlanC's Avatar
    AlanC is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Tropics
    Posts
    139
    How much of our DNA do we share with chimps and bonobos?

    We're still pretty darn close, after diverging around 5 million years ago.

    So we're even closer to our direct ancestors, ya think?



    AC

  7. #27
    The Scientist's Avatar
    The Scientist is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by AlanC View Post
    How much of our DNA do we share with chimps and bonobos?

    We're still pretty darn close, after diverging around 5 million years ago.

    So we're even closer to our direct ancestors, ya think?



    AC
    This is an extremely complicated question. Of course we are more genetically similar to our most recent ancestors (chimps) than any other species, and then come great apes, and then monkeys, and then other mammals etc... The problem is that biologists use similarity across the whole genome, or maybe in a specific set of genes, to judge "genetic similarity". This is great for deciding who is most closely related to whom in evolutionary history, but it doesn't answer questions about physiology. For example:

    A single base pair change (1 out of 3,000,000,000!) in the right gene can give you muscular dystrophy, early onset Alzheimer's disease, lactose intolerance, etc,...

    On the other hand, there are entire genes that have become mostly obsolete that comprise several thousand base pairs that could be deleted and we probably would not see any effect at all.

    This means that looking at genetic similarity can tell us all about our past evolutionary ancestry, but it really can't answer questions about how similar we are to other animals as far as physiology goes, because tiny changes genetically can make big differences physiologically. To answer the physiology questions, there is no way around doing carefully controlled and time consuming experiments. Most of these experiments will probably never be done due to the huge number of questions to answer, and the monetary and man-hour cost of answering them. So... the best we can do is assume that each species is best adapted to the environment that it spent most of its evolutionary time in, and then confirm the big questions for humans through experiment.

  8. #28
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    10,191
    I think it's curious that to defend both grain eating and vegetarianism people want to reject our genetic similarity with Homo sapiens of 10,000 years ago or so and embrace a genetic similarity to apes and other hominid species that aren't Homo sapiens.
    Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    I can squat 180lbs, press 72.5lbs and deadlift 185lbs

  9. #29
    Dirlot's Avatar
    Dirlot is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edmonton Canada
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by paul900 View Post
    So I am actually wrong about grains being introduced in the last 10,000 years. It seems we have been eating grains for 40,000 years
    Yes there may be evidence that they ground grains, good source of calories but not a sustainable way to eat. You need close to 70sq ft of modern high yield wheat to make one loaf of bread. If we look at natural grasses I would guess you would need a field between 140-200 sq feet to make one loaf. I can not imagine a hunter gatherer cutting, thrashing and grinding a drive way full of grass everyday to make a loaf of bread....that is not sustainable.
    Last edited by Dirlot; 11-23-2012 at 08:06 AM.
    Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
    PS
    Don't forget to play!

  10. #30
    Leida's Avatar
    Leida is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,783
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Changes that have made their way into our genome in the last 10,000 years are a different story. For example, the lactose dehydrogenase (LDH) gene, which processes lactose in milk, was selected for expression into adulthood because people in their reproductive years clearly benefited from being able to get more calories from milk they collected from domesticated animals.
    So, if the thesis is that the adaptations only develop to the harm that strikes early in life, does that mean that lactose intolerance exhibits its harmful effects earlier in life than the grain intolerance?
    My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
    When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •