180k-Year-Old Mutation Allowed Humans To Become Vegetarians, Move Out of Africa 342
An anonymous reader writes "Early humans were able to move from Africa after a single genetic mutation allowed them to become vegetarians, scientists claim. The switch, which allowed humans to process vegetables, meant that humans were able to move away from water sources and spread across the continent. A team of geneticists compared DNA sequences from a variety of people around the world to see how different populations relate to one another and when they have gone their separate ways. The scientists found that a key genetic variant gave humans the ability to convert fats from plants into essential nutrients for the brain."
Vegetarian? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't that be omnivores?
Re:Vegetarian? (Score:5, Informative)
We were already omnivores, this allowed us to not be required to eat certain foods (fish and shellfish), so we could survive away from the sources for those.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not what it says. It just says some people had a higher level of efficiency converting certain fatty acids to EPA ad DHA.
And they're saying this enabled man to live inland away from marine sources.
There's a debate in evolutionary biology, did the source of the w-3 lipids come from marine sources or brains and marrow?
If it's the latter the paper doesn't matter. If it's the former this doesn't imply anything about vegearianism.
Re: (Score:3)
I call bullshit on this article. So first off, there's nothing to suggest that hominids needed some kind of special adaptation to be able to move out of Africa, after all, they had already done it hundreds of thousands of years before. Homo erectus was the first hominid out of Africa; it's present in Eurasia almost two million years ago, and H. erectus eventually gets as far east as India, China and Indonesia. The Neanderthal-Denisovan lineage then moved out of Africa roughly half a million years ago, with
Re:Vegetarian? (Score:5, Informative)
No, humans were omnivores before, same as other primates. Omnivore means having a diet of both meat and plants, both in large quantities. It doesn't mean that you can survive on either just meat or just plants alone. Indeed, most omnivores require a mix of meat and plants for the diet to be healthy.
So far as I can see, this mutation is not truly vegetarian, either - it lets us reduce meat consumption in favor of plants, but not replace it entirely.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It actually let us replace meat completely. Take it from a vegan developer.
Re: (Score:2)
It actually let us replace meat completely. Take it from a vegan developer.
So disregarding the silly "permission to consume" argument, this must mean that human babies can live on vegetables only? Since mothers milk is an animal product.
Re: (Score:2)
Children raised vegan have serious issues. You need to be extremely knowledgeable in child physiology, and recognize there aren't small adults. There dietary needs are different. Its not like you ca add one thing to the vegetarian diet and 'fix' it. Parents who do now do scientific research on this issue screw up their kids, and even kill them.
Re:Vegetarian? (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, you can. Meat.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what people say, however I know several very long term vegans and they seem quite a bit healthier than your average red meat loving American.
disclaimer: I love hamburgers.
Re:Vegetarian? (Score:5, Informative)
You are comparing people that are very conscious and strict about their diet that happen to have one (debated unhealthy) habit to the average of a very unhealthy nation of people.
If you were to compare honestly, you would take a large sample of vegans of all ages, gender, income group and compare those to people equally concious about what they eat but meat eaters. Factor in the same distribution of age, gender, income group, since vegans tend to be either religious (Buddhist monks for instance) or not poor and living in western countries.
I think you will find that the vegans will not be healthier in general. They may be healthier on specific diseases related to eating meat and unhealthier on factors related to missing essential nutrients that are common in animal produced food but are hard to get in your diet if you are vegan. From what I understand from dietary scientists I happen to know, is that the diseases typically linked to eating meat will probably be a lot more rare than (developmental) diseases from not eating meat in the entire group of tested people. This probably is never truly researched in a way that I propose here, so maybe someone not related to vegan or meat food industries will be willing to sponsor adequate research? Maybe they will find new diseases, or causes for diseases or symptoms not yet discovered.
Re:Vegetarian? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not true. There are a few non animal sources if B12. I was vegan for 14 years and i didn't just seem healthy, i was healthy - healthier than i would have been if i was a lacto vego.
Re: (Score:3)
About ten years ago, i stopped eating wheat and other similar grains, because they didn't really agree with me. After a while of that, i started getting the urge to eat fish. At that stage in my life i couldn't really think of a good reason not to, so i did. I never started eating dairy or eggs again - and i still don't touch them. And i didn't start eating other meat until several years later, when i went to work in Afghanistan. I also started eating bread again while i was there (and drinking alcohol, aft
Re:Vegetarian? (Score:5, Informative)
Humans require B12 which can only be obtained from animals.
That's not entirely true. Animals don't produce B12, it is produced by single celled organisms that are omnipresent in nature. Animals consume it while eating vegetables because they don't wash them. We do, and that's why we can't get enough of it through an ordinary vegan diet. If we lived in nature, we would. So the supplement a vegan needs to get is something that is previously removed from the food source.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
B12 is produced by microorganisms, and apparently that's where most animals get their B12 from -- e.g., eating soil.
Cyanocobalamin is the usual B12 supplemental form and can be obtained in tablet form over the counter or from supplemented foods.
Nutritional yeast is usually supplemented with B12, though the amount varies. Looking at a few labels: KAL Yeast Flakes lists "150% Daily Value" in 3 rounded tablespoons; Red Star Yeast VSF (flakes) lists 8 micrograms or "133% Daily Value" in 2 heaping tablespoons;
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The fact that there are millions of severely bipolar meat eaters kinda undermines your theory, i'm afraid.
Re: (Score:2)
My mother is allergic to most meat and my Dad grew up vegetarian but eats meat now so I grew up eating a mix of meat and veggie substitutes. As for vegetarians not getting enough nutrients they can get them from any number of meat substitutes such as TVP or Textured Vegetable Protein. Manny meat eaters think veggie meat is disgusting but once you get used to the fact that the fake meats don't really taste like the meats they are supposed to imitate and just treat them like a entirely different type of meat
Re: (Score:2)
If you're vegan, i hope for your sake that you don't take supplements - because they throw out your body's natural balance and probably make you less healthy. It's totally possible to get all your nutrient needs from a vegsn diet - and to be healthier than your average meat eater - but you have to be on the ball.
I was vegan for 14 years and i was healthy. I've got quite a few long term vegan friends who are also healthy. None of us take or took supplements.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, I was not talking about the modern society, but rather humans as animals in their "natural" state - i.e. if it's something that you can eat that require fields, irrigation etc to grow, it's not something that was available to our ancestors until around 13k years ago or so. I don't see how you can obtain all the necessary nutrients living in the wild without eating meat or fish.
Re:Vegetarian? (Score:4, Informative)
Vegetarian != vegan.
Re: (Score:2)
It is quite possible to be healthy today as a vegetarian or as an omnivore - it just requires a bit of planning either way. So I don't understand the "but not replace it entirely" portion of your statement.
It's a good thing that mutation happened then, because earlier humans probably didn't plan at all.
It's to generate more page views (Score:5, Insightful)
The headline is flamebait. The editors know the Slashdot nerds will see the term "vegetarian," become furious, and click on the article, and post furious posts, which will generate more furious posts and more page views. Profit!
Re:It's to generate more page views (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
By article, he means the discussion in which we have both posted, not the external article.
His analysis is accurate.
I'm carnivorous mostly... (Score:2)
I could do without veggies way easier than I could do without meat.
I broke up with the most incredible girl just after HS because I just could not eat another tofo burger.
Potatoes and my GF's occasional tossed salad is enough veggies for me. :)
This is Slashdot, thinking is optional.
Like she said, "Nothing is True, Everything is permitted." :)
I knew it (Score:3, Funny)
So vegetarians are mutants and humans are originally meat-eaters?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do the Mantas [wikipedia.org] have to say about this?
Re: (Score:2)
As long as there are only Trolls, not Velociraptors. :)
is it a mutation? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm always sensitive to any claims of "mutation X gave humans power Y" because mutations are so rarely beneficial, the majority of evolution comes from sexual inheritance and selection pressure.
So how do they know it was a mutation? Its not like suddenly humans got a hunkering for plants one day. It had to happen gradually, so this gene must have been kicking around for ages, and must have appeared in multiple tribes; one mutated birth isn't going to suddenly diffuse across an entire species.
Basically, I don't understand this article.
Any experts out there want to demystify this for me a little more? How one random gene in one birth suddenly afflicts an entire population?
Re: (Score:3)
Mutation just means a change. The first person with Attribute Z was the mutation. Breeding happened. The trait was inherited. More breeding happened. etc. If the mutation was beneficial or preferential, it spread faster. If it was detrimental, it spread slower or disappeared.
Skin color, hair color, eye color ---- all mutations from whatever was original (probably dark for all three).
Re: (Score:3)
The ostensible mutation might have helped humans digest plant proteins... but stomach flora has a lot to do with uptake. Until more is known about the relationship between the two, I'll listen to the premise and wonder aloud how gut flora combined with the mutation to provide a systematic result.
Until then, I think it's clever spaghetti against the wall.
Have you looked at a chimp's skin color? (Score:3)
Chimps and Gorillas are basically black, with lighter-colored palms of their hands. We didn't turn light-skinned till we moved north and needed the extra vitamin D.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps we're seeing the evolution of social equality. The old guard (who may well NOT be smarter, just better positioned by their parents) does all it can to expand the divide and then gets out-bread and finally eliminated. If they were REALLY smart, they'd be all about reducing the divide between rich and poor so the poor wouldn't out-breed them so quickly.
Re:is it a mutation? (Score:5, Informative)
We'll go in order...
mutations are so rarely beneficial
The vast majority of the mutations that are widespread through the population are either benign or beneficial. The ones that aren't don't stick around in the gene pool long enough to become widespread. It's the other half of the selection pressure you mentioned: The selection pressure culls bad mutations out quickly, so the good (or at least ineffective ones) are all that's left. This is definitely a case of history being written by the victors: The bad mutations don't usually stick around long enough to be noticed (in long-term history).
So how do they know it was a mutation?
Because some folks have it, and other folks don't. From the geographic distribution of where the haves and have-nots are, combined with the prevailing theories about human movements, the researchers can estimate what genetic group first got the change.
one mutated birth isn't going to suddenly diffuse across an entire species.
It doesn't happen suddenly. That one mutation spreads through one family, who suddenly has the ability to survive without eating fish (substituting vegetables, instead). Over the next thousand years or so, that family (and the associated mutation) spread across the local region, and the knowledge of "it's okay to eat vegetables" spread with it. Since that group could wander further (carrying longer-lasting vegetables rather than fish), they spread farther than other groups, until they eventually became dominant.
How one random gene in one birth suddenly afflicts an entire population?
Just to be clear, it doesn't. The one random change will be in one family line, and only really become widespread if it allows the family to outgrow the rest of the population, or if the the rest of the population dies off.
Re: (Score:2)
If not everybody picked up the mutation then how can we all survive on veges alone today?
Re: (Score:2)
By eating the vegans, I presume.
Re: (Score:2)
one mutated birth isn't going to suddenly diffuse across an entire species.
It doesn't happen suddenly. That one mutation spreads through one family, who suddenly has the ability to survive without eating fish (substituting vegetables, instead). Over the next thousand years or so, that family (and the associated mutation) spread across the local region, and the knowledge of "it's okay to eat vegetables" spread with it. Since that group could wander further (carrying longer-lasting vegetables rather than fish), they spread farther than other groups, until they eventually became dominant.
How one random gene in one birth suddenly afflicts an entire population?
Just to be clear, it doesn't. The one random change will be in one family line, and only really become widespread if it allows the family to outgrow the rest of the population, or if the the rest of the population dies off.
Actually it does spread across the whole species and it doesn't rely on all other families dying out. That's one of the benefits of no longer using asexual reproduction. The one tribe doesn't have to become the only tribe, it just has to have some members leave and introduce the beneficial genes to other tribes who in turn have members leave and bring the genes to still more tribes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This one story about one mutation may be right or wrong. but in general thats how mutations spread across populations. If you don't want to believe in evolution because it contradicts your faith or something thats fine, but don't waste our time trying to tell us we're doing science wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
even in xenophobic tribal societies genes cross between populations. one tribe go to war with another and steal the other women mixing their genes. the strong members of the winning tribe would get the best looking stolen mateof the losing mixing the best genes of their populations.
Re:is it a mutation? (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, I don't understand this article.
The problem isn't the article. It's your limited understanding of evolution and genetics. :-)
According to modern evolutionary theory, mutations create ALL change. Most mutations don't do something favourable, or really actually probably don't do anything at all, but some of them are favourable and those individuals go onto spread that gene more effectively than their peers until many many generations later, this gene has spread throughout the species (or the region, or the tribe, etc).
If a tribe of ancient humans gradually gained the ability to survive without meat, and a major event such as volcanic eruption or something killed off the local food staple, the tribe that could survive for years without meat might be the only survivors in the entire area. If the species is isolate to that area, they could plausibly be the only survivors of the species.
In this way it is actually possible for the entire species to gain a trait in just a few generations. Or, a mutation can gradually make its way into cultures in a more limited sense.
For example, genetic analysis suggests that ALL blue eyed individuals are descendants from a single individual with a unique mutation about 6-10,000 years ago. People with brown eyes have a huge variety of genes that affect pigmentation, whereas all individuals with blue eyes have a very specific sequence that controls it, which, along with mitochondrial DNA surveys, leads researchers to conclude the bit about a single individual.
Pretty cool, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
According to modern evolutionary theory, mutations create ALL change.
Caveat: this is only true if you define "mutation" very broadly. Usually, when biologists say "mutation," it means a change in the DNA sequence, but we're learning more and more about heritable non-sequence changes (this usually goes under the name "epigenetics") which can also affect phenotype, and thus have an evolutionary impact. It's still true as far as we know that most heritable changes are sequence changes, but by no means all.
At some point we're going to have to adapt our vocabulary to deal with
Re: (Score:3)
Non-sequence changes in the epigenome are protein changes in a structure (of sorts) and can arguably still be called mutations. They're typically caused by a response to (non-protein) chemicals in the environment, which essentially act as epigenomic mutagens. Yes, I know, that's not the most common way to phrase it, but the understanding of epigenomics is sufficiently poor that I can probably use such phrasing on Slashdot, and certainly it's close enough in analogy that I could use it in a conversation with
Re: (Score:2)
"According to modern evolutionary theory, mutations create ALL change"
false.
Re: (Score:2)
that is why smart people invented sperm/egg banks they can have their genes spread across a potentially huge population. if you really want to spread your genes make multiple donation as many sperm banks as possible across as large a geographical area as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
it may be we just don't know how.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:is it a mutation? (Score:5, Informative)
"one mutated birth isn't going to suddenly diffuse across an entire species."
you're right:
1. what happens is those without the mutation die or have less children or no children, or are confined to one small environmental niche
2. while those with the mutation live longer or have more children or move over a wider range taking advantage of a wider range of food
and you're wrong:
1. it could start with one single mutation in one individual
2. it does diffuse across an entire species: that's what sex is for
3. it does happen suddenly, on the time scale of geological time
Re:is it a mutation? (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) is often referred to as a "founder event", particularly by people like Ken Nordtvedt, who studies human migrations through genetics as a hobby.
(3) There are an estimated 200 mutations in the Y chromosome alone every generation, be they extra copies/deletions of something (known as a short tandem repeat) or a change in a single nucleotide (known as a single nucleotide polymorphism). Most of this is in "junk" DNA (now known to be control sequences and metadata - a prediction many had made for two or three decades at least, and I've been making on Slashdot for 10+ years) but it's also found in coding sequences. Most genealogy (eg: by Family Tree DNA) is done with the "junk" DNA, most prior health work (eg: by 23AndMe) has been done on the coding sequences but expect that to change to everything at some point. Studies on population migrations suggest one mutated birth (such as the ability to digest milk) can spread over most of the species in 6-7 thousand years, and markers associated with (and do not predate) the Vikings can be found in significant quantities in most inhabited continents after far less time than that. On geological timescales, this qualifies as the Newtonian concept of the infinitesimal.
Re: (Score:2)
mutations are so rarely beneficial, the majority of evolution comes from sexual inheritance and selection pressure
If mutation weren't in there as a factor as well, we'd all still be single-celled organisms swimming around in the primordial soup. Or we wouldn't be here at all--one of the many mass extinction events in Earth's history would have wiped out whatever life existed, because there'd be no biodiversity to speak of, no variety of forms to survive and adapt to the new environment. For all we know, this did happen several times in the planet's history before the current tree of life took root.
Re: (Score:2)
Scenario: Group of humans moves away from an area rich in devourable animals. They turn mostly to plants. Many come sickly and die. Except for a few who remain strong and healthy due to the mutation. They breed more than the sickly ones. Soon, the trait has passed to most of the population.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Vegetarians? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm a proxy vegetarian via eating grass and corn fed cows!
Re: (Score:2)
Vegetarians. You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
murderers [youtube.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Vegetarians. You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
A lot of people don't. The phrase "I'm a vegetarian I only eat [chicken/fish]". Makes me want to slap the stupid out of people.
No, it is people like you living in the "first" world who think that vegetarians in the "third world" only eat fruits and vegetables. They don't eat red meat because it is too expensive but some do eat fish and poultry when it is available. In the third world, meat is expensive.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Vegetarians. You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
Vegetarianism implies that a person has made an explicit choice not to eat meat. I would imagine that the majority of people in "third world" countries who cannot afford the luxury of meat would still eat it, if they could.
Digestion & tooth variation (Score:2)
I wonder what the time parallel is between this mutation in digestion, and the change in human teeth (the addition of 'grinding' teeth for plant products) that allowed for ingestion.
One has to wonder... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More interesting than that... (Score:5, Interesting)
... being able to eat vegetables is not unusual for ANY monkey or ape. What is more if not most interesting is a genetic mutation which allows us to eat grains. Chimpanzees, for example, simply cannot process grains and as far as I have heard humans are the only primates which can.
Re: (Score:2)
That is probably closer to the truth than the 'humans as vegetarians' idea. Both humans and chimpanzees (who's lineage separated much farther back than 180K years) can process plant protein from fruits and nuts. Humans may have developed the ability to supplement their diets from grains, but they still require protein* (animal or plant sources of essential amino acids). So, wherever they went, they needed to encounter the same food stuffs that would sustain a non grain consuming primate. Just a different mi
Re: (Score:3)
Notice that supplementation is not required for healthful vegetarian diets,
So, what do they mean by "appropriately planned"?
Consider that many of the recommended fruits, nuts, soy products and whatever haven't been available locally or year-round until the (recent) advent of air freight and refrigerated shipping (so, what does your vegetarian carbon footprint look like), I wonder how one was expected to maintain such a diet thousands of years ago.
a carnivore diet would be a slow death from scurvy
Yeah. All those poor Eskimos.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Exactly, we owe our big brains to the energy starch gives us. Very few primates can digest starch while diferent human groups developed civilization the day they domesticaded a starchy plant (rice, corn, potatoes, wheat, etc.)
Moved away from water? (Score:5, Insightful)
unless they mutated away to live without water, humans did NOT move away from water.
I'm pretty sure they still lived around water. Rivers, Springs, Oases, Wells, whatever, but they needed the water.
But what do i know?
Re:Moved away from water? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A true Couniseur would make ice from the Scotch...
Liquid N2 is a wonderful thing to have around. :)
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong, it's because you are not actually a human, you are a bunch of letters on my computer screen. We, humans, can survive without any water for months at a time. In fact we don't really even need water at all, it's just a habit from the old times, we live mostly on solid coffee beans and salt. Lots and lots of salt. That's how we fight off the land pyranha as well, they hate salt.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the moved away from water. we didn't stop using water, but we know longer had to live right on the bank.
The contexts should have made that clear.
Oh wait, I get it now... (Score:2)
... okay, prior to being vegetarian-capable, being omnivorous was the fixed state of early humans?
Let's imagine... travelling across the land... probably fleeing from another group in S.Africa who was strong enough to stay and keep their claim to the land they had... and finding themselves increasingly hungry... wild game of any sort becoming more scarce and harder to catch or kill... the ones that didn't adapt, died and didn't produce offspring. The ones that lived passed on whatever capacity to survive w
Re:Oh wait, I get it now... (Score:5, Informative)
TFS was worse than the normal FS. First off, the "vegetarian" bit. Now that I've RTFA, we were omnivores, but we needed fish or our brains wouldn't develop propery, so we were stuck living near the ocean. Once we could live without fish we could live anywhere.
It had nothing to do with vegetarians, the sumitter is probably one of those PETA vegan nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
but we needed fish or our brains wouldn't develop propery, so we were stuck living near the ocean.
Well, you could need not to live near the ocean, and be stuck without a brain.
Seems to work for me.
Re: (Score:3)
So which other animals must eat fish for their brains to develop properly? Do any other primates have to eat fish? Or did all the rest of the primates also mutate about the same time so they don't have to eat fish either? If humans are the only primate that had to eat fish, and we don't now, then how do the researchers know we required fish at some point in the past when other primates do not?
can i haz teh dictionary? (Score:5, Informative)
The scientists found that a key genetic variant gave humans the ability to convert fats from plants into essential nutrients for the brain."
To this?
180k-Year-Old Mutation Allowed Humans To Become Vegetarians, Move Out of Africa
People who don't know their scientific terms mis-quote scientific articles. News at 10.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's wrong with the summary? We no longer needed to get those nutrients from meat -- we could survive solely on plant life. Therefore, we could become vegetarians.
Re: (Score:2)
" we could survive solely on plant life."
that's not what it says.
Re: (Score:3)
The point is that the mutation (putatively) allowed humans to survive on a vegetarian diet, when they couldn't do so before. This would be very valuable for a nomadic "hunter-gatherer" lifestyle in times and places where there was plenty to gather but not so much to hunt (or fish, as the case may be).
Re:can i haz teh dictionary? (Score:4, Informative)
The point is that the mutation (putatively) allowed humans to survive on a vegetarian diet, when they couldn't do so before.
Uh, you need to read how to learn, as well as how to apply logic. What the article says ("ability to convert fats from plants into essential nutrients for the brain") does not mean (or imply) "avoid meats by choice". It doesn't mean/imply ("ability to survive on plants alone"). It simply means "ability to exploit a greater variety of food products for brain sustainment with greater efficiency".
That is all. Any other interpretation is not an interpretation of logic, but of choice (aka "wishful thinking").
This would be very valuable for a nomadic "hunter-gatherer" lifestyle in times and places where there was plenty to gather but not so much to hunt (or fish, as the case may be).
Inconsequential. That does not imply vegetarianism (be it voluntary as in humans or mandatory as in herbivores.) In the name of Jebuz, buy a dictionary or use google and learn the meaning of the word "vegetarian".
Headline wrong (Score:5, Informative)
The Slashdot headline is wrong and the initial website it links to has a wrong headline.
If you read the scientific paper, it says the mutation happened about 85,000 years ago, not 180,000 years ago. This makes it logically consistent with other biological discoveries, archaeological finds etc.
Skimpy article (Score:2)
It doesn't explain that vegetables contain the necessary DHA. Is that the case? I can only infer that from TFA.
I also have to ask the question: do other primates not eat vegetables?
I'm a vegitarian... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FYI: It is ~80K years not 180K. (Score:2)
So you're saying... (Score:2)
bad title, this is an omega-3 story (Score:3)
The title is wrong, this was not about becoming vegetarian, it was about been less dependent on fishes for omega-3 intake
The brain needs an omega-3 fatty acid called DHA. We can get it by eating fishes, or create it by transforming alpha-linonenic acid we get from vegetables (good sources are flax, wallnuts, colza). The mutation they talk about is about transforming alpha-linonenic acid into DHA.
This does not make use vegetarian, as there are still many nutriments we are unable to get from vegetables. The point is that it let us have working brains without relying on eating fishes
An interesting point is that the enzymes that process omega-3 also process omega-6, and the mutation therefore also increased our ability to process omega-6. This was not a problem until we started eating animals fed with too much omega-6. The animal flavor of omega-6 is called arachidonic acid. Excess of that one lead to cardiovascular problems and it promotes cancers because of excessive inflamation.
ummm.... vegetarian? (Score:3)
Humans are omnivores not vegetarians. This mutation would have allowed them to be omnivores rather than carnivores.
Only a massive modern globally fueled artificial availability of things that can't grow in one place allowed people to be vegetarians and mostly skinny and malnourished vegetarians at that.
Meat on the other hand requires no exotic combinations or preparations to keep you nourished. You are made of meat, and all animal meats have everything you need to produce and maintain the meat that is your body.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are going to go from a biblical standpoint then you should know that all of creation ate only vegetables until the fall of man.
And if you disagree, Chuck Norris will kick your butt.
Re: (Score:2)
He is welcome to try. Bring it on.
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmm. Bacon trees!
It really was heaven on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
yea!!, and the british.. (Score:3)
right there with you man.
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot wait to see the looks on your faces when Judgement Day arrives. Now go love thy brother as yourselves and forgive.
Congratulations, you've just summed up the entire fundamentalist mentality in two sentences. Good job!
Re: (Score:2)
close. this is more accurate:
"I cannot wait to see the looks on your faces when Judgement Day arrives. Now go love thy brother as yourselves and forgive, or ELSE!"
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's like a watching a juror change her way of thinking about the story as more and more evidence is revealed throughout the trial.
Until someone can show me how to make a creator out of dead empty space, you need to just accept the fact that there is a creator-creator. Until someone can show me how to make a creator-creator out of dead empty space, you need to just accept the fact that there is a creator-creator-creator. Until someone can show me how to make a creator-creator-creator out of dead empty s
Re: (Score:3)
It's just .. turtles all the way down!
Re:and this is why the stereotype exists (Score:5, Funny)
African Americans love Chicken
Everyone loves chicken, you insensitive clod!
We're all mutants here. (Score:2)
I'm a mutant, you're a mutant, he's a mutant, we're all mutants here.
I'm fortunate to have the Northern European "able to digest milk as an adult" mutation, which gives me a few more dietary choices. (I rarely actually drink milk without lots of coffee in it, but having the option makes being a vegetarian a lot more convenient than it otherwise would be.)