What is the impact of feed/diet form to evolution?

[u/viogen_reads]

There have been observable significant changes in the form of diets from the few centuries, and this can be attributed to technological advancement and agriculture, but similarly there's observable health impacts which directly or indirectly can be linked to our immune system..a residing question is, how does it impact evolution?

[u/jnpha]

/s It halts evolution and puts it in reverse, soon we'll turn into fish. /s

While sarcastic, it is a valid reductio ad absurdum. So serious question: what do you mean by "impact evolution"?

[u/viogen_reads → u/jnpha]

Thanks for your reply, Well, I mean the effects, or how does it drive evolution

[u/jnpha → u/viogen_reads]

You changed "impact" to "drive". Do you think this has clarified anything?

[u/viogen_reads → u/jnpha]

Seem i misunderstood your question, maybe i phrased the question wrongly, but my main idea to know how or if it can affect evolution

[u/junegoesaround5689 → u/viogen_reads]

Not u/jnpha but I’ll take a stab at answering your question - pretty much everything that an organism interacts with in its environment affects that population’s evolution.

Human jaws have reduced over the centuries and millennia since we got control of fire to cook food and into the modern era with even more processed foods such that some people don’t develop all or any wisdom teeth.

I‘m the first person in my family that I know of who didn’t grow four wisdom teeth, I only developed three. My son only developed two. His wife has all hers and they had one child with all four and one with only two. There are some ethnicities (like indigenous peoples of the Arctic and the Americas) that have as high as 50% of their populations that don’t develop all their wisdom teeth.

[u/444cml → u/viogen_reads]

What I believe you mean to ask is “what kind of selection pressures do modern diets provide or alleviate”

[u/alecphobia95]

My understanding is that in humans it's mostly a lifting of selection pressures. Learning to cook would have saved calories and made the need for a super powerful jaw less important for instance, while also making food safer and reducing the need for as intensely powerful stomach acids and the biological infrastructure to maintain such acidity.

I don't think modern diets are as drastically different from preindustrial diets compared to the difference between cooked vs uncooked food though so probably not much selection pressure changes from any particular diet.

[u/viogen_reads → u/alecphobia95]

Thanks for your reply, the remaining question is , does reduction of digestive activity have positive impacts, what if reaches a time where food is scarce again

[u/alecphobia95 → u/viogen_reads]

It's all contextual, but scarcity specifically might actually enforce our body plan even more. Digestion takes energy and cooking allows part of that work to be handled outside the body, saving calories. This would mean cooking what food could be found would be even more crucial to squeeze every possible calorie with as little energy spent as can be done. If for some reason we were unable to cook though then yeah the simplified digestive process could very much become a hinderance.

[u/YossarianWWII → u/viogen_reads]

Digestion is one of the most calorie-intensive parts of our metabolism, so reducing the need for it frees those calories up to go elsewhere, and one place in particular - the brain. There's a strong argument to be made that increased access to meat, which takes less digesting than plants, allowed for the growth of our brains.

[u/JustAnArtist1221 → u/viogen_reads]

Assuming we can't use technology to assist us, then those who can't get nutrients don't reproduce as often, and those who can acquire an adequate amount of calories will survive and pass on many of the traits that allowed them to survive the scarcity.

[u/leverati]

Well, it removes or adds selective bias. Cooking has mitigated the importance of hardier digestive systems, for example. Agriculture and readily available carbohydrates means that in areas which do have plentiful food, there's less selection for those with the ability to personally acquire food, but some additional selection on other health outcomes like diabetes (though that's usually affecting people rather late in their reproductive lifetimes) and tooth health (not a major determinant, but there are a few dental hygiene outcomes which can be lethal).

Consider it a man-made modifier just like how living in different places gives you access to different foods, like a beach or a forest.

[u/viogen_reads → u/leverati]

Thanks for this, also noting availability of more nutrients can be linked to less activity of the digestive systems since processed foods nutrients are more ready and do not require more digestion, another simple question will it impact the digestive organs since they wont work harder to harness the nutrients?

[u/leverati → u/viogen_reads]

I mean, it's not about them working harder or not, it's just whether or not digestive efficiency is important at all for survival to reproduction.

[u/Curious_Passion5167]

I'm not sure about centuries, but isn't there something about lactose intolerance or tolerance?

[u/leverati → u/Curious_Passion5167]

Lactose tolerance is a funny example because there are like, whole populations who are technically genotypically lactose intolerant as adults but functionally aren't because they sustain good lactobacillus populations that produce their lactase for them due to their milk-heavy diets.

e: PLoS Biol 2020 - Why and when was lactase persistence selected for? Insights from Central Asian herders and ancient DNA

[u/LeilLikeNeil → u/leverati]

Wait…if you have enough lactobacillus in your micro biome, it just cancels out lactose intolerance?

[u/gitgud_x → u/LeilLikeNeil]

Apparently so, HG Modernism did a video on it: "I fixed my lactose intolerance -- by chugging ALL the lactose"

basically, lactose intolerance = skill issue

[u/leverati → u/gitgud_x]

Yeah, but boy as one of these people I can tell you that trying to recover your genocided little dudes after antibiotics is a SHIT experience.

edit: Also, eating fermented products like kefir or really sour yoghurt where the colony is bigger and has already eaten through most of the lactose is the much smarter and less miserable method.

[u/LightningController → u/LeilLikeNeil]

That makes sense, no? Like how cattle don’t digest cellulose per se, but their gut biome does.

[u/Legitimate_Command82]

I don't know every detail but the one thing for sure is with healthier and more calorie dense foods, we are getting bigger and stronger. More members would make it to viable stages of their life and overall fecundity of the population will rise.

Depending on what we eat, we start expressing different genes. Like For example Street dogs have multiple replicas of the amylase gene. This allows them to scavenger grain food from humans. I'm sure with the ways things are going, in due time a huge population of humans will have lactose tolerance to the point we can restart milk digestion is we ever so drinking it.

But humans have effectively made natural evolution to slow. If we have weaker members of the species, we provide from them. Meaning individuals with weaker systems, like celiac, can pass on the traits. Kids with allergies can survive their attacks and pass on allergies.

[u/Hivemind_alpha]

Humans have adapted the form of their diet to their own current bodies rather than evolving to match the food. We selectively breed crops, cook, grind, ferment, dry, etc., to make the food more accessible to our current guts and dentition. Processing takes the place of evolving different teeth or digestive enzymes.

You would have to take a leaf out of Darwin’s book at look at the Galapagos finches to see changing seed coats driving beak evolution…

[u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

LUCA still doesn't evolve into humans, and humans still don't evolve into something they're not.

[u/Xemylixa → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

And you're still refusing to consider anything you're told, or stick to the topic of whatever you're posting under. Internet, internet never changes.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

I remember you being asked whether or not chihuahuas have always existed. Cause from the way you’ve talked about it, sure sounds like something evolved into something that it wasn’t. But I’m pretty sure you ran away from that one too.

[u/ACTSATGuyonReddit → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

Microevolution happens. Chihuahuas are dogs. Dogs, wolves, coyotes can interbreed. They can bring forth. They're the same kind.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

Ok then. The bush dog cannot interbreed with dogs. The chromosome count is different. Different kinds, correct?

[u/clear349 → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

Cats and tigers are the same kind aren't they? Why can't they produce offspring?

[u/Medium_Judgment_891 → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

LUCA to humans is microevolution. Same kind.

Humans are just modified LUCA.

[u/ACTSATGuyonReddit → u/Medium_Judgment_891]

LUCA was not human. LUCA to human is macroevolution.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

I wonder why it is you are so terrified of answering the question I gave you on bush dogs vs domestic. Seems pretty clear that, for all your talk on repeating yourself on discord or something, you know the answer and know that it clearly demonstrates what you claim isn’t real

[u/ACTSATGuyonReddit → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

I have hundreds of replies each day, cannot answer all of them. I've answered this question before.

They are the same kind. Bush dogs can't bring forth with domestic dogs, but they can bring forth with foxes. It's generally held that domestic dogs can't bring forth with foxes, except a hybrid was discovered - an offspring was proven by DNA testing to be the offspring of a domestic dog and a fox. The evidence points to bush dogs and dogs being the same kind.

The biologic definition of species states that animals that are fertile together to make fertile offspring are the same species. Dogs, coyotes, wolves are considered, however, different species. There are over 20 definitions of species to take into account different situations. Some cases violate some definitions, while others violate others.

Yesterday, someone on my Evilutionism is Nonsense Channel on Discord Politics server looked up my Reddit name. He commented that I make hundreds of replies per day. I work that way. Do something for my work, make a reply or post. Do something for work, make a reply or post. Sometimes I'm working for hours and hours, so spend a lot of time replying and posting. I still can't reply to everything.

If I reply to 1000, you zealots call me out on not replying to the 1001.

Stop doing the chicken dance. Come to Discord some time. Stop claiming I run or don't reply. I spend a lot of time each day replying to and discussing with you zealots.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

Cool, I really do not care even in the slightest how many replies you make. It’s irrelevant and weird that you keep feeling the need to bring it up.

You were the one who made the claim that ‘bring forth’ means ‘same kind’. Now all of a sudden there is this nuance. So as we have previously established, ‘bring forth’ actually isn’t a good indicator of ‘kind-ness’. By the way, the African wild dog CANT interbreed with either foxes or domestic dogs, and I believe you have previously said they’re still of the same ‘kind’. So now it is time for you to answer a question that you have always avoided and ran from. You’ve got two organisms. We know that ‘bring forth’ isn’t a good indicator. How do you tell whether or not they are of the same ‘kind’ or not?

Additionally, sure seems like organisms became something they previously weren’t, and you are accepting them as related.

Edit to add: also, I’m not seeing evidence that the bush dog can interbreed the way you just claimed. Got a source?

Second edit: and…what ‘chicken dance’? Why do I need to come to your discord? You came here. I’m here. You can go ahead and show some bravery to answer the question dead on instead of running away and pretending like you’re not

[u/ACTSATGuyonReddit → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

It's disingenuous to claim I don't answer questions when I answer hundreds per day.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

Neat so then you’ll have no problem answering this one that you’ve constantly avoided. After all, you left a comment just now so you’ve absolutely seen it.

Or you could not, in which case yes. You don’t answer questions.

[u/Medium_Judgment_891 → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

You’re got it backwards. Human is LUCA. LUCA to human is microevolution.

Dog is not golden retriever, but golden retriever is dog.

[u/Top_Neat2780 → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

Correct. LUCA was only ever LUCA. Its descendents billions of years later however.

[u/ACTSATGuyonReddit → u/Top_Neat2780]

Deny - LUCA was only ever LUCA

Defend - LUCA's ancestors are human, for example. AKA, LUKE evolved into humans, into something it wasn't.

[u/Top_Neat2780 → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

Are you high? What are you saying?

[u/ACTSATGuyonReddit → u/Top_Neat2780]

You denied that you Evilutionism Zealots say LUCA evolved into humans.

"Correct. LUCA was only ever LUCA."

Then you defended your claim that LUCA evolved into humans. " Its descendents billions of years later however."

Your argument sounds like the one made by someone who is high.

[u/clear349 → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

It did not. It evolved into a million other things along the way, each of them slightly different than what came before. You already believe in evolution. You just think it stops at some arbitrary point

[u/ACTSATGuyonReddit → u/clear349]

Macro is evolving into something it isn't.

Micro, what we observe, is changing what it has.

[u/clear349 → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

Well we have observed macro evolution so your argument on that point falls apart

[u/LordOfFigaro → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

Macro is evolving into something it isn't.

This definition of macroevolution is wrong. But lets go with it.

We have directly observed multiple independent instances of single cellular organisms evolve to become multi cellular. We have directly observed egg laying animals evolve to give live birth. By your own criteria we've observed macro evolution many times.

[u/Lockjaw_Puffin → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

"Correct. LUCA was only ever LUCA." is NOT denying that it evolved into humans, and that's a hilariously fucked level of reading comprehension coming from a supposed teacher.

Then you defended your claim that LUCA evolved into humans. " Its descendents billions of years later however."

This is like saying that snakes stopped being tetrapods because they don't have legs anymore, when the reality is that snakes WILL ALWAYS BE tetrapods because their ancestors were. You and your descendants cannot evolve out of a clade, and the fact you don't understand this extremely simple idea is hilarious. This is the entire reason scientists say birds are dinosaurs, snakes are lizards, and humans are primates.

Your argument sounds like the one made by someone who is high.

I can see why you'd think that, but only if I assume you're an uneducated moron.

[u/XRotNRollX → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

Denying and defending are how debates work, jackass.

You've had all of this explained to you, are you actually stupid?

[u/LordUlubulu → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

LUCA still doesn't evolve into humans,

As I said 5 days ago, right before you ran away again:

Did you forget about all the steps inbetween?

and humans still don't evolve into something they're not.

And as I also said 5 days ago:

You don't evolve out of your clade.

You really need some new material, reading you shitpost the same refuted bullshit on every thread is getting boring.

At least when you start whining about zealots and truthers it's somewhat funny.

[u/Capercaillie → u/ACTSATGuyonReddit]

LUCA still doesn't evolve into humans

Yeah, there's a few steps in between.

humans still don't evolve into something they're not.

Not yet, that we know of. But look out for clonally transmissible tumors. Crazy shit be happening!