Higher quality nutrition allowed women to wean their children earlier from breast milk. This in turn allowed women to give birth to more children during their fertile period, which contributed to increasing the population and forced it to gradually spread throughout the world.
Eating meat is behind the evolutionary success of the human race. When early man began to eat game meat, and eventually, a better quality diet allowed women to wean their children earlier. This in turn allowed women to give birth to more children during their fertile period, which contributed to increasing the population and forced it to gradually spread throughout the world. The connection between eating meat and the rapid weaning process was shown by a research group from Lund University in Sweden, who compared the weaning processes of nearly 70 species of mammals and found clear patterns.
Learning to hunt was a crucial step in human evolution. Hunting requires communication, planning and the use of tools, all of which required a larger brain. In addition, adding meat to the menu made it possible to develop a larger brain.
"The phenomenon has been known for a long time. However, no one has previously demonstrated a strong link between eating meat and the duration of breastfeeding, which is the essential piece of the puzzle in this regard. Eating meat made it possible to shorten the breastfeeding period and thus also the time between births. This probably had a decisive effect on human evolution," says Ilya Passouni from Lund University.
Paswani is a developmental psychologist, and together with Martin Garevitz, a neurophysiologist - also from Lund, and the geneticist Axel Janke (now in Frankfurt, but previously from the University of Lund) published their findings in the journal PLoS ONE.
The average duration of breastfeeding is two years and four months. This is not much compared to the maximum lifespan of the human species, about 120 years. It is even less, if compared to our relatives: chimpanzees breastfeed their offspring for 4-5 years, while the maximum lifespan of chimpanzees is only 60 years.
Many researchers have tried to explain the relatively short breastfeeding period of humans based on social and behavioral theories of parenting and family size. But the team from Lund has now shown that humans are no different from other mammals in the timing of weaning. When brain development and nutritional composition are factored into the equation, the time our youngster breastfeeds fits exactly the pattern used by other mammals.
Paswani and her friends built a mathematical model. They entered into it data on nearly 70 species of mammals of different types - data on brain size and nutrition. Species that at least 20 percent of their energy content comes from meat - were classified as carnivores. The model shows that the young of the carnivorous species stopped nursing when their brains reached a certain stage of development, before their brains reached full size. Carnivores, due to the high quality diet, can wean earlier than herbivores and even omnivores.
The model also shows that humans are no different from other lunatics in terms of the timing of withdrawal. All types of predators, from small animals such as ferrets, raccoons to large predators such as panthers, killer whales and humans, experience a short lactation period. The difference between us and the great apes, which puzzled previous researchers, comes only from the fact that we are carnivores, while gorillas and chimpanzees and orangutans are herbivores or omnivores.
A few years ago, the group of researchers from Lund University won praise for a study that dealt with the time when young mammals begin to walk. Here, too, similar patterns were discovered between the species of mammals, because at a certain stage in the development of the brain it is time to start walking, because at a certain stage in the development of the brain in all mammals it is time to start walking" and this is true for hedgehogs, ferrets and humans.
"The fact that humans are so similar to other animals can, of course, be considered provocative. We like to think that culture makes us different as a species. But when it comes to breastfeeding and weaning, there is no need for social or cultural explanations. For the entire human species, it is a matter of simple biology. Social and cultural factors may certainly influence the differences between people," says Passouni.
Passouni is careful to emphasize that their results concern human evolution. The study is about how eating meat contributed or could have contributed to the spread of the human race on Earth and says nothing about what we should or shouldn't be eating today to get good nutrition.
1. . Elia Psouni, Axel Janke, Martin Garwicz The effect of meat eating on human evolution using a new model that compares weaning in mammals PLoS ONE, 2012: 7 (4): E32452 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032452
43 תגובות
Please don't blame your inability to understand on me. I understood very well. The one who doesn't understand is you, so please.
You yourself touched on the answer in your comment. You wrote, "vegans... should take synthetic substitutes". So here it is - we used to need something that only the flesh could give us, and you yourself admit that today this is not the case. Today we can not eat meat and use our scientific abilities to fill in the gaps. Other than that, you completely ignored the things I wrote. You ask why we should stop eating meat if until now we have been eating meat and it was essential for our development, but I explained the reason to you in my original response. Evolution is completely environment dependent, and our environment today (and the interaction with it through artificial selection) is quite different from the interaction with the environment of early man. If you don't understand how evolution works, you should make claims only for yourself and not accuse me of misunderstanding.
It seems that you didn't read my response at all, you just saw that it didn't correspond 100% to your opinions, so you started posting. It's a shame that you had to demonstrate your ignorance along the way and your inability to hold a dialogue (note - dialogue means to relate to the other person's words and not ignore them). And the great irony is that I am not a vegan at all and I am not trying to preach to anyone to stop eating meat. I eat meat myself, but what if your comment (which said that the last line in the article is unnecessary and wrong) is just stupid. I'm not responding on behalf of the vegan group, I'm responding on behalf of the group of people who love science and don't like people like you twisting it to serve their purposes and strengthen their belief systems.
elbentzo,
It seems you didn't understand anything from the article. After all, if you -agree- that until today meat has contributed to the evolution and development of man, there is no sense in stopping eating meat today. We already know that it is impossible to obtain what is in meat and animal fat through plants, and "vegans" who eat meat substitutes from seitan and tofu have to take synthetic supplements.
To say "we have developed so far with the help of this but now we don't have to" is completely nonsensical. The thing that contributed to our development and brain growth is suddenly irrelevant now because...? What exactly has changed? Is there a trend of eating plants and processed manure? 🙂
This article should be accepted with extreme caution even if it is signed by 30 doctors. First of all, it is a mathematical model, and in the model a result is obtained that is given by the data entered into it.
A number of assertions by the authors, as cited by Lizovsky, indicate errors. There is no connection between eating meat and brain size. Since the authors compare humans to dozens of mammals, a male gorilla would compare to about 200 kilos and a brain of 500 grams, to a lion up to 250 kilos and a brain of 250 grams. The claim that meat is a higher quality food than plants is also false, the meat is more concentrated but not of higher quality by any means. And it's almost certain that before cooking began, eating meat caused a lot of illness and death, which plants can hardly cause. As you can see in plant eaters.
Also the claim that the maximum lifespan of a person is 120 years is ridiculous if you don't rely on biblical mythology.
In addition to all the authors refrained from including the social and cultural influences in their partial model, if they had included them they would have received completely new results.
a warm and beautiful name,
The sentence does not contradict anything and is not redundant. He does not contradict because the fact that meat played an important role in the evolution of man does not mean that we should continue to eat it, and this is for several reasons: first, the way in which man develops today is drastically different from the way in which he developed in the past (due to a drastic artificial selection that we make on ourselves when choosing Spouses), but mainly because the same factors that were so essential to the development of the breastfeeding process can also be obtained in other forms that do not include hunting.
And of course it is not unnecessary, because if it had not been said then one could get the impression that the scientific research is evidence of the disadvantages of a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. But this is clearly not the case - the researcher wants to make it clear that science sheds light on how we got to where we are, but does not necessarily dictate the right step for the future. Just because hunting allowed humans to wean their children early does not mean that a vegetarian or vegan in modern times is doing anything wrong. The considerations for or against vegetarianism and veganism must be considered regardless of the question of how much of our development in the past depends on eating meat.
The last sentence is completely unnecessary, and somewhat contradicts the content of the article. After all, if humans have evolved to this day -with the help- of eating meat, it cannot be said that this does not indicate anything about our modern life.
I didn't understand how they came to the conclusion that if 20% of a person's diet comes from meat (at least for a certain period) it makes a person a carnivore and not an omnivore. On the face of it, a species that eats 20% meat is much closer to a complete vegetarian than a complete carnivore
From Chalk
I also claimed that there are no pure vegetarians because the plants that the "vegetarians" eat in nature contain the flesh of worms, slugs and other kinds of insects..
to Ernest
0. My point was that it is clear that almost all animals feed on meat to one degree or another.
1. The difference is mainly quantitative. The claim of the article is basically that man started eating more meat and did not start eating meat at all. This is a reasonable assumption because a significant part of the primates and chimpanzees in particular feed on meat, among other things.
2. This is a question that needs precision in reference to the periods of time. When a woman stops breastfeeding after three months, they tell her: breastfeed more, it's healthy. Today, most women's breastfeeding ends after less than a year. On the other hand, in chimpanzees and early humans it lasted much longer anyway (2-5 years!), so it is not clear if there is any additional benefit to the very long breastfeeding.
I have previously read similar articles about the effect of man's 'discovery of fire' on brain growth and human brain development. All animals in nature are afraid of fire, except the human race.
I did not understand the connection between your explanation about the predators, and the content of the article.
"The person/ is unnecessary
From Chalk
I didn't understand what your explanation about the definition of predators has to do with the article,
In the article it is claimed that eating meat "man has contributed to a significant increase in its population and the extent of its distribution.
I raised points/questions related to the topic that I did not find reference to in the article:
1. How was man and his genome affected when he was exposed to bacteria and viruses in the meat that his immune system did not have. sale.
2. According to my knowledge, there is an agreement in medicine that breastfeeding for a long period is healthier and immunizes the baby more.
And this has a negative "evolutionary" meaning. how it affected
3. It is possible that the fact that man was used to eating meat found in plants, worms, snails, etc., is a relief
the process of absorbing the other meat in his body.
.
R.H
Everything I said that every creature in my life is fed to one degree or another by meat is a fact.
bardogo,
Before you slander, you should check yourself: the brain size jumps happened several times and were quite gradual. The jumps indicate a correlation to improved nutrition such as using fire, so the article supports the direction implied in the title and not as you stated. See here:http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%A9%D7%9C_%D7%94%D7%90%D7%93%D7%9D.
As for the title, the nature of titles is that they summarize what is said later and it is permissible and even desirable to describe in them something that will attract the eye.
A man will not die if he eats only meat, and I know many who live that way. On the contrary, eating plant food only causes a lack of part of the necessary menu.
If you want to be the one who determines the definitions (who is a predator and who is not), join the academy where you can specialize in the field and determine. For now you have to submit to the definitions according to which the person whose food is mostly meat (more than 50%) is in possession of a carnivore.
The increase in the size of the brain was not due to the development of the voice box, but the opposite: the development of the brain has many consequences and possible causes, while the development of the voice box has almost no other consequences than the ability to perfect the sounds produced, hence it had an evolutionary advantage only after there was a brain that could use it.
Ernest,
With the exception of those who do photosynthesis and fix carbon from the atmosphere (photosynthetic plants and bacteria), everyone else feeds on carbon from other creatures. This is the food chain. In principle there is no difference if you get your carbon from eating a plant or from eating the one who ate the plant. "Predation" is our definition of those who eat something that is not plant-based, but do you really see a fundamental difference?
"Meat" is also our definition of muscle tissue, so what you write "there is no one in nature who does not eat meat" is not true. Herbivores are not carnivores by definition. But really this is a semantic rather than a principled debate.
anonymous,
Just like Moshe answered you. If your robot was: a. replicates in Replication was not perfect (mutations) c. There was competition between the individuals and the robot species for limited resources (selection)
Then yes, there would have been a tremendous change and an evolution would have taken place. I don't know if in the end there were airplanes because it is impossible to predict evolutionary directions, but surely countless new and unexpected kinds of robots would have been received. Such things have been demonstrated in many computer simulations.
So evolution in man is possible?
to Machalek
I agree with you. And add another interesting point. Only humans have a sweat system with sweat glands. This and walking on two are the only features that are unique to us. All other features are quantitative (more or less). Chimpanzees have more hair and we have more brains.
Happy holiday
On the hunt (for Ernest):
It is clear that in nature there is no one who does not eat "meat". Even the "herb eaters" end up digesting not the grass but the bacteria that decomposed it in their stomach :). But this is a bit of a pointless discussion. The logic in defining the "predators" is not purely philosophical but ecological-functional. Throughout life, the so-called "predation" has far-reaching ecological significance: curbing the population of herbivores (and hence, helping the plants), a large handling time for each and every prey and the need for a very active lifestyle, etc.
About the taxonomy (Labradogo):
I'm afraid you're confusing taxonomy with lifestyle a bit. As for taxonomy - there is a series of mammals called "carnivora", a not very good name in my opinion. However, many animals other than this series live the lifestyle of absolute carnivores. Examples: the shark you mentioned, toothed whales, mantises, squids, etc.
However, it is clear that humans are not carnivores but omnivores. In fact, it is better to define a continuous axis of the amount of meat in the diet. On this axis we are probably positioned more in the direction of the predators than the chimpanzees, although chimpanzees tend to hunt in not negligible quantities at all, certain groups hunt even more than modern human hunters!
As for the jump in brain size and when it happened - it didn't happen. Certainly not 250 thousand years ago. See the graph:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:Brain_Size_Evolution_Heb_01.svg
More generally: anyone who writes about this topic should use skepticism. A lot of events happened in a very short period of time and it is very difficult to know what led to what, etc. In particular, the processes apparently accelerated each other, which makes a reliable reconstruction very difficult. One of the fascinating issues is that man has the most advanced head cooling system in the animal world. Here is another piece in this fascinating puzzle.
Anonymous user.
"If the answer is "no". After all, human evolution is also impossible."
And if the answer is "yes", then is human evolution possible?
anonymous user,
This is a XNUMXth grade level argument, at the purest logical level without considering physics at all.
If it replicated imperfectly, but with defects, as it really happens and in a completely proven way, it is possible that this robot of yours would change.
R.H
There are millions of animals from unicellular to multicellular in the plant,
Larvae, pupae and eggs of types of butterflies, grasshoppers, snails and worms.
If this is true, then there is no one in nature who does not eat meat.
Labrador- how about a third possibility: we didn't evolve from primitive primates but have always been like that.
It is easy to prove this in a logical way - if we had a robot in the shape of a monkey walking on all fours. Let's assume for the purpose that the aforementioned robot could reproduce (has a replication mechanism). Would he become a bipedal robot after millions of years? Was he able to invent airplanes on his own *without prior programming by the person who invented it*?
If the answer is "no". After all, human evolution is also impossible.
eat her
http://www.flixxy.com/robin-williams-has-a-tickle-fight-with-a-gorilla.htm
Come on dad, they even put a picture with the taxonomy that associates man with the group of great apes, don't try to reinvent science. A carnivore is a carnivore, an omnivore is an omnivore, and humans belong to the family of great apes that eat mostly fruits, leaves and some insects.
And I read the article, their interpretations, unlike your title, are much more careful and considered. They also for some reason avoid discussing the fact that our Australopithecus ancestors started eating meat about 3 million years ago, while the jump in the size of the brain occurred about 250 thousand years ago. Such a significant non-proximity greatly reduces the possibility of cause and effect. Perhaps what caused the significant brain growth is the development of the human sounding board (larynx) which enabled communication? Maybe this is the transition to upright walking? There is no way to know and everything must remain in question. As well as the title you gave the article.
Ernest,
All animals eat organic food. If you define eating bacteria as predation then eating plants is also predation.
In one of the articles here it is said that in the human body there are about 10 bacteria on each cell and they weigh about two kg
In a plant eaten by a deer, for example, which is considered vegetarian, it is interesting to know what amount of living creatures are inside and outside the plant. In the upper part and in the root.
It can be concluded that they all prey on some worms, insects, bacteria, and some larger creatures as well. You can define them all as predators but at different levels.
They didn't just decide to produce insect-free vegetables. Mainly for the religious public.
This explains why the human body could digest something so-called new, meat, because even being a vegetarian he ate
Meat, maybe he started eating animal flesh, he knew how to use fire as early as his birth.
Read the link and you will see that this is the interpretation of the researchers themselves, not mine.
Hello Avi Blizovsky.
I'm sorry, but you wrote a lot of nonsense here.
"The difference between us and the great apes, which embarrassed previous researchers, stems only from the fact that we are carnivores, while gorillas and chimpanzees and orangutans are herbivores or omnivores"
You need to refresh the taxonomic classification of the animals. A predator is, for example, a tiger, whose entire diet is based on meat. You won't see a tiger nibbling on an apple. As above, shark, wolf, etc. If a person eats only meat he will die in a few weeks.
Second, your headline is one of the most ridiculous I've ever come across. It takes a lot of courage to claim what is "responsible" for the development of the human race. After all, this is something that cannot be proven. This is a hypothesis that in this case is supported by the incorrect classification of humans as carnivores and ignoring the fact that we consume a lot of meat today just because it is available to us. In the past the percentage of meat in the diet was very low, in some populations it is completely zero even today.
I have not yet read the article itself, but I have no doubt that I will find many more errors in your interpretation of the article.
Robbie you are absolutely right.
Put a man alone in the savanna without tools and equipment and you will immediately see that he is not the most talented predator of all.
And of course the chimpanzee eats everything just like the human.
The difference is that man has created greater accessibility to meat through proactive hunting in groups, while being able
run for days (marathon, not applicable to a chimpanzee).
Perhaps it is more appropriate to write, that the evolutionary advantages that man had ……………
Added at some point the ability to use meat as food after it was prepared with the help of fire.
And it contributed to……….
The primate, Homo sapiens, had an initial advantage that gave him the ability to be at the top of the food chain, the ability to communicate, the ability to think creatively, and a body structure that could hold and create tools and draw and record thoughts.
If only eating meat was the reason for human reproduction, then the lion and the tiger and the other predators would rule the earth and not so
It is interesting why in the beef we eat cooked or roasted, there are ingredients that are harmful to health, after all it is the reason according to the article to bring us an evolutionary advantage. After all, the same ingredients did not harm them. supposed to be
Survive and be the new man.
According to "modern medicine" it is healthier for the baby, a long period of breastfeeding than a short one, for its strength
And his immunity, these are qualities that, without a doubt, (especially during the medical donation period) increase the chance percentage of babies to survive. Whereas according to the article, it seems that the quantity outweighs the quality, fewer healthy and vaccinated babies and more that are less healthy and vaccinated. Let's not forget that eating mammal meat has given us quite a few viruses and harmful parasites that our immune system has not yet recognized.
.
It could very well be that back then, meat really was an easy and convenient way, even critical, for quality nutrition. So what? Today, in the era of industrialized agriculture, when plant-based proteins of various types are available to everyone (in the Western world), the advantage the article talks about no longer exists.
It is very important that such an article is not used as a basis for generalization - according to which eating meat is something that is good for us in general.
After all, in other respects (expectancy and optimal quality of life, for example, in light of current epidemiological studies) - a plant-based diet is precisely the one that shows a health advantage.
Furthermore, even if the adoption of eating meat in the past resulted in a seemingly positive evolutionary change - one must consider the consequences of this practice for the survival of the human race now:
The farm industries (from animals), being the most wasteful and polluting by definition of all the other ways to feed the human population - stand out as our fastest way to destroy the planet, to consume the water we drink, and to sterilize the fields that feed us. And this - may one day interfere a little with survival...
As you can see in the linked article (cooking made us human), fire and knives replace the fangs and other components that other carnivores have. However, it is debatable whether man is a carnivore or an omnivore. It's a question of percentages.
I do not disagree with the research conclusions regarding the health benefit of eating meat, but nevertheless:
The definition of humans as "carnivores" is not correct (this is how the study is quoted, mistakenly or not: "...is only due to the fact that we are carnivores, while gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans are herbivores or omnivores").
Man's diet at no point was meat as a main source except in the Arctic regions / beaches rich in fish. Even today, by the way, the biggest meat eaters in the Western world do not reach more than 40% meat consumption of their total food.
Beyond that :
Although the human digestive system digests meat (mainly cooked by the way), it does not share most of the characteristics of the digestive system and teeth of natural carnivores and is much more adapted to plant food or molluscs/small mammals and fish.
Anyone who defines himself as a "predator" is invited to try to hunt animals himself and then eat them like a real predator:
With the fur/beak, the nails, the internal parts and the blood. And of course without cooking.
Whoever succeeds in this is invited to be called a "predator".
Are chimpanzees meat eaters too?
http://dubikan.com/archives/70
A very interesting article, you should pay attention to the author's last sentence
"The study is about how eating meat contributed or could have contributed to the spread of the human race on Earth and says nothing about what we should or shouldn't be eating today to get good nutrition."
Today, with all the industrialization of food, people eat meat in large quantities that are not necessary for the body because the meat is very available, on the other hand, in the time of the ancient man, people ate meat less often because the hunting was not always successful, so it is really important not to throw away from the article about our dietary habits and not to start eating Meat in an excessive way, because such eating harms health.
I am not religious but it is mentioned in your book,
After the flood, the change in man is the permission to eat meat..
One of the main obstacles that faced the other human species (hominins and hominids) was the species Homo sapiens-sapiens, our species...
deer,
Eating meat brought us (and probably the other human species as well) to a better point in evolution,
From there, there were other obstacles that ultimately left us alone today.
One thing is not clear to me, weren't other extinct human species also carnivores?
If so, then how can the evolutionary success of the human race depend on eating meat?
I don't know about you, but I tend to devour steaks
The average percentage of meat in our diet
Are we predators? According to what?