why did people evolve to like sugar and fat

[dragonstar57]

if sugar is and fat is so bad for us why do people like them?

why is it the high calorie stuff that people like.

wouldn't evolution have made people dislike sugar and fat by killing all those that like it?

[Incendia]

Sweet stuff was rare and hard to get. During the ice age humans needed fats to survive. Western humans like sugar more that people from other ethnicities. This is probably because the north is cold. ...Those are just some ideas from the top of my head based on my thoughts...Someone more knowledgeable may list more reasons or disagree with one of my points.

[Sisyphus]

If food is scarce and sugar and fat are scarcer, making sure to eat what little you find is good for you. Only now that a Big Gulp or triple cheeseburger is always within easy reach do the "fat fat fat you'd better eat it now" instincts become kind of problematic. If you think about it, it's actually pretty strange that we're in a situation where having too much energy (that is, calories) is a significant problem.

 

Also, remember that being chubby has benefits - like surviving a famine - as well as drawbacks that mostly don't apply in a world where almost nobody lives long enough to be killed by clogged arteries.

[Maximus Semprus Veridius]

Sugar and fat are very valuable nutrients when you need to 1) Store energy (lipids) for later on i.e. in the winter and 2) If you need fast release energy (like to escape from a charging wild boar or something). So if you think of a cave man he will almost never exceed the amount of fat or sugar he can eat and become unhealthy, mainly because there isn't that much around but also because he/she moves around and expends sooo much energy compared to modern day humans. Remember that almost all carbohydrates turn to fat if not used, so cavefolk would have expended their glucose merely by surviving whilst modern day man does not.

 

Another point could be that the ice-age killed off lots of the population that didn't put on fat very easily so most of the world's population has a very efficient fat storage mechanism. But that's just a guess.

[ewmon]

Let's not forget salt, the third leg of the flavor triad. Free capitalism will find ways to entice people to buy products they don't need.

[cypress]

if sugar is and fat is so bad for us why do people like them?

why is it the high calorie stuff that people like.

wouldn't evolution have made people dislike sugar and fat by killing all those that like it?

 

Questions like these don't have scientific answers, because science is unable to account for behaviors. This relegates the answers to speculation which is metaphysical.

 

If the drive for survival accounted for tastes and development of digestion then all organisms would by now have developed systems that are able to consume anything and everything in their environment that provided a source of energy and raw material for cell construction and function while eliminating anything that is potentially toxic.

[dragonstar57]

so fat, sugar, and salt are necessary but were scarce to early humans,

and they either used all the fat they ate or died before excess fat created an issue.

now with no scarcity of these nutrients and less need to use energy and less chase of being eaten by a lion or dieing of a cold people are now living long enough for excess fat to become a serious problem.

wouldn't these kind of shifts possibly cause the extinction of a species when it evolves to have a a particular trait and then suddenly it requires the opposite instinct to survive.

 

Questions like these don't have scientific answers, because science is unable to account for behaviors. This relegates the answers to speculation which is metaphysical.

 

If the drive for survival accounted for tastes and development of digestion then all organisms would by now have developed systems that are able to consume anything and everything in their environment that provided a source of energy and raw material for cell construction and function while eliminating anything that is potentially toxic.

ever heard of phycology

or behavioral science?

[cypress]

so fat, sugar, and salt are necessary but were scarce to early humans,

and they either used all the fat they ate or died before excess fat created an issue.

now with no scarcity of these nutrients and less need to use energy and less chase of being eaten by a lion or dieing of a cold people are now living long enough for excess fat to become a serious problem.

wouldn't these kind of shifts possibly cause the extinction of a species when it evolves to have a a particular trait and then suddenly it requires the opposite instinct to survive.

 

Interesting speculation. With food scarce why wouldn't all animals have the taste and ability to digest all sources of food energy?

 

 

ever heard of phycology

or behavioral science?

 

I don't see were either field has provided an objective demonstration that behaviors have a genetic source.

[Mr Skeptic]

Questions like these don't have scientific answers, because science is unable to account for behaviors. This relegates the answers to speculation which is metaphysical.

 

We study behavior in creatures from fruit fly and up. Are you saying thousands of scientific studies (especially for medicine) are unscientific and metaphysical, just because they conflict with your religion? Me, I'll take a psychiatrist/psychologist over an exorcist any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

If the drive for survival accounted for tastes and development of digestion then all organisms would by now have developed systems that are able to consume anything and everything in their environment that provided a source of energy and raw material for cell construction and function while eliminating anything that is potentially toxic.

 

Sometimes its better to specialize, you as a chemist should know that. Each type of food requires special adaptations, meat requires less digestion but more protection from parasites, whereas plants require a huge and enormously complicated digestive system, the "human food" plants are easier to digest but much scarcer, eating detritus also has its own issues. Those which specialize will have adaptations for their mouths, digestive system, and sometimes limbs, and of course behavior. A lion would starve to death eating grass, even if it could digest it, and a cow isn't a very good predator so meat is off the menu for them. If you were so clever you'd have a Phd in Physics, Biology, Astronomy, Geology, Medicine, etc., right?

 

In particular, herbivores are a spectacular evidence for evolution and against Intelligent Design -- what sort of designer would make something that eats a food it can't digest?! Only a few creatures can digest cellulose, eg bacteria, fungi and rotifers and not any of our traditional "herbivores", which instead have these creatures in their digestive system to digest it for them, at enormous efficiency losses -- but far easier to evolve, since all that is needed is said creatures living in you rather than developing the enzymes and secretion system.

[dragonstar57]

Interesting speculation. With food scarce why wouldn't all animals have the taste and ability to digest all sources of food energy?

perhaps disliking the taste of some chemicals reduced the odds of consuming something toxic.

I don't see were either field has provided an objective demonstration that behaviors have a genetic source.

nor do I but other branches of science do deal with behavior.

just not genetics as it applies to behavior

 

We study behavior in creatures from fruit fly and up. Are you saying thousands of scientific studies (especially for medicine) are unscientific and metaphysical, just because they conflict with your religion? Me, I'll take a psychiatrist/psychologist over an exorcist any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

 

 

Sometimes its better to specialize, you as a chemist should know that. Each type of food requires special adaptations, meat requires less digestion but more protection from parasites, whereas plants require a huge and enormously complicated digestive system, the "human food" plants are easier to digest but much scarcer, eating detritus also has its own issues. Those which specialize will have adaptations for their mouths, digestive system, and sometimes limbs, and of course behavior. A lion would starve to death eating grass, even if it could digest it, and a cow isn't a very good predator so meat is off the menu for them. If you were so clever you'd have a Phd in Physics, Biology, Astronomy, Geology, Medicine, etc., right?

 

In particular, herbivores are a spectacular evidence for evolution and against Intelligent Design -- what sort of designer would make something that eats a food it can't digest?! Only a few creatures can digest cellulose, eg bacteria, fungi and rotifers and not any of our traditional "herbivores", which instead have these creatures in their digestive system to digest it for them, at enormous efficiency losses -- but far easier to evolve, since all that is needed is said creatures living in you rather than developing the enzymes and secretion system.

so if you pumped a cow full of antibiotics and antifungals it would die of starvation?

Edited November 6, 2010 by dragonstar57

[Sisyphus]

Interesting speculation. With food scarce why wouldn't all animals have the taste and ability to digest all sources of food energy?

 

Interesting question. Just remember that

 

1) Evolution doesn't predict that everything that might be advantageous must develop.

2) Everything has its cost, which means that abilities that aren't used tend to disappear.

3) Evolution can't plan ahead. Ever hear of irreducible complexity?

 

As for why something specific didn't develop, I guess that would have to be examined on a case by case basis.

 

I don't see were either field has provided an objective demonstration that behaviors have a genetic source.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you denying the existence of instinct? Are you claiming heritability has no influence on personality? Or are you saying these things are heritable by some means other than genes?

[dragonstar57]

Interesting question. Just remember that

 

1) Evolution doesn't predict that everything that might be advantageous must develop.

2) Everything has its cost, which means that abilities that aren't used tend to disappear.

3) Evolution can't plan ahead. Ever hear of irreducible complexity?

 

As for why something specific didn't develop, I guess that would have to be examined on a case by case basis.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you denying the existence of instinct? Are you claiming heritability has no influence on personality? Or are you saying these things are heritable by some means other than genes?

i think he is saying that genetics is not yet advanced enough to identify a "behavior gene"

[cypress]

We study behavior in creatures from fruit fly and up. Are you saying thousands of scientific studies (especially for medicine) are unscientific and metaphysical, just because they conflict with your religion? Me, I'll take a psychiatrist/psychologist over an exorcist any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

No the studies are fine, but if someone concludes that behavior can be reduced to material causes then that would be metaphysical.

 

Sometimes its better to specialize, you as a chemist should know that. Each type of food requires special adaptations, meat requires less digestion but more protection from parasites, whereas plants require a huge and enormously complicated digestive system, the "human food" plants are easier to digest but much scarcer, eating detritus also has its own issues. Those which specialize will have adaptations for their mouths, digestive system, and sometimes limbs, and of course behavior. A lion would starve to death eating grass, even if it could digest it, and a cow isn't a very good predator so meat is off the menu for them. If you were so clever you'd have a Phd in Physics, Biology, Astronomy, Geology, Medicine, etc., right?

 

Designed systems very clearly include specialization, incorporate trade-offs and local optimizations. How do we objectively establish that natural selection favors specialization rather than that it is simply constrained, unable to generate new digestive functionality?

 

In particular, herbivores are a spectacular evidence for evolution and against Intelligent Design -- what sort of designer would make something that eats a food it can't digest?!

 

This is a terrible argument. First of all, who are you to know the mind of another designer? Second, designers employ this approach routinely. A sewer plant accepts influent that contains organic matter and ammonia sending it through filter beds that the filter can't digest. Designers of refineries, chemical manufacturing and separation facilities make use of similar approaches.

 

Interesting question. Just remember that

 

1) Evolution doesn't predict that everything that might be advantageous must develop.

2) Everything has its cost, which means that abilities that aren't used tend to disappear.

3) Evolution can't plan ahead. Ever hear of irreducible complexity?

 

As for why something specific didn't develop, I guess that would have to be examined on a case by case basis.

 

Except when evolution is taken as a prior commitment as it has been in this thread, then one simply speculates as to how and why certain things came to be the way they are.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you denying the existence of instinct? Are you claiming heritability has no influence on personality? Or are you saying these things are heritable by some means other than genes?

 

I am saying that it has not been demonstrated that behavior is reducible and therefore determined by material cause.

[Maximus Semprus Veridius]

I'm sorry did you say "...why wouldn't all animals have the taste and ability to digest all sources of food energy?"

If so this is worrying. Mainly because you have failed to grasp a few fundamental concepts of biology and evolution! A cat cannot SURVIVE without Taurine. It gets Taurine from animal tissue it eats. Its enzymes (Taurase i think) digest this. A cow for example does not have taurase to digest and synthesis energy and perpetuate its life through taurine, unlike a cat. A cat has a niche at killing animals and eating meat. A cow has a niche of eating grass and other cellulose rich products. They cannot eat the same things and survive.

 

And also to add, surely EVERYTHING can be determined through physical means? It's all just protons and electrons in different combinations and structures. But i know thats not what you meant. Even so its quite clear that physical things effect behavior and certain stimuli cause different reactions, like neurotransmitters travelling to different parts of the brain cause different reactions.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Maximus Semprus Veridius

[cypress]

I'm sorry did you say "...why wouldn't all animals have the taste and ability to digest all sources of food energy?"

If so this is worrying. Mainly because you have failed to grasp a few fundamental concepts of biology and evolution!

 

Actually it was you who failed to understand the rhetorical nature of the question intended to illustrate that the speculations being bantered about here make certain assumptions about the power of natural selection to accomplish particular fantastic feats but then ignore failure to accomplish other similar feats including the one raised in my question.

 

A cat cannot SURVIVE without Taurine. It gets Taurine from animal tissue it eats. Its enzymes (Taurase i think) digest this. A cow for example does not have taurase to digest and synthesis energy and perpetuate its life through taurine, unlike a cat. A cat has a niche at killing animals and eating meat. A cow has a niche of eating grass and other cellulose rich products. They cannot eat the same things and survive.

 

Right they can't apparently because evolutionary processes does not generate those function in one organism even though it quite clearly does in others, yet some people here wildly speculate about all kinds of functions evolution does generate whenever one feels in need of an explanation. It is very clever.

 

And also to add, surely EVERYTHING can be determined through physical means? It's all just protons and electrons in different combinations and structures. But i know thats not what you meant. Even so its quite clear that physical things effect behavior and certain stimuli cause different reactions, like neurotransmitters travelling to different parts of the brain cause different reactions.

 

Unless I misunderstand you, I think that is what I meant. I do mean that physical laws do not explain and determine everything. Behavior, and functional information also are not reducible to particles.

Edited November 7, 2010 by cypress

[Incendia]

Actually if you want to be technical they are reducible to particles...

The way your mind works is just your brain, [made of cells, made of dna, which can be reduced to a combination of particles.] hormones and other chemicals, [as I have said chemicals are reducible to particles] and electrical signals. [And electrons are particles.]

How they combine and reaction is how our brain works as as we know our behaviour stems from how our brain works.

 

[i don't understand what you mean by functional information...]

[dragonstar57]

Actually it was you who failed to understand the rhetorical nature of the question intended to illustrate that the speculations being bantered about here make certain assumptions about the power of natural selection to accomplish particular fantastic feats but then ignore failure to accomplish other similar feats including the one raised in my question.

 

 

 

Right they can't apparently because evolutionary processes does not generate those function in one organism even though it quite clearly does in others, yet some people here wildly speculate about all kinds of functions evolution does generate whenever one feels in need of an explanation. It is very clever.

 

 

 

Unless I misunderstand you, I think that is what I meant. I do mean that physical laws do not explain and determine everything. Behavior, and functional information also are not reducible to particles.

are you trying to push a creationist agenda??

[Mr Skeptic]

No the studies are fine, but if someone concludes that behavior can be reduced to material causes then that would be metaphysical.

 

What other option is there? You can't study metaphysical things, can you? And if you can, how then would they be different than the real ones?

 

Designed systems very clearly include specialization, incorporate trade-offs and local optimizations. How do we objectively establish that natural selection favors specialization rather than that it is simply constrained, unable to generate new digestive functionality?

 

That we see it happen all the time. Can be observed in bacteria within reasonable time periods, they will specialize to whatever environment they are placed in.

 

This is a terrible argument. First of all, who are you to know the mind of another designer? Second, designers employ this approach routinely. A sewer plant accepts influent that contains organic matter and ammonia sending it through filter beds that the filter can't digest. Designers of refineries, chemical manufacturing and separation facilities make use of similar approaches.

 

So then you agree that a design efficient at destroying organics from a slurry (sewer treatment), would not particularly good at capturing them mostly intact (digestion)? Or are you trying to make an obviously false comparison between the two, "see how good sewer design is at destroying organics, must be a great way to capture organics"

[cypress]

are you trying to push a creationist agenda??

 

 

Is attempting to be accurate about what is known, what is conjecture, and what is wild speculation creationist?

 

What other option is there? You can't study metaphysical things, can you? And if you can, how then would they be different than the real ones?

 

A very god option would be not to jump to conclusions when the evidence is not there. One can certainly study and determine causality regardless of the source.

 

That we see it happen all the time. Can be observed in bacteria within reasonable time periods, they will specialize to whatever environment they are placed in.

 

We see populations adapt to scarcity of materials available in their environment as a necessity of the constraints imposed. Speculation is an optimization mechanism designed to effectively capitalize on the opportunities of abundance of choice not the necessity of limitations. Specialization does not seem to be an observable outcome of mutation and natural selection operating today.

 

So then you agree that a design efficient at destroying organics from a slurry (sewer treatment), would not particularly good at capturing them mostly intact (digestion)? Or are you trying to make an obviously false comparison between the two, "see how good sewer design is at destroying organics, must be a great way to capture organics"

 

Neither, a sewer plant is an example of the kind of design you falsely claimed designers would not employ. This is the point I am making.

[Maximus Semprus Veridius]

What isn't reducible by paritcles then?

[pippo]

Me, I'll take a psychiatrist/psychologist over an exorcist any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

 

 

I dunno, Skeptic Mr. The Psych "profession" has been an utter failure in their effort to "fix" peoples problems in the past 80 years. Their arbitrary development of "diseases" such as ADHD, Bipolar disorder, HDD, ADD, etc etc etc etc. And how they misuse the term "chemical imbalance" without credible/objective/analytical test results........totally lacking foundation other than consensus only among those in the field. Then they use their diagnoses to drug huge numbers of our children, with the blessing of Bristol-Meyers.

 

Dont have a specific reference right now, just remember that from a while back. I'll take the Excorcist.....LOL

Edited November 16, 2010 by pippo

[dragonstar57]

I dunno, Skeptic Mr. The Psych "profession" has been an utter failure in their effort to "fix" peoples problems in the past 80 years. Their arbitrary development of "diseases" such as ADHD, Bipolar disorder, HDD, ADD, etc etc etc etc. And how they misuse the term "chemical imbalance" without credible/objective/analytical test results........totally lacking foundation other than consensus only among those in the field. Then they use their diagnoses to drug huge numbers of our children, with the blessing of Bristol-Meyers.

 

Dont have a specific reference right now, just remember that from a while back. I'll take the Excorcist.....LOL

because evil sprites are far more a credible explanation than a chemical imbalance

and the ability to give a diagnosis is not at fault for increased adhd lvs. ghosts are the culprit