Reflection on natural selection

hot_pastrami · 08-08-2002, 05:59 PM

Sometimes when I deprive myself of sleep, a current is accidentally routed to a gaggle of rusty, neglected neurons in my brain, resulting in some peculiar random thoughts. These thoughts are often mistaken as keenly insightful or stimulatingly contemplative (wow, say that 10 times fast. Hell, say it one time fast). But on closer inspection, they are often betrayed to be the meaningless drivel they truly are.

This is one such thought, one which has lurked in my mind since it leaped at me from the shrubbery this morning. In my many months of reading posts at the Cellar, I've found that relative to other message boards, this place enjoys a generous helping of intellectual minds, so I thought some insight may well be found here.

Now, I'm not a humans-evolved-from-apes advocate, but it is blindingly obvious that natural selection does occur in all living things. From a purely scientific standpoint, my personal beliefs aside for a moment, my question is this: what purpose does the sense of taste serve? Or more to the point, why would natural selection favor that feature as it exists today? Think about it... healthy foods are frequently unpleasant to the palette, and foods which have little or no nutritional value are typically much tastier. Why wouldn't natural selection have favored those who had no sense of taste, or those who liked the taste of foods more beneficial to the eater's health?

Like I said, drivel. Wow, that was long.

Hot Pastrami

Nic Name · 08-08-2002, 06:55 PM

A sense of taste enables you to distinguish by flavor things that could kill you if you ate them.

jaguar · 08-08-2002, 07:30 PM

Failing that consider that since we live such sedatery lifestyles, fat is bad. If you're out all day hunting and stuff you need more fatty foods etc.

Another possability is it is en evolutinary side effect of some oterh mutation that benifited us in are obvious ways. The best idea i can think of is smell which has obvious benifits which is also responsible for the majorty of our ability to taste.

Undertoad · 08-08-2002, 07:54 PM

(Warning: I'm talking out of my ass here, I am not a biology student of any kind.)

Our tastes evolved during very different times than today. Human intelligence changed all the rules of the game.

During the time when our tastes evolved, salt could be a very difficult thing to get. And yet, it's so biologically useful that we can't live without it. (As any Star Trek TOS viewer knows, if your body is depleted of salt, you die.)

Before intelligence, our instincts had to drive us to get salt at any cost. After intelligence, salt becomes so plentiful that it costs pennies for a pound of it.

The same would apply for good sources of energy: fat and sugar. Getting sugar was probably not as easy for early man as it is today, because fruit would not be available year-round. Also, modern fruits contain more sugar than their earlier counterparts due to human influences. They've been bred to be sweeter.

Getting protein and fats and amino acids would have involved a lot of work and maybe early tribal instincts like pack hunting and such. Figure it would easy for early man to forage for foods, but more difficult to get fresh kills, much less carefully trimmed aged marbled beef under cellophane. So the instincts say to go hunting instead of just having another go at the apple core or whatever's left lying around the cave.

elSicomoro · 08-08-2002, 08:41 PM

Interesting stuff.

People that eat nothing but healthy food are boring. They'll die of being lonely.

People that eat nothing but tasty food are cool as hell. But they will die of cancer or a heart attack.

Hence, it is incredibly important to eat well-balanced meals, and to take everything in moderation.

hot_pastrami · 08-09-2002, 03:09 PM

Some good points there, indeed.

The poison idea had occurred to me originally, but I concluded that due to two important facts, that was probably not a large contributor:

1) Poison is not necessaily a distinct taste, it can easily taste like other things, such as salt. It would be an unreliable test.

2) Most creatures who learn what poison tastes like from first-hand experience won't be around long enough to breed, and therefore the slow process of hard-wiring the knowledge cannot occur.

UT, I think your theories this time are pretty close. It is reasonable to conclude that the reason most people don't like vegetables very much is because we have allowed our pre-intelligence lopsided tastes to take the wheel at the diet, making them even more lopsided. Smart guy.

On the same line of thought, not too long ago I was wondering why laughter exists as it does. All groups of people, regardless of their history and culture, tend to experience involuntary spasms of the diaphragm when something ironic, witty, or absurd is presented to them, sometimes to the point of temporarily incapacitating them. What possible advantage did this tendency give over others in a gene pool? Personally, when I really get going, I'm useless for the next 5-10 minutes as I struggle to regain composure, but that's like trying to get a grip on a stray bar of soap in a bathtub... just when you think you've got it, it slips away again.

And yes, you're right in guessing that I'm a lot of fun at parties.

Hot Pastrami!

russotto · 08-09-2002, 03:20 PM

It's all a trick; those nasty-tasting foods are NOT healthy. Nutritionists just claim they are because they're sadists.

As the Dr. in the Simpson's pointed out, broccoli is the most deadly of vegetables; the terrible taste should warn you of that.

Many poisons, BTW, taste bitter (like broccoli); the fact that those who chomped down bitter foods with gusto didn't survive to breed is WHY we don't much like bitterness nowadays. Which doesn't explain coffee and chocolate, but there must be a difference because I like dark chocolate but think green vegetables are nasty.

Undertoad · 08-09-2002, 04:50 PM

HP, at any party it'd be you and me off in the corner talking about this stuff, and everyone else wondering what the hell. I love it!

A study recently showed that dogs "laugh", exhaling rapidly and forcefully when excited. My dogs are short-nosed (Boston Terrier) and they SNORT when happy.

I'll go ahead and guess that it's a social thing. Like yawning; if you yawn, people around you will yawn. It's contagious. In fact, just reading this passage may make you yawn, and I'm about to yawn writing it. It's supposed to be a social thing that encourages us all to get tired at the same time and run the same schedule.

You can make the dogs yawn, too... it's a wild trick to get them to settle down.

juju · 08-10-2002, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
2) Most creatures who learn what poison tastes like from first-hand experience won't be around long enough to breed, and therefore the slow process of hard-wiring the knowledge cannot occur.

There are many poisons that you can taste a tiny bit of but not ingest. You taste it, and if it's bitter you spit it out.

Those who think that poison tastes great are more likely to die and not pass on their genes to the next generation. Those who think that poison tastes bad are much more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation.

Nic Name · 08-10-2002, 10:00 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hot_pastrami
2) Most creatures who learn what poison tastes like from first-hand experience won't be around long enough to breed, and therefore the slow process of hard-wiring the knowledge cannot occur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Natural selectiion isn't about learning from your mistakes. It's about dying from them.

www.darwinawards.com

Tobiasly · 08-10-2002, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
On the same line of thought, not too long ago I was wondering why laughter exists as it does. All groups of people, regardless of their history and culture, tend to experience involuntary spasms of the diaphragm when something ironic, witty, or absurd is presented to them, sometimes to the point of temporarily incapacitating them. What possible advantage did this tendency give over others in a gene pool? Personally, when I really get going, I'm useless for the next 5-10 minutes as I struggle to regain composure

Well, we've all heard "laughter is the best medicine", and I've also heard that there's a decent amount of truth about that.. i.e. laughing releases endorphins and shit that make you feel better. (OK, maybe it's not the "best medicine", i.e. you should probably actually see a doctor about that fractured bone sticking out of your shin instead of laughing about it.)

Also, laughter incapacitating you probably has had little to do with natural selection, because situations in which you're in a side-splitting laughter fit probably aren't the same ones in which being incapacitated might tend to get you killed.

elSicomoro · 08-10-2002, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tobiasly
laughing releases endorphins and shit that make you feel better.

Well of course, shitting generally makes you feel better.

warch · 08-10-2002, 10:03 PM

Its amazing that there are thousands of different smells but only 4 different tastes. So when you're talking flavor, you're talking the subtle combos. And hey!, I love broccoli, its not bitter, its sweet. (maybe Its just hitting the right tongue spot, maybe you need more CHEESE

)
The pleasure of food (as much as the nutritional value) and the pleasure of laughter (as much as sleep signal) are necessary to the survival of our strange species. I'm with the idea of craving particular flavors to get the right mix of nutrition, but also as an adaptive trigger of healthy diversion and pleasure. I'm intrigued by cooking, ancient traditions of food preparation and the rituals of eating. Primal stuff.

I think the idea that "healthy" food tastes bad is based on some poor examples. There is a rule: Fat is flavor. Low fat cookies taste like cardboard because cookies arent supposed to be low fat. And cookies are not unhealthy, but eating 30 cookies in 24 hours is. So homegrown tomatos, popcorn, ice cream, shrimp, sausage- various levels of fat, all healthy and delicious. How much does socialization, history, or marketing play in what is perceived as tasty? Food is a great adventure.

Tobiasly · 08-11-2002, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by warch
Its amazing that there are thousands of different smells but only 4 different tastes.

Are there really only 4 different tastes? I mean, I've heard that your tongue has different regions for sweet, sour, salty, and bitter, but are all tastes really just different combinations of these in varying amounts?

Could all human taste sensations be artificially simulated by simply mixing 4 different chemicals in the correct proportion?

warch · 08-12-2002, 10:48 AM

I bet that just as there are infinite types of snow (wet, icy, fluffy) there are infinite types or degrees of a class of taste like "sweet" without the added dimension of smell. So my above statement is too simple. And it doesnt add the further dimension of texture....hey, I'm hungry.

08-08-2002, 05:59 PM	#1
hot_pastrami I am meaty Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 1,119	Reflection on natural selection Sometimes when I deprive myself of sleep, a current is accidentally routed to a gaggle of rusty, neglected neurons in my brain, resulting in some peculiar random thoughts. These thoughts are often mistaken as keenly insightful or stimulatingly contemplative (wow, say that 10 times fast. Hell, say it one time fast). But on closer inspection, they are often betrayed to be the meaningless drivel they truly are. This is one such thought, one which has lurked in my mind since it leaped at me from the shrubbery this morning. In my many months of reading posts at the Cellar, I've found that relative to other message boards, this place enjoys a generous helping of intellectual minds, so I thought some insight may well be found here. Now, I'm not a humans-evolved-from-apes advocate, but it is blindingly obvious that natural selection does occur in all living things. From a purely scientific standpoint, my personal beliefs aside for a moment, my question is this: what purpose does the sense of taste serve? Or more to the point, why would natural selection favor that feature as it exists today? Think about it... healthy foods are frequently unpleasant to the palette, and foods which have little or no nutritional value are typically much tastier. Why wouldn't natural selection have favored those who had no sense of taste, or those who liked the taste of foods more beneficial to the eater's health? Like I said, drivel. Wow, that was long. Hot Pastrami

08-08-2002, 07:30 PM	#3
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Failing that consider that since we live such sedatery lifestyles, fat is bad. If you're out all day hunting and stuff you need more fatty foods etc. Another possability is it is en evolutinary side effect of some oterh mutation that benifited us in are obvious ways. The best idea i can think of is smell which has obvious benifits which is also responsible for the majorty of our ability to taste. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

08-08-2002, 08:41 PM	#5
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Re: Reflection on natural selection Interesting stuff. People that eat nothing but healthy food are boring. They'll die of being lonely. People that eat nothing but tasty food are cool as hell. But they will die of cancer or a heart attack. Hence, it is incredibly important to eat well-balanced meals, and to take everything in moderation.

08-09-2002, 03:09 PM	#6
hot_pastrami I am meaty Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 1,119	Some good points there, indeed. The poison idea had occurred to me originally, but I concluded that due to two important facts, that was probably not a large contributor: 1) Poison is not necessaily a distinct taste, it can easily taste like other things, such as salt. It would be an unreliable test. 2) Most creatures who learn what poison tastes like from first-hand experience won't be around long enough to breed, and therefore the slow process of hard-wiring the knowledge cannot occur. UT, I think your theories this time are pretty close. It is reasonable to conclude that the reason most people don't like vegetables very much is because we have allowed our pre-intelligence lopsided tastes to take the wheel at the diet, making them even more lopsided. Smart guy. On the same line of thought, not too long ago I was wondering why laughter exists as it does. All groups of people, regardless of their history and culture, tend to experience involuntary spasms of the diaphragm when something ironic, witty, or absurd is presented to them, sometimes to the point of temporarily incapacitating them. What possible advantage did this tendency give over others in a gene pool? Personally, when I really get going, I'm useless for the next 5-10 minutes as I struggle to regain composure, but that's like trying to get a grip on a stray bar of soap in a bathtub... just when you think you've got it, it slips away again. And yes, you're right in guessing that I'm a lot of fun at parties. Hot Pastrami! Last edited by hot_pastrami; 08-09-2002 at 03:32 PM.

08-08-2002, 06:55 PM	#2
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	A sense of taste enables you to distinguish by flavor things that could kill you if you ate them.

08-08-2002, 07:54 PM	#4
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	(Warning: I'm talking out of my ass here, I am not a biology student of any kind.) Our tastes evolved during very different times than today. Human intelligence changed all the rules of the game. During the time when our tastes evolved, salt could be a very difficult thing to get. And yet, it's so biologically useful that we can't live without it. (As any Star Trek TOS viewer knows, if your body is depleted of salt, you die.) Before intelligence, our instincts had to drive us to get salt at any cost. After intelligence, salt becomes so plentiful that it costs pennies for a pound of it. The same would apply for good sources of energy: fat and sugar. Getting sugar was probably not as easy for early man as it is today, because fruit would not be available year-round. Also, modern fruits contain more sugar than their earlier counterparts due to human influences. They've been bred to be sweeter. Getting protein and fats and amino acids would have involved a lot of work and maybe early tribal instincts like pack hunting and such. Figure it would easy for early man to forage for foods, but more difficult to get fresh kills, much less carefully trimmed aged marbled beef under cellophane. So the instincts say to go hunting instead of just having another go at the apple core or whatever's left lying around the cave.

08-09-2002, 03:20 PM	#7
russotto Professor Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 1,788	It's all a trick; those nasty-tasting foods are NOT healthy. Nutritionists just claim they are because they're sadists. As the Dr. in the Simpson's pointed out, broccoli is the most deadly of vegetables; the terrible taste should warn you of that. Many poisons, BTW, taste bitter (like broccoli); the fact that those who chomped down bitter foods with gusto didn't survive to breed is WHY we don't much like bitterness nowadays. Which doesn't explain coffee and chocolate, but there must be a difference because I like dark chocolate but think green vegetables are nasty.

08-09-2002, 04:50 PM	#8
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	HP, at any party it'd be you and me off in the corner talking about this stuff, and everyone else wondering what the hell. I love it! A study recently showed that dogs "laugh", exhaling rapidly and forcefully when excited. My dogs are short-nosed (Boston Terrier) and they SNORT when happy. I'll go ahead and guess that it's a social thing. Like yawning; if you yawn, people around you will yawn. It's contagious. In fact, just reading this passage may make you yawn, and I'm about to yawn writing it. It's supposed to be a social thing that encourages us all to get tired at the same time and run the same schedule. You can make the dogs yawn, too... it's a wild trick to get them to settle down.

08-10-2002, 10:00 AM	#10
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by hot_pastrami 2) Most creatures who learn what poison tastes like from first-hand experience won't be around long enough to breed, and therefore the slow process of hard-wiring the knowledge cannot occur. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Natural selectiion isn't about learning from your mistakes. It's about dying from them. www.darwinawards.com

08-10-2002, 10:03 PM	#13
warch lurkin old school Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,796	Its amazing that there are thousands of different smells but only 4 different tastes. So when you're talking flavor, you're talking the subtle combos. And hey!, I love broccoli, its not bitter, its sweet. (maybe Its just hitting the right tongue spot, maybe you need more CHEESE ) The pleasure of food (as much as the nutritional value) and the pleasure of laughter (as much as sleep signal) are necessary to the survival of our strange species. I'm with the idea of craving particular flavors to get the right mix of nutrition, but also as an adaptive trigger of healthy diversion and pleasure. I'm intrigued by cooking, ancient traditions of food preparation and the rituals of eating. Primal stuff. I think the idea that "healthy" food tastes bad is based on some poor examples. There is a rule: Fat is flavor. Low fat cookies taste like cardboard because cookies arent supposed to be low fat. And cookies are not unhealthy, but eating 30 cookies in 24 hours is. So homegrown tomatos, popcorn, ice cream, shrimp, sausage- various levels of fat, all healthy and delicious. How much does socialization, history, or marketing play in what is perceived as tasty? Food is a great adventure.

08-12-2002, 10:48 AM	#15
warch lurkin old school Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,796	I bet that just as there are infinite types of snow (wet, icy, fluffy) there are infinite types or degrees of a class of taste like "sweet" without the added dimension of smell. So my above statement is too simple. And it doesnt add the further dimension of texture....hey, I'm hungry.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)