Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SamG

(535 posts)
Mon Apr 2, 2012, 03:51 PM Apr 2012

News Science Evolution Scientists find clue to human evolution's burning question

Cooking is a universal in human culture. The mixing and heating of raw ingredients to make dinner is a fundamental part of our lives, one of the most noticeable things that separates us from even our closest animal cousins.

The advantage of this method of preparing food is clear: it makes food tastier, easier to digest and makes the extraction of energy from raw ingredients quicker and more efficient. All useful things if you want to power an over-sized, energy-hungry brain without having to spend all your time foraging and chewing food.

Richard Wrangham, a professor of biological anthropology at Harvard University, has argued that the invention of cooking split the ancestors of humans from the evolutionary path that went on to include modern gorillas and chimpanzees. Cooking allowed our ancestors to develop bigger brains and, in his hypothesis, is the key reason modern humans emerged. The controlled use of fire, according to Wrangham, was a more important milestone in human evolution than the invention of agriculture or eating meat.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/apr/02/scientists-clue-human-evolution-question?CMP=twt_fd
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
News Science Evolution Scientists find clue to human evolution's burning question (Original Post) SamG Apr 2012 OP
I read the same thing about fermentation. immoderate Apr 2012 #1
My thought on that has always been - the food was xchrom Apr 2012 #2
Why? jeff47 Apr 2012 #8
Our teeth aren't really made well for raw meat Warpy Apr 2012 #11
you're bringing us down the evolutionary road faster than i was thinking. xchrom Apr 2012 #12
There are 2 ways to eat tough, stringy wild meat Warpy Apr 2012 #13
Hmm, I wonder if there was a company making iFlames back then ChairmanAgnostic Apr 2012 #3
It also answers another question izquierdista Apr 2012 #4
He published an entire book SheilaT Apr 2012 #5
Yes, I am sure that cooked meats yield more digestible.. SamG Apr 2012 #6
Yes, isn't that amazing. SheilaT Apr 2012 #16
Australopithecus rotisserie Ezlivin Apr 2012 #7
Old Old Woman! Put something on the BARBEE!!! SamG Apr 2012 #9
Dude - this was the original QUE! xchrom Apr 2012 #10
Soon followed by Homo popiel, I'm sure. n/t deucemagnet Apr 2012 #14
I thought humans and chimps diverged millions of years ago! Yo_Mama Apr 2012 #15

xchrom

(108,903 posts)
2. My thought on that has always been - the food was
Mon Apr 2, 2012, 03:58 PM
Apr 2012

Barely cooked. Maybe seared on the outside but pretty raw for the rest.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
8. Why?
Mon Apr 2, 2012, 04:26 PM
Apr 2012

It's really not that hard to cook well using a basic fire. And they would get a hell of a lot of practice to refine their technique.

Warpy

(111,169 posts)
11. Our teeth aren't really made well for raw meat
Mon Apr 2, 2012, 05:16 PM
Apr 2012

We need to denature those proteins by cooking it through or it's like eating blood flavored bubble gum, although pre fire they might have pounded it between two stones to pre masticate it, turning it into kind of a raw sausage.

As for cooking things through, consider that you can make grass baskets woven tightly enough to be impermeable to water, load your food and some water into it, and drop a rock heated in a fire on top of the food and end up with a stew a couple of hours later. Likewise, you build fire on top of any flattish rock, let it burn down to embers, and then brush away embers and ash and use the surface of the rock as your hot cooking surface, the earliest form of stove. Or you build a fire in a pit and let it burn down a bit, smother it with a bed of grass and leaves, put in the food, cover it with more grass, and shovel dirt over the whole business. Dinner will be cooked, smoked and ready to serve in about 3 hours.

There are lots of ways to cook food fully that don't require either a spit over a roaring fire or an iron or clay pot set on embers, methods that haven't really survived in the anthropological records but which are used today among tribal peoples who haven't been introduced to technology.

xchrom

(108,903 posts)
12. you're bringing us down the evolutionary road faster than i was thinking.
Mon Apr 2, 2012, 05:36 PM
Apr 2012

our 'cooking' could barely be called that probably for a long, long time.

our jaws didn't develop ahead of us -- i don't think.

Warpy

(111,169 posts)
13. There are 2 ways to eat tough, stringy wild meat
Mon Apr 2, 2012, 05:49 PM
Apr 2012

either break it down mechanically by grinding (the two rocks) or denature the proteins by cooking. The former method was likely the one used pre fire.

 

izquierdista

(11,689 posts)
4. It also answers another question
Mon Apr 2, 2012, 04:00 PM
Apr 2012

Where do sushi and carpaccio eaters fit on the evolutionary timeline?

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
5. He published an entire book
Mon Apr 2, 2012, 04:00 PM
Apr 2012

on this thesis back in 2010. This article, despite the current date, feels as if it had been written several years ago.

Perhaps the most fascinating part of the book was the research showing how little nutrition is derived if one eats non-cooked foods exclusively.

 

SamG

(535 posts)
6. Yes, I am sure that cooked meats yield more digestible..
Mon Apr 2, 2012, 04:13 PM
Apr 2012

protein than does raw meat. And that several "accidents" of storing fresh kill meats and grains next to fires led to the "discovery" of cooking.

Definitely cooked foods offer an evolutionary advantage for survival, as well as increased height and weight for adults who grew up eating cooked foods, consuming and metabolizing more protein in the growing years.

I have only confined my own reading to prehistory mostly from 100,000 years ago up until the beginnings of actually recorded history, 10,000 years or less ago. To think that there were 700,000 to 900,000 years more of previous history of homo sapiens engaged in cooking, kind of blows my mind.

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
16. Yes, isn't that amazing.
Mon Apr 2, 2012, 10:53 PM
Apr 2012

Our ancestors were probably a lot more like us than we'll ever know.

 

SamG

(535 posts)
9. Old Old Woman! Put something on the BARBEE!!!
Mon Apr 2, 2012, 04:38 PM
Apr 2012

Of course women did all the cooking back then, and there were no dishes or utensils to wash.

xchrom

(108,903 posts)
10. Dude - this was the original QUE!
Mon Apr 2, 2012, 04:59 PM
Apr 2012

Only Ug & Mug near the QUE.

Mrs Ug & Mrs Mug are downing brewskies.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
15. I thought humans and chimps diverged millions of years ago!
Mon Apr 2, 2012, 10:41 PM
Apr 2012

I've seen estimates varying from 4 million years to even longer than 7 million years ago.

We weren't cooking then, so how does this theory make sense?

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»News Science Evolution Sc...