![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
delilalaw23 » August 4th, 2015, 9:47 am wrote:What puzzles me is how little attention this fascinating story has received! The paper was published July 22 and I'm one of the only science writers who's picked up on it.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
CONCLUSION
Wheat and barley differently influence microbial composition particularly in the small intestine, with barley increasing Lactobacillus spp.:Enterobacteriaceae. ratio, underlining its potential to beneficially manipulate the intestinal microbial ecosystem.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Not that long ago I wrote an article about experiments with chimps showing they not only preferred cooked veggies over raw ones, but when given an oven and taught how to cook, they'd defer gratification and wait the time it took for them to collect, store, and roast their food rather than scarf it down raw right away.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Darby » Fri Aug 07, 2015 6:49 pm wrote:Not that long ago I wrote an article about experiments with chimps showing they not only preferred cooked veggies over raw ones, but when given an oven and taught how to cook, they'd defer gratification and wait the time it took for them to collect, store, and roast their food rather than scarf it down raw right away.
Whoa, hold on a sec ... someone successfully taught a chimp to bake with an oven ? (8-O
Linkage pls.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Given that people at the time had little or no knowledge or experience with the kind of long range planning over hundreds or thousands of years necessary. Its pretty safe to say that we can't be sure whether they were deliberately planting or simply harvesting from patches of wild wheat, etc.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Fuqin » August 8th, 2015, 1:41 am wrote:Without looking at the article could it not be plausible that humans besides huddling around volcano’s forcing sedentary life styles during an ice age ,began cooking as a way of making food attractive?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Marshall » August 8th, 2015, 12:01 am wrote:I found the abstract in Proceedings B!
========================
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 9/20150229
Cognitive capacities for cooking in chimpanzees
Felix Warneken, Alexandra G. Rosati
Published 3 June 2015.DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2015.0229
ArticleFigures & DataInfo & MetricseLetters PDF
Abstract
The transition to a cooked diet represents an important shift in human ecology and evolution. Cooking requires a set of sophisticated cognitive abilities, including causal reasoning, self-control and anticipatory planning. Do humans uniquely possess the cognitive capacities needed to cook food? We address whether one of humans' closest relatives, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), possess the domain-general cognitive skills needed to cook. Across nine studies, we show that chimpanzees: (i) prefer cooked foods; (ii) comprehend the transformation of raw food that occurs when cooking, and generalize this causal understanding to new contexts; (iii) will pay temporal costs to acquire cooked foods; (iv) are willing to actively give up possession of raw foods in order to transform them; and (v) can transport raw food as well as save their raw food in anticipation of future opportunities to cook. Together, our results indicate that several of the fundamental psychological abilities necessary to engage in cooking may have been shared with the last common ancestor of apes and humans, predating the control of fire.
Received February 1, 2015.
Accepted May 1, 2015.
© 2015 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.
View Full Text
===============
However the text seems to be behind paywall. You have to have a subscription or buy access. This is normal.
The abstract page has a table of contents:
==quote==
Article
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. General methods
3. Experiment 1: preference for cooked food
4. Experiment 2: patience when waiting for cooked food
5. Experiment 3: preference for cooking device
6. Experiment 4: will chimpanzees choose to cook their own food?
7. Experiment 5: replication
8. Experiment 6: do cooking skills generalize to other foods?
9. Experiment 7: do chimpanzees selectively cook edible items?
10. Experiment 8: will chimpanzees transport food to cook it?
11. Experiment 9: will chimpanzees save their food for future cooking?
12. General discussion
Ethics
Data accessibility
Authors' contributions
Competing interests
Funding
Acknowledgements
References
Figures & Data
Info & Metrics
eLetters
==endquote==
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Marshall » Fri Aug 07, 2015 10:08 pm wrote:I found Rosati Warneken OUTSIDE OF PAYWALL!!!
https://software.rc.fas.harvard.edu/lds ... 015_MS.pdf
Felix Warneken put a copy of the paper at his Harvard.edu website so people could have wider access.
This is unusually nice.
The Proceedings B article is clearly written and has a bunch of nice clear diagrams.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Darby wrote:* In the stoneage, life expectancy was perilously short ... probably late 20's early 30's was typical, and anyone living into their 40's/50's and developing grey hair was a rarity.
Paralith wrote:Let's say we take a sample of ten people born five hundred years ago, and ten people born today. Let's say their ages at death are this:
born five hundred years ago: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 55, 78, 80, 81, 85
born today: 1, 55, 55, 78, 78, 80, 80, 81, 85, 85
Now. If you take the average age at death for the sample of people who were born five hundred years ago, what do you get? 38. For the people born today? 67. Yet in both samples you have people who lived to 85 and no one who lived past 85.
This is the difficulty of looking at average human lifespans. Back in the day, many many MANY babies died before even reaching age five. With their ill developed immune systems and tiny bodies susceptible to dehydration, bad hygiene and the lack of modern medicine made it a rough time for the little ones. An average that includes all people ever born will be dragged very low by high rates of infant death. We can say with certainty that in modern times infant death rates have been significantly lowered by increased hygiene and modern medical care, allowing the average lifespan to crawl upwards even without any noticeable change in the oldest ages humans are living to. Though we can also say with certainty that we are pushing ages at death older in recent decades, thanks to advances against diseases like cancer that effect the elderly. But to illustrate this with another hypothetical data set of ten people: 1, 80, 80, 80, 81, 81, 81, 85, 85, 85.
A distinct question is, what is the evolved human lifespan? What is the maximum lifespan possible given what our bodies have evolved to do in terms of growth and maintenance? And has that changed? This is a harder question to answer. Looking at the extreme outliers in human ages at death, it looks like it's not possible for humans to live past 120. Chances are this evolved physiological human characteristic has not changed, and will not until we acquire the knowledge and technology required to change ourselves at the genetic level.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
I haven't much time this morning, but if you look up a paper by Hillard Kaplan and Michael Gurven, you will see that hunter gatherers living traditional lifestyles can in fact expect as much as 25% of all people ever born to make it into their seventh decade. When I have a chance later I'll provide the paper itself. It is simply not true that humans could once bless their lucky stars if they made it into their 40's.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The designation of high-quality data means that age estimation is reasonably accurate
and there is no systematic bias in the underreporting of deaths. Most importantly,
survivorship and mortality profiles for these populations are based on
actual deaths from prospective or retrospective studies, and not on model life
tables fitted to scanty data or census data.
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests