Why did ours develop so much?

Did we learn to cook meat and then grew frontal lobe or was that after we grew the lobe that we were able to think of such things?

in our system the way you behave can get you more results that you actually deserve, that probably trained that area
i dont see how that could be related

Cav arch eat DAT shit raw holmes

because we are made in God's image

not him but it allowed us to consume more meat because it digested mOrr easily, not to mention it killed harmful bacteria so you were less likely to die from it and therefore it was passed on as a trait which allowed for safer and easier consumption of meat. More meat->more nutrients->more energy for brain development. As he said, this is most important as a child as they are still developing and small changes make large impacts longterm. A child that is raised on a significantly different diet from his parents, over countless generations of doing the same with his children and so on, eventually the DNA will adapt to become better once it realizes it will have far more energy to work with. So there is small, minor improvements to a child that is raised on more nutrients than his parents, and over generations this creates smarter children from the start which then become even smarter with the nutrients they consume and so on and so forth until you have the incredibly smart brains we have now that also require an incredibly diverse diet, which would have never happened if our ancestors didn't originally push the species forward via cooking.

A mob of chimpanzee-like apes throwing rocks is a dangerous opponent, I imagine they could use this to defend themselves on the plains and chase away scavengers from carcasses to a degree.

Soon they were living wholly on the plains, their survival depended on their abilities with tools and teamwork and evolution progressed in that direction. Australopithecus to Homo Habilis was the fastest period of brain growth. 2.6 million years ago we start to see simple mode 1 stone tools being made, 1.7 million years ago we see intentionally knapped mode 2 tools marking Homo Erectus's emergence. Not sure when fires were made and consistently used, apparently Homo Erectus used them as early as 1 million years ago but I'm not sure about that.

bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17598738

500000 years ago we see tools like needles and wooden handled tools marking the arrival of Homo Heidelbergensis who diverged into Denisovans, Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. The last surge was us out of Africa, though the other 2 had fire and tools, the humans were more comparable to say a native american tribe in their sophistication with a wider tool set and more use of throwing spears.

it's worth noting that the other advantage homo sapiens had besides technology was social skills and therefore numbers. They moved in larger groups than their rivals one part because they were more social and the other part because they were healthier and reproduced faster as a result of these advantages. It's also apparent that homo sapien genes were dominant when cross-breeding which all adds up to longterm evolutionary superiority.

when did the aliens intervene?

cooked meat is harder to digest. but i agree on the bacteria stuff. and that is a passed down behaviour, nothing to do with genetics, you simply imitate what you see.
also many species have more nutrients than necessary but that didnt necessarily develop their brain or any other talent they had, it's not like dna can improve on its own with more nutrients, evolution acts random.

right before the winged hussars arrived

Cooked food is easier to digest because it has already been half "broken down" by the cooking. Apparently you can also absorb more nutrients from cooked food somehow, but I'm not sure how that works.

it's exactly the opposite, you create more links in meat molecules making it longer to digest. long cooked boiled meat take the longest to digest.
you can probably just think about that from experience, fresh uncooked meat is the lightest to digest

Pretty sure local food determines numbers. Neanderthals were larger and required more calories and their lack of innovations suggests they were less efficient at obtaining food.

>homo sapien genes were dominant
pic related
If aliens did intervene it would have been during the period of fast brain growth. There is no evidence of aliens and the theory of evolution sufficiently explains it though.

Neanderthals were short and stocky. They needed more calories compared to the average homo sapien due to a high-activity lifestyle and living near the Arctic Circle during the Pleistocene. The Inuits ate 3000-4000kcals/day before European contact.

Scavengers are the smartest animals on Earth and all creatures forced down the scavenger lifeplan will adapt greater problem solving abilities over time.

you can't deny that our diets have changed and our brains have made use of it. evolution begins as a random mutation but once it gets going it's not random, it got going because it worked for that environment at that time.

Other species didn't develop their cognitive and social parts of the brain because these were not necessary for survival. If cats for instance hunt bigger food, they would eventually become bigger and bigger cats because being bigger helps a cat reproduce, hunt, and ultimately compete with larger animals. However if cats have less food or smaller food, they will develop the parts of their brain that enhance stealth ans ambushing, but not social skills or toolmaking. Cats deal with their adversity in different ways, and thats why their genes have a differemt strategy. The genes react to the kind of nutrients they receive over vast amounts of time, and small changes can have dramatic effects on the potential of a brain. However, I'll admit that with homo sapiens, evolution is harder to understand because it's much less noticable since we rely far less on evolution and far more on society than any other species. I would argue that nutrition has had an effect on our hrains, it just hasn't been long enough for it to have a significant and noticable change. Certainly whatever mutation originally triggered our subspecies was extremely effective and took the world by storm, so there was obviously a huge leap in cognitive and social skills at some point from our early ancestors that happened relatively quickly due to the effect that external factors had on the growth of the brain. Evolution is often like that, one mutation that gives a small advantage and it's the stone that starts an avalanche

>le humans are physically pathetic meme
We have some back and neck problems due to the fact that we stand upright but are not yet fully optimized for that, and our arms are not that strong because our muscles have attachment points that prioritize dexterity over strength. And like all apes we don't have much sense of smell, this is because we don't use it for much other than avoiding bad things. Our reflexes are fine compared to anything other than cats, our eyesight is top tier, and our long distance stamina is unbeatable.

none of that is of any use without tools and numbers. The point is they need external things to survive like weapons and other humans, they are not simply born with the tools to survive as a part of their body already. Having good eyesight, dexterity, and stamina is useless if a big cat ambushes you and tears your throat out. Its only effective when coupled with overwhelming numbers and ranged weaponry, which is exactly why they developed the way they did. Both factors feed off each other and influence each other. The tools help the body and the body, over hundreds of thousands of years, slowly begins to adapt to the use of these external factors to the point where the DNA cannot survive and reproduce without the external factors. We have become dependent on these things in a way no other species is. There are other social animals but they evolved in a way that their bodies are still their weapons.

i cant deny the change in our diets but there is no real link between it and brain (unless specific lacks that creates severe damage, but lets ignore those since they get evident). if you lack protein the effect on your body will be heavy since it will affect your muscles and, in the long run, your internal organ functions.
during development i agree a good amount of nutrients can only be helpful, but if you look even at starving countries kids (lets take asians before some pol poster comes at me) might be skinny and underdeveloped but they are not retarded.
i am more prone to think that brain has hidden potential but that can be drawn out by training and not by food. if you go to school and study etc you will become smarter (or at least smarter than you would if not going). like muscles you cant build them just by eating.

sorry for terrible english

you must admit that it's quite an effective behaviour tho

I understand your point but you have to understand that the brain develops like any other muscle does. You have to work out your brain like you work out your muscles, and this allows for the brain to become faster and send information more efficiently, it literally creates "hotkeys" that process information faster based on experience.

However, just like with working out muscles, you need nutrients first. You consume the nutrients, which are used to make the brain grow, and then you work out the brain and harness the energy into brain power. Without the nutrients, you will have a smaller ceiling to work with. It is proven that good nutrition actually improves test scores, meaning it literally allows your brain to work faster.

yeah i agree on that, both are strictly necessary
i'd like to know how "genius" body works tho, be it mentally or phisically
like, you were average stuff for generations and then you pop up some superior breed?
maybe it's just luck or something, random combination of all the good genes

cooked meat straight up provides more calories son. Straight up better for your brain to function it's that simple.

We didn't developed our mind. Our mind developed on it's own thanks mostly to our diet and our eventual discovery of fire (""ours"", it was probably discovered pre homo-sapiens). that allowed us to cook food and made digestion easier, leaving us with extra energy to use somewhere else.

Don't ignore hands. Dolphins for example could of realistically evolved as far as we did if they were able to make tools...Or fire.

Unrelated but that part of that comic series triggers me. If you are willing to believe that there are genes that make you a "better soldier" then it makes perfect sense to assume that having those genes be deactivated on Liquid's would make him inferior to Solid, having said genes active on his.

If smaller cats can survive then smaller cats will exists.

Genes don't change unless they absolutely have to, the way this works is very simple:

If your genes aren't good enough, you die. And thus the individuals that have different, better genes, survive and they become either a new species or the species or whatever human denomination.

The only other factor is reproduction, if you can't reproduce you might as well die, genetically speaking. If you can survive and reproduce, and your offspring is able to do so as well, then congratulations, it doesn't matter if you have a third arm with no bones sticking off your back.

Humanity is dated by its creation, procreations, and finally cessation.

>2017
>still doesnt know about the stoned ape theory

>ctrl+F
>No mushrooms

Why is Veeky Forums so pleb though?

youtube.com/watch?v=hOtLJwK7kdk

pity that brain doesnt know that and only works with glucose and no aminoacids. would have been great otherwise.

?

Your brain doesn't need to "know" anything about it. Nobody's arguing meat eating was a conscious decision to make our brains grow.

>implying diet of a single individual can influence the evolution of a whole species and it's not due to behavioural advantages
men evolved to be smarter since it allowed them to survive, a full diet simply unleash the full potential of brain but it was all already there

>a single individual

You don't actually believe this do you?

>Why did ours develop so much
Did it tho

All you idiots thinking meat made us more intelligeent! I have news for you. It was the ability to digest starch that made us what we are! Google john mcdougall

we couldnt shitpost this much without it

>implying brain potential didnt skyrocket after the discovery of fettuccine Alfredo
are you guys even trying

m.youtube.com/watch?v=FOWSc8VvOl4
Gladiators were vegan aswell

the ability to speak
any other answer is wrong and/or based on half information

you are welcome to read about it, should be common knowledge

interesting answer
part of language area is in the frontal lobe, but it isnt made totally from it, so this might be a thing but not the only explanation

larger in mass rather

>cucked by the very medium in which you are submerged
really makes you think

Then why are other animals that have developed complex communication systems not on our level?

>there are likely numerous factors
>IT WAS THIS ONE THING GUYS TRUST ME

discord.gg/NYdGns

hush hush
Secret discord chat for debate for historians
Don't pass it along if you aren't educated

>other animals that have developed complex communication systems

You're assuming these other animals exist.

>creating bonds
>adding heat
what?

there are other ways to communicate besides language. Most social mammals have pretty complicated communication systems that we don't even fully understand yet, whales being a prime example. Our ancestors were social creatures before they ever had language, it manifests in different ways.

they dont speak do they and they cant

>likely
>some retarded wanabe funny picture

yea go and educate yourself retarded americhild

Neither can mute people. Doesn't stop them from having complex language and communicating like other any other people.

any time somebody says something like "this grand macro-level thing happened because -ONE THING-" they're an idiot.

When we are formed in the womb, the first thing that forms is basically our anus, we are deuterostome organisms

A lot more of this is pretty stupid btw

t. biology major

/thread

user pls

our brains can't use meat for fuel, unless it switches into a different metabolic state that only kicks in when there is absolutely no carbohydrate to use whatsoever and no glycogen backup. Cognitive functions in ketosis aren't that great either.

Cooked meat doesn't magically create more calories, the water just evaporates making it more dense per 100g. If you cook a pig it will be as nutritious as the same pig but raw, maybe even a bit less since heat kills some micronutrients.

Go eat some berries, user. Meat can only help your muscles.

Wtf someone not retarded in this thread, am i daydreaming

Language changed everything with the possibility of abstract thinking.

abstract thinking necessarily predates language

What if it's just a front? The Japanese could be onto something.

No it doesn't. Animals communicate in a pretty non-abstract way. There's a difference between assigning vocalizations to objects and events vs. leaving behind focus on either the vocalizations or the objects and events themselves and interacting with language as a thing in itself.

It makes it easier to digest, your body doesn't use as much energy digesting it, you can also eat more of it, and you don't need to chew it as much. That energy is in turn used for something else. Stop spreading bullshit around.