Will humans evolve to metabolize sugar better, considering

>>8734034
no.

evolution as we understand it is dead with humans. intelligence and civilization is making us weaker as a species by allowing the weak to reproduce.

>>8734034
>>8734040
I won't claim to be an expert at evolution, that having said I think both of you are wrong.
Only if:
>People who metabolize sugar better reproduce more
>People who do not metabolize sugar that well end up not reproducing

As for evolution not happening, yes it happens. There is still sexual selection and genetic drift.

The weak reproducing doesn't matter as far as I know, unless the weak would be sexually attractive or something.

>>8734040
If someone reproduces they are, definition brought by natural selection, not weak. You don't understand evolution.

>>8734034
There's no reason to do so.

Humans are frugivores. We metabolize sugar just fine.

>>8734147
Yes, real, natural sugar. Not refined sugar.

>>8734141
>If someone reproduces they are, definition brought by natural selection, not weak. You don't understand evolution.

Not that guy but you're incorrect. That's artificial selection, not evolution. Their level of fitness may be low but if they still manage to reproduce with assistance then that doesn't count

>>8734153
once it's in your body there's no difference: cane sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, beet sugar -- it's all the same thing to your body.

>>8734190
No you literal dumbass. The reason you don't gain tons of fat from fruits is because sugar binds itself to fiber, thus making longer molecules which creates energy for a longer duration.

Refined sugar, on the other hand, has had parts of it's molecule stripped off, therefore making it go through your body in 1, 2, 3. This is why we gain alot of fat from eating candy. The body doesn't get enough time to use it as energy for something, in addition to the fact that we eat WAY to much of it which causes the body to store the leftover energy as fat.

>>8734189
And I'm not that guy but artificial selection is when humans pick animals' mates for them, eliminating sexual competition per se and making a breeder the determinants of fitness.
I'd argue that can't really apply to humans since we do sexually compete and fitness is determines by the sexual participants (also "breeders" I suppose)

>>8734202
>pseudoscience

>>8734203
Right, but what he meant by "the weak can breed" is that someone with, say, a physical or mental disability that would've been selected against "in the wild" is given assistance that lets them compete for mates on a more or less even playing field. That's pretty close to artificial selection.

>>8734271
I'd agree if you said it was pretty far from natural selection.
I can't agree with it being equated with artificial selection though because of the competition being determined by the participants and not an external breeder.

>>8734147

Yeah, through the the liver

>>8734271

>say, a physical or mental disability that would've been selected against

Not necessarily, the reason why we still have a variety of physical and mental disabilities today even after thousands of years of natural selection is because those disabilities come in the form of diseases that where not critically detrimental to an individual or tribal survival in the first place. There's also the issue that a lot of disabilities don't reach its breaking point until during or after childbearing ages. So you have individuals who can easily reproduce just before a given disability renders them useless.

Plus diseases that cause disabilities aren't always active when children aquire them so they can easily pass it off their future children.

Let's be honest here natural selection wasn't really doing it job well in the first place.

>>8734376
The genes associated with both autism and schizophrenia might have some benefit to those who don't develop either full schizophrenia or autism.
There's studies on it. I know at least that schizophrenia should logically be weeded out already but it didn't.

>>8734386
you don't fucking know anything

>>8734202
>[citation needed]

It has nothing to do with fibres and shit you pseudoscientific idiot. Fruits just don't have the sugar concentration of candies so it's impractical to eat that much of them. Try eating a ton of dried fruit every day, you'll get fat in no time.

>>8734040
not really, at best evolution has stalled in humanity because such a massive number of our young actually grow up and reproduce thus slowing down natural selection which does not make us weaker in any way, it just doesn't make us stronger.

However if we start engaging in gene modification we're going to start evolving again, and at a massively enhanced rate not a single vertebrate can compete with.

File: Autism2.png (36KB, 578x437px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 578x437px

>>8734410
Come on, you can do better. Here is one study, but I'll admit that I know jack shit about the methology.

As for the schizophrenia stuff I was just parroting this:
> Given the high numbers of individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia (nearly 1% of modern-day populations), it is unlikely that the disorder has arisen solely from random mutations

carboyhyrdates are evil. a high fat, moderate protein, low carb diet is the optimal diet for human beings.

>>8734202
Fruit can make you fat, but I've heard fiber will alter absorption so I imagine when you choose fruit over sweets it's not quite as bad if you're eating each in equal amounts. But, I've never heard of a molecular basis for this; as far as I know it's sugar whether it's from fruit or candy.

However, if you want to talk glucose vs fructose, fructose can bypass some regulatory steps of the glycolytic pathway in the liver (ie Phosphofructokinase step) so I think whether you're eating fruit or candy or high fructose corn syrup, it can all be kinda bad in abundance because your body will not restrict its metabolism of it.

>>8734189
I think there's a misunderstanding here. Evolution isn't inherently good or bad, it's just a change according to the environment. If the environment allows for people who require assistance to reproduce, then requiring that kind of assistance is apparently unimportant in our environment, so therefore it's not really a "weakness" in terms of that environment to which we're adapted.

The real test will be when there is a change in the environment. Darwin never argued the strong or smart survive, but those most able to adapt. If there were so-called "weak" people who could reproduce frequently but met a change they couldn't overcome, they'd be gone. If they thrived, then they must not have had a relevant weakness.

We're designed to seek out rewards. The more rewarding the reward (the sweeter the sweet) the more desirable. This is so because sugar is scarce in nature, and there is no danger of overconsumption. These days, we're overstimulating ourselves with everything, be it sugar that gives us diabetes, loud music that destroys our hearing, pointless clickbait and netflix that eats away at our attention spans, or gangbang porn that decimates our libidos, simply because we can. We should rather quit being idiots instead of trying to alter ourselves to fit this retarded reality.

Also this >>8734147

>>8734137
It could be that people in places with frequent famines, droughts, etc. evolve better metabolism, though I don't see how these adaptations would feasibly spread outside such societies.

>>8734040
>evolution as we understand it is dead with humans.
t. christ kuck.

File: tfw2smartformemes.jpg (1MB, 4030x4096px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4030x4096px

>>8734040
>evolution as we understand it is dead with humans
Not quite dead.

Evolution can be best defined as adapting to ones environment. Humans have learned to do adapt to their environment with tools. The creation and utilization of tools requires intelligence. Thus the next stage in human evolution will be one that increases our ability to create and utilize tools, or rather our increase intellect.
All other traits, with the exception of sexual dimorphism (physical attractiveness, hight, dick size) will stop evolving because they're unimportant for humanities survival. As humans become more dependent on each other (people specialize in 1 job for society rather than doing everything themselves alone) the ability to socialize, work with others may become important. Charisma and social skills kinda already is a trait that increases onces chance of producing offspring. This is evolution at work.

Nobody here can predict the weather properly but you think you can predict millions of years of genetic mutation. Im dying lmfao.