Want a glass of wine with dinner? Blame our ape ancestors
To better understand the relationship between humans and alcohol, researchers are studying the animals' fondness for fermented and fallen fruit, newly referred to as 'scrumping.'
"Scrumping by the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans about 10 million years ago could explain why humans are so astoundingly good at digesting alcohol," Nathaniel Dominy, the Charles Hansen Professor of Anthropology at Dartmouth College, said in a statement.
"We evolved to metabolize alcohol long before we ever figured out how to make it, and making it was one of the major drivers of the Neolithic Revolution that turned us from hunter-gatherers into farmers and changed the world,' he added.
Fermentation is the process by which bacteria and other microorganisms break down sugars into substances such as alcohols or acids. All of the alcohol we drink is made this way.
When you drink alcohol, you get drunk because you're consuming faster than your metabolism can handle. In apes, researchers said this doesn't seem to be the case.
Geneticists previously reported that eating fermented fruit may have led to a biological change in the last common ancestor of humans and African apes that boosted their ability to metabolize alcohol by 40 times.
However, no one had the data to test it, and scientists had not differentiated fruit in the trees from that on the ground when studying the primates since then.
"It just wasn't on our radar," Dominy explained. "It's not that primatologists have never seen scrumping — they observe it pretty regularly. But the absence of a word for it has disguised its importance.'
The team wanted to know what significance scrumping had for human evolution so analyzed previous research on dietary habits of orangutans, chimpanzees, and mountain and western gorillas in the wild.
The studies included thousands of scans of the primates eating fruit. If an ape at ground level was recorded eating fruit known to grow in the middle or upper levels of the forest canopy, it was counted as scrumping.
Of the three species, African apes were found to 'scrump' regularly, while orangutans did not. To better understand chimpanzees' alcohol consumption, the researchers will next measure the levels of fermentation in fruits in trees, versus that on the ground.
The researchers said their findings confirm results of past research which had also found that the primary enzyme for metabolizing ethanol — found in alcoholic beverages — is relatively inefficient in orangutans and other non-human primates.
The researchers believe that the African apes' ability to metabolize ethanol may let them safely consume a whopping 10 pounds of fruit each day.
That level of intake suggests exposure to ethanol could be a significant component of chimpanzee life, and a major force of human evolution. Humans may have retained the social aspects that apes bring to scrumping, Catherine Hobaiter, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at St Andrews, said.
"A fundamental feature of our relationship with alcohol is our tendency to drink together, whether a pint with friends or a large social feast," she added. "The next step is to investigate how shared feeding on fermented fruits might also influence social relationships in other apes."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
6 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Origin of Language by Madeleine Beekman review – the surprising history of speech
The story of human evolution has undergone a distinct feminisation in recent decades. Or, rather, an equalisation: a much-needed rebalancing after 150 years during which, we were told, everything was driven by males strutting, brawling and shagging, with females just along for the ride. This reckoning has finally arrived at language. The origins of our species' exceptional communication skills constitutes one of the more nebulous zones of the larger evolutionary narrative, because many of the bits of the human anatomy that allow us to communicate – notably the brain and the vocal tract – are soft and don't fossilise. The linguistic societies of Paris and London even banned talk of evolution around 1870, and the subject only made a timid comeback about a century later. Plenty of theories have been tossed into the evidentiary void since then, mainly by men, but now evolutionary biologist Madeleine Beekman, of the University of Sydney, has turned her female gaze on the problem. Her theory, which she describes as having been hiding in plain sight, is compelling: language evolved in parallel with caring for our 'underbaked' newborns, because looking after a creature as helpless as a human baby on the danger-filled plains of Africa required more than one pair of hands (and feet). It needed a group among whom the tasks of food-gathering, childcare and defence could be divided. A group means social life, which means communication. The evidence to support Beekman's theory isn't entirely lacking, though a lot of it is, necessarily, circumstantial. We know that the compromise that natural selection hit upon to balance the competing anatomical demands of bipedalism and an ever-expanding brain was to have babies come out early – before that brain and its bony casing were fully formed. One of the discoveries of the newly feminised wave of evolutionary science has been that alloparents – individuals other than the biological parents who contribute parenting services – played a critical role in ensuring the survival of those half-cooked human children. Another is that stone age women hunted alongside men. In the past it was assumed that hunting bands were exclusively male, and one theory held that language arose to allow them to cooperate. But childcare was another chore that called for cooperation, probably also between genders, and over years, not just hours or days. Luckily, the reconfiguration of the head and neck required to accommodate the ballooning brain had a side-effect of remoulding the throat, giving our ancestors more precise control over their utterances. With the capacity to generate a large range of sounds came the ability to convey a large range of meanings. To begin with, this was useful for coordinating childcare, but as speech became more sophisticated, alloparents – particularly grandmothers – used it to transmit their accumulated knowledge, thereby nurturing infants who were even better equipped to survive. The result of this positive feedback loop was Homo sapiens, the sole survivor of a once diverse lineage. Alas, Beekman takes a very long time to get to this exciting idea. She spends about half the book laying the groundwork, padding it out with superfluous vignettes as if she is worried the centre won't hold. Once she gets there, she makes some thought-provoking observations. Full-blown language probably emerged about 100,000 years ago, she thinks, but only in our line – not in those of our closest relatives. 'We may have made babies with Neanderthals and Denisovans,' she writes, 'but I don't think we had much to talk about.' And whereas others have argued that language must have predated Homo sapiens, because without it the older species Homo erectus couldn't have crossed the forbidding Wallace Line – the deep-water channel that separates Asia and Australasia – she draws on her deep knowledge of social insects to show that communication as relatively unsophisticated as that of bees or ants could have done the made a persuasive case for the role of alloparents in the evolution of language, Beekman concludes that we did ourselves a disservice when we shrank our basic unit of organisation down from the extended to the nuclear family. Maybe, but historians including Peter Laslett have dated this important shift to the middle ages, long before the Industrial Revolution where she places it, and the damage isn't obvious yet. Language is still being soaked up by young children; it's still a vehicle for intergenerational learning. It may take a village to raise a child, but as Beekman herself hints, a village can be constituted in different ways. Sign up to Inside Saturday The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend. after newsletter promotion The Origin of Language: How We Learned to Speak and Why by Madeleine Beekman is published by Simon & Schuster (£25). To support the Guardian buy a copy at Delivery charges may apply.
The Guardian
11 hours ago
- The Guardian
Animals keep evolving into anteaters. Could this be the future of humanity?
Who doesn't love an anteater? I mean, apart from ants, obviously. With their long snouts and even longer sticky tongues, they trundle around, slurping up insects like milkshakes. They have handsome, bushy tails, which they wrap around themselves at night like a blanket. And they're excellent parents. Giant anteater mothers allow their young to cling to their backs, rucksack-style, for periods of up to a year. Indeed, the surrealist artist Salvador Dalí was so taken with the giant anteater that he once took one for a walk through the streets of Paris. And before you ask, no, this wasn't a cheese dream. There is photographic evidence. As if that weren't enough, a recent study published in the journal Evolution has found that mammals have evolved into anteaters not once, not twice, but 12 times since the demise of the dinosaurs some 66m years ago. Anteaters, it seems, are a recurring trend. The finding prompted the study's lead author, Thomas Vida from the University of Bonn, to tell Science magazine: 'Things keep evolving into anteaters, somehow.' Which raises the question: will humans one day follow suit? By 'things', Vida means mammals, and by 'anteaters' he includes the four species of anteater from Central and South America, the pangolins and aardvarks of Africa and Asia, and the echidnas of Australia. Different animals, on different continents, that all practise myrmecophagy, also known as the consumption of termites and ants. If you were a parent of young children, you'd call them fussy eaters. If you were an evolutionary biologist, however, you'd point out that they're not being deliberately difficult. Instead, they have evolved to fill a very particular ecological niche. That niche is provided by the world's extensive population of ants and termites, some 15,000 species, whose collective biomass is more than 10 times greater than that of all wild mammals. At least a dozen times in evolutionary history, mammals decided that if you can't beat them, eat them, and began to consume the crunchy delicacy. Such an abundant food source can act as what biologists call a 'selective pressure'. Characteristics that enabled animals to eat more ants and termites – and thus survive better – are more likely to be passed on. Over millions of years, animals from all three major groups of mammal life, including marsupials and the egg-laying monotremes, evolved to have long, sticky tongues, reduced or missing teeth and strong forelimbs for busting into insect nests. It's a powerful example of convergent evolution, the phenomenon by which different species, in different places or times, independently evolve similar characteristics. Faced with the same problem – how do I eat these ants? – they all arrived at a similar solution. So, though they're not closely related, they possess features that are superficially similar. Convergent evolution is how echolocation (the ability to determine the location of objects using reflected sound) evolved separately in bats and dolphins, camera-like eyes evolved in octopuses and vertebrates, and opposable digits evolved in primates, koalas and chameleons. Powered flight has evolved independently at least four times – in birds, bats, pterosaurs and insects – and venom production more than 100 times, while crustaceans have evolved the classic, crab-like body plan at least five times. Known as carcinisation, it has spawned crabby memes aplenty. The evolutionary biologist Simon Conway Morris has used convergent evolution to argue that evolution is both deterministic and predictable. Rewind the tape of life, play it over again and similar-looking lifeforms would evolve, he says. This means that in theory, with enough time (many tens of millions of years), the appearance and retention of the requisite genetic mutations and, critically, the same selective pressures that shaped the emergence of former ant-eating animals, some mammals – including maybe us – could evolve gummy mouths and sticky tongues. Forget the history books, it's the cookery books that would be rewritten. Only there's a fly in the ointment. We're wrong to presume that because myrmecophagy has evolved multiple times, it is the pinnacle of some evolutionary tree. There are, after all, many more mammals that have not evolved into anteaters than have started breaking into termite mounds. The fact that convergent evolution occurs does not necessarily make it the default pathway. In addition, evolution has a way of pulling the rug. It can be predictable, but it can also be quirky and erratic. In his 1989 book, Wonderful Life, another titan of evolutionary biology, Stephen Jay Gould, argued for the importance of random events. These can be anything from lightning strikes to asteroid impacts: any unforeseen occurrence that derails the prevailing trajectory of evolution and sends it along a different path. In other words, 'sliding doors' moments that have been influencing evolution for as long as there has been life on Earth. So, just because things kept 'evolving into anteaters' in the past, doesn't mean that history will repeat itself. Which is a shame. Anteaters and aardvarks don't typically eat all of the ants or termites in a nest, but leave some behind so the colony can rebuild itself. This makes them the epitome of sustainable living. If we can't evolve into them, we can at least learn from them. Helen Pilcher is a science writer and the author of Bring Back the King: The New Science of De-Extinction and Life Changing: How Humans are Altering Life on Earth
The Guardian
16 hours ago
- The Guardian
Animals keep evolving into anteaters. Could this be the future of humanity?
Who doesn't love an anteater? I mean, apart from ants, obviously. With their long snouts and even longer sticky tongues, they trundle around, slurping up insects like milkshakes. They have handsome, bushy tails, which they wrap around themselves at night like a blanket. And they're excellent parents. Giant anteater mothers allow their young to cling to their backs, rucksack-style, for periods of up to a year. Indeed, the surrealist artist Salvador Dalí was so taken with the giant anteater that he once took one for a walk through the streets of Paris. And before you ask, no, this wasn't a cheese dream. There is photographic evidence. As if that weren't enough, a recent study published in the journal Evolution has found that mammals have evolved into anteaters not once, not twice, but 12 times since the demise of the dinosaurs some 66m years ago. Anteaters, it seems, are a recurring trend. The finding prompted the study's lead author, Thomas Vida from the University of Bonn, to tell Science magazine: 'Things keep evolving into anteaters, somehow.' Which raises the question: will humans one day follow suit? By 'things', Vida means mammals, and by 'anteaters' he includes the four species of anteater from Central and South America, the pangolins and aardvarks of Africa and Asia, and the echidnas of Australia. Different animals, on different continents, that all practice myrmecophagy, also known as the consumption of termites and ants. If you were a parent of young children, you'd call them fussy eaters. If you were an evolutionary biologist, however, you'd point out that they're not being deliberately difficult. Instead, they have evolved to fill a very particular ecological niche. That niche is provided by the world's extensive population of ants and termites, some 15,000 species, whose collective biomass is more than 10 times greater than that of all wild mammals. At least a dozen times in evolutionary history, mammals decided that if you can't beat them, eat them, and began to consume the crunchy delicacy. Such an abundant food source can act as what biologists call a 'selective pressure'. Characteristics that enabled animals to eat more ants and termites – and thus survive better – are more likely to be passed on. Over millions of years, animals from all three major groups of mammal life, including marsupials and the egg-laying monotremes, evolved to have long, sticky tongues, reduced or missing teeth and strong forelimbs for busting into insect nests. It's a powerful example of convergent evolution, the phenomenon by which different species, in different places or times, independently evolve similar characteristics. Faced with the same problem – how do I eat these ants? – they all arrived at a similar solution. So, though they're not closely related, they possess features that are superficially similar. Convergent evolution is how echolocation (the ability to determine the location of objects using reflected sound) evolved separately in bats and dolphins, camera-like eyes evolved in octopuses and vertebrates, and opposable digits evolved in primates, koalas and chameleons. Powered flight has evolved independently at least four times – in birds, bats, pterosaurs and insects – and venom production more than 100 times, while crustaceans have evolved the classic, crab-like body plan at least five times. Known as carcinisation, it has spawned crabby memes aplenty. The evolutionary biologist Simon Conway Morris has used convergent evolution to argue that evolution is both deterministic and predictable. Rewind the tape of life, play it over again and similar-looking lifeforms would evolve, he says. This means that in theory, with enough time (many tens of millions of years), the appearance and retention of the requisite genetic mutations and, critically, the same selective pressures that shaped the emergence of former ant-eating animals, some mammals – including maybe us – could evolve gummy mouths and sticky tongues. Forget the history books, it's the cookery books that would be rewritten. Only there's a fly in the ointment. We're wrong to presume that because myrmecophagy has evolved multiple times, it is the pinnacle of some evolutionary tree. There are, after all, many more mammals that have not evolved into anteaters than have started breaking into termite mounds. The fact that convergent evolution occurs does not necessarily make it the default pathway. In addition, evolution has a way of pulling the rug. It can be predictable, but it can also be quirky and erratic. In his 1989 book, Wonderful Life, another titan of evolutionary biology, Stephen Jay Gould, argued for the importance of random events. These can be anything from lightning strikes to asteroid impacts: any unforeseen occurrence that derails the prevailing trajectory of evolution and sends it along a different path. In other words, 'sliding doors' moments that have been influencing evolution for as long as there has been life on Earth. So, just because things kept 'evolving into anteaters' in the past, doesn't mean that history will repeat itself. Which is a shame. Anteaters and aardvarks don't typically eat all of the ants or termites in a nest, but leave some behind so the colony can rebuild itself. This makes them the epitome of sustainable living. If we can't evolve into them, we can at least learn from them. Helen Pilcher is a science writer and the author of Bring Back the King: The New Science of De-Extinction and Life Changing: How Humans are Altering Life on Earth
