digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

A Single Chemical Separates Humans from Closest Relative

telegraph.co.uk — AND this chemical could be linked to many of our most debilitating illnesses.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • erossmu, on 07/08/2008, -23/+56Dugg for "Doctor-CUM-Scientist."
    • mweflen, on 07/08/2008, -5/+7I began my career as a cum scientist around age 13...
    • xShifty, on 07/08/2008, -1/+6And "Horse serum"
    • billbugger, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4dammit, you beat me to it... i saw that and was like, wtf does that mean!!
    • Thuktun, on 07/08/2008, -2/+9cum

      1. Used in indicating a thing with two roles, functions, or natures, or a thing that has changed from one to another.

      He built a bus-cum-greenhouse (= he converted a bus to a greenhouse) that made a bold statement, but the plants in it didn't live very long.

      * p. 1926, a. 1950, George Bernard Shaw, Collected Letters: 1926-1950,[1] University of California/Viking (1985), page 31,

      He is too good an actor to need that sort of tomfoolery: the effect will be far better if he is a credible mining camp elder-cum-publican.

      http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cum
      • djholybolt, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3you just take the fun out of everything, now don't you?
      • Observer001, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Literally "with."
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 07/08/2008, -0/+7Sheesh... is everyone here 12 years old?
    • logicalriot, on 07/08/2008, -5/+7buried for being immature
    • dangero, on 07/08/2008, -3/+14dugg for being immature
    • honeybrass, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1The english language is so F***ed up. Dugg for that
    • firebhaal, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1For MOST people, it all comes down to that extraordinary object between our legs,

      and how it blesses us with language, laughter and logic.
  • LeRenard, on 07/08/2008, -15/+71The title implies that is all that separates us, but the article implies it is merely the single thing a researcher is interested in. Buried as inaccurate.
    • squinky86, on 07/08/2008, -2/+7Inaccurate. You are exactly correct. If this molecule is all that separates us, then the article states that our closest relative is more evolved than we, since we have a "precursor of the animal's version".
      • Necoras, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3Well, to be accurate, we have a mutation of the animal version. The end of the article hints at this. The wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMAH) notes that there is a genetic mutation in the human genome which causes a premature deletion, thus our version of the enzyme leaves off an oxygen molocule.
      • TheCatsPants, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3The chemical in humans is the precursor of another chemical in the metabolic pathway of our relative. Not an evolutionary precursor.
    • WatchDoit, on 07/08/2008, -2/+28There is no such thing as being more evolved. Evolution has no end goal it is linear. Meaning it changes beings according to their environment.
      • geometry, on 07/08/2008, -13/+2I care to differ. If animal "b" evolves from animal "a" I would argue it would be okay to say that animal "b" has evolved further than animal "a". I'm not asserting that animal "b" is in anyway better than animal "a" it's just further evolved.
      • kelly, on 07/08/2008, -27/+2But only within the same family... never across them.

        Micro evolution is proven, macro evolution is not.
      • kambiz, on 07/08/2008, -2/+20geometry, you know nothing about evolution. individuals do not involve, populations evolve.... so stating that an animal evolved from another animal is wrong.

        furthermore, if animals "b" --evolved from-- animals "a" then they share a common ancestor with animals "a". your statement implies that animals "a" have stopped evolving, which is only possible when the ancestral group of animals goes extinct. all organisms are constantly evolving. one group doesn't evolve further than another group.

        better luck next time,

        kambiz
      • ApokalypseNow, on 07/08/2008, -2/+21@kelly
        "Micro evolution is proven, macro evolution is not."
        The micro/macro model of evolution was thrown out in the 1930's, as it did not fit the evidence. If you are going to ignore science, at least attempt to ignore CURRENT science.
      • lydecker, on 07/08/2008, -3/+6geometry, you statement means that animal b has been evolving for a longer period of time than animal a. All animals on the planet have been, in theory, evolving for the same amount of time, so all animals on the planet are equally far evolved, but are all have all experienced more evolved (timewise) than the species we find in the crust, or any animals from previous centuries and more.
      • Fordi, on 07/08/2008, -2/+13@kelly:
        microevolution: change at or below the species level
        macroevolution: change above the species level.
        speciation: process by which two members or populations of a species become unable to produce fertile offspring, thus becoming two distinct species

        Since speciation has been observed, I would suggest that you've not been paying attention; observation of speciation == proof of 'macroevolution'.

        By the by, I do believe that most evolutionary biologists stopped using those terms ages ago, as they didn't really fit the process of evolution. Please stop using them.
      • kelly, on 07/08/2008, -14/+1@ ApokalypseNow

        "The micro/macro model of evolution was thrown out in the 1930's, as it did not fit the evidence."

        Not true. It didn't fit the conclusion so it was required that macro evolution was given legitimacy even though its impossible to see. The reason why it had to be given legitimacy was because the only logical alternative was creationism... and the scientists wouldn't allow that.
      • kelly, on 07/08/2008, -13/+1@ Fordi

        "Since speciation has been observed, I would suggest that you've not been paying attention"

        Provide me with evidence for a single example of one species creating a new species.


        "By the by, I do believe that most evolutionary biologists stopped using those terms ages ago, as they didn't really fit the process of evolution. Please stop using them."

        As I mentioned to ApokalypseNow... only secular biologists dropped the distinction between the two terms because it didn't fit the (pre-determined) conclusion so it was required that macro evolution was given legitimacy even though its impossible to see. The reason why it had to be given legitimacy was because the only logical alternative was creationism... and the biologists wouldn't allow that.
      • ozydingo, on 07/08/2008, -1/+16kelly:

        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm ...

        knock yourself out.

        The reason I'd say any sensical biologist ignores those terms would be because it's placing an arbitrary criterion on an arbitrary characteristic. The term "species" is not well defined. To a first approximation, you could use Fordi's definitions. However this cannot apply for organisms that reproduce asexually, thus we can know that this distinctino of species must break down at this level. Biologists are still debating on how to define species in asexual creatures. How then would you want to define "macroevolution" as applied to asexual creatures? This is why the terms is not generally applicable, and I believe a large reason why it is no longer used.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 07/08/2008, -1/+12@kelly
        "Not true. It didn't fit the conclusion so it was required that macro evolution was given legitimacy even though its impossible to see."
        First off, ozydingo has provided examples of observed speciation in his link above me, so it is not "impossible to see". Second, you are confusing the way SCIENCE works, and the way CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS works. Science draws its conclusions from the evidence. Apologetics works by taking the conclusions they already know they want (something biblical, no doubt) and cherry-picking evidence to support it.

        "The reason why it had to be given legitimacy was because the only logical alternative was creationism"
        False dichotomy, and false conclusion - even if evolution were deemed false (which it has not been), it would not mean that creationism were correct, and there is still no evidence for creationism (or for the supernatural in general). Creationism is not logical in general, so it cannot be a "logical" alternative.
      • Fordi, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6@ozydingo:
        You're a new face in the zombie shoot-out that is defined by arguing with creationists. Good post there.
      • Epistaxis, on 07/09/2008, -1/+10There are no true evolution-deniers, just people who never learned the concept and want to make sure our children don't either.
      • ozydingo, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6@fordi:
        "Zombie shoot-out," I like it.

        I've been around this circuit before, just been trying to save a little time recently since as I'm sure you can relate to, it often seems a lot of time spent getting nowhere. (Makes it all the more frustrating when the better posts simply get no response, then you see the same misinformed argument that you already countered appear in another thread...but I digress)
      • Fordi, on 07/09/2008, -1/+7@ozy:

        Yeah, I get you. I take a hiatus or two from time to time, but this pwnage ***** is addictive. And I get the thread disconnects too; I can't decide whether they do it intentionally to avoid actually addressing the person they're speaking to, or if they're just too incompetent to use the Digg comment system properly. Mind you, there's a third option: they're used to the old non-threaded system, and refuse to move on - which wouldn't exactly be counter to the nature of a YEC.

        @kelly:
        "only secular biologists"

        There are no non-secular biologists. There are religious secular biologists, there are non-religious secular biologists. The term 'secular', meaning "separate from religion", is redundant when talking about any scientific discipline, which by its very nature, must operate only on natural - not supernatural - information.
      • nitsuj, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5I predict that kelly, like all creationists on here including JimmySpaza and CrazedLeper, will not address the evidence for speciation in talkorigins.

        They evade hard evidence at all costs by disengaging with debate.

        Instead, they'll turn up on another similar thread making the same idiotic claims and pretending that there is no scientific evidence that counters their beliefs, claiming "Where's the evidence?" and then conveniently disappearing when it's provided.
      • Fordi, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5@nitsuj:
        "They evade hard evidence at all costs by disengaging with debate."

        The lucky thing about this is that, while they avoid reason, there's a complete record of exactly how stupid a given stupid position is, how easily it's debunked, and some of the best arguments to counter their position.

        I would guess that a lot of the lurkers around appreciate our efforts to keep the facts in play when ideology comes to town - I know that I did when I was still a lurker.
    • axiomflash, on 07/08/2008, -0/+11The article isn't inaccurate. Just the digger's headline.
    • Necoras, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2Granted, the headline (and description) are horribly worded. The article however is fascinating.
  • Hammerheart, on 07/08/2008, -3/+51I agree that the digg title is innaccurate but the article itself is worth digging anyway.
  • stonebear, on 07/08/2008, -27/+14"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you. But flesh with the life thereof, which is in the blood, shall ye not eat. And surely the blood of your lives will I require; of every beast will I require it ..." ~ God (Genesis)

    • serif69, on 07/08/2008, -8/+23God didn't write Genesis, you *****.
      • sap959, on 07/08/2008, -4/+8even as the green herb have I given you.

        and god doesn't give me weed!... i have to buy it :(

        bet gods stuffs the ***** though :D
      • stonebear, on 07/08/2008, -7/+2God is a character in Genesis, embecile.
      • serif69, on 07/08/2008, -2/+10God is a character, alright.

        I would also like to point out the irony of misspelling "imbecile".
      • stonebear, on 07/08/2008, -3/+1"I would also like to point out the irony of misspelling 'imbecile'."

        OMG! What a faux pas. In my defense, though; I did look it up, but only changed one of the wrong letters. Sloppy.
      • Fordi, on 07/08/2008, -2/+3"bet gods stuffs the ***** though"

        Well, at least it's easy to tell who's been smoking it.
      • sap959, on 07/08/2008, -1/+3@Fordi

        surely...
        'and god doesn't give me weed!... i have to buy it :('
        gives it away first?

        also its GOD... doubt he smokes the ***** stuff :P
      • Fordi, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Nah, I'm talking about the Herb of the Lord. God sells not his Holy Ganj, indeed, as Jesus said, "No one may enter unto the Gates of Heaven's Stash except through me!"

        In short, you gotta make a deal through Hey-zoos to get his Sweet, Sacred Chiba.
      • sap959, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2but im an atheist :|

        but once i see his bounty of green majesty...who knows :D
    • Hardcase, on 07/08/2008, -4/+8I think that was revised in Testement V2.0, at least the sacrifice part.
    • HyperJack, on 07/08/2008, -4/+17You must be new here.
      Quoting the Bible won't get you far on Digg!
      Especially if it contradicts Science.
      • serif69, on 07/08/2008, -2/+8"And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.'"
      • stonebear, on 07/08/2008, -5/+2Actually, no... But what a bore to always be dugg up. Sometimes I poke at them just to see them jump; the replies can be quite amusing, once the devout atheists get up a head of steam.

        I suggest you watch, and/or read, Joseph Campbell's Power Of Myth (book and PBS series); the ancients knew, and observed far more than many modern people would give them credit for, and it was all enshrined in folklore. In this case they seem to have known that eating animals has a killing effect on those people who eat them. They didn't have science as we know it, yet were compelled to explain their reality; so they explained it with religion. Does it really matter?
      • serif69, on 07/08/2008, -2/+5Sweet Jesus on a seahorse, where's the Bible verse for stonebear to give it a rest?
    • minuteZERO, on 07/08/2008, -1/+3I'm no rocket surgeon, but to me that means don't be a cannibal. Flesh with the life thereof, which is in the blood. Hence, flesh and blood. So we're all good folks, toss another burger on the grill!
      • stonebear, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1In moderation, I think now. Toss some vegetables on there as well.
    • starmanjones, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1why do you want to antagonize us? there is a long tradition called "off topic."

      i believe you need an enemy to validate and justify the bigotry of your religion.
  • BonersMilloy, on 07/08/2008, -8/+10"Good news everyone!"
  • unrequited, on 07/08/2008, -3/+5...interesting that this may allow for animal/human transplants in the future if they figure a way to turn this on/off. While we do this currently (see xenotransplantation) this may allow the process to be easier on the host for acceptance while cutting down on the rest of the autoimmune-supressing drugs. BIG plus for people who are already weakened such as cancer patients.
    • OldJesser, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1But with autoimmunities, would this prevent anyone currently living from benefitting? Isn't this something that would have to be done at or near conception?
      • Fordi, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4Probably not; we already genetically modify pigs and monkeys to be more 'humanized' for xenotransplantation; this is just another genetic hack to add onto them.
      • Fordi, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Huh. What an innocuous thing to get buried for. Stating non-controversial fact. I was wondering about the rather ubiquitous '0 diggs' I've been getting on my history, but this one? Completely random.
      • Chaos12, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3I agree, dumb people about.
    • starmanjones, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1maybe... but i think we're very close to growing a new organ using stem cells. there is one company that is growing organs. there may be others by now but last time i read about it we had grown and transplanted bladders.
  • serif69, on 07/08/2008, -5/+22Is that chemical alcohol?
  • Wiini, on 07/08/2008, -11/+3OMG not another anti-gay article on Digg!!
  • TomT223, on 07/08/2008, -6/+12This is why I'm a vegetarian. Unless you count bacon.
    • Pstmann, on 07/08/2008, -3/+1What little piggies aren't worth saving? I think that makes you (like most other people) a meat eater! LoL
    • saranagati, on 07/08/2008, -0/+18This is why I'm a cannibal.
    • riskybeats, on 07/08/2008, -8/+5Wow, that has to be the stupidest thing I have seen today. Of course you ***** count bacon you stupid ... gaahhhh *head explodes*
    • exscape, on 07/08/2008, -1/+6If this is why you're a vegetarian, did you become one today...?
      • TomT223, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Yes. Todays my first day, I did not have meat for breakfast. Unless you count bacon, which I consider more of a vegetable.
    • kingfoot, on 07/08/2008, -0/+7thats why im omnivorous.
    • ryleyleckie, on 07/08/2008, -3/+2wtf, everyone counts bacon because it's the most delicious meat there is. Therefore, you're not a vegetarian.
    • ajchavar, on 07/08/2008, -1/+6Bacon is not meat, people! It is a gift from god to show how much He loves us.
    • Fordi, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1this is why I only eat 'humanized' pigs.
    • plugues, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3serious question:

      why does the average digg user always pokes fun at vegetarians and animal rights activists whenever they see an opportunity?

      i'm veg and i think we should be praised. to go full vegan can be a tough job, but it's good for the environment, for your health and specially for the animals. so, really, what's there to ridicule?
      • bipolarruledout, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2It's easier than addressing the very good points that vegans make and perhaps the guilt of animal consumption.

        /Not a vegan
        //I love diary too much!
    • Fordi, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2"i'm veg and i think we should be praised"

      Which is exactly why you're ridiculed. You never quite learned that part of human nature, have you?
  • suckanucka, on 07/08/2008, -8/+11Ya, its called religio-oxide, and leads the debilitating disease of irrationality.
  • vinceislegend, on 07/08/2008, -3/+43Spoiler:
    The chemical is Mountain Dew.
    • LoudMusic, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3See, I was going to say alcohol, but caffeine is probably more accurate.
  • BrainTanned, on 07/08/2008, -4/+4Damn near unreadable with that spazzing ad next to it....
    • Troy64, on 07/08/2008, -1/+6I didn't see any ad. You might try using Firefox with Adblock Plus.
  • ericjohnson0, on 07/08/2008, -4/+1I just have to wonder if this guy is the missing link.

    http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2007/4/25/2904 ...

    (Sorry, I love that pic and laugh everytime I see it)
  • UltamateAddict, on 07/08/2008, -13/+13***** THE RIAA
  • ericjohnson0, on 07/08/2008, -6/+13Seriously:

    "Chimpanzees do not seem to suffer from heart disease, cancers, rheumatoid arthritis or bronchial asthma - common conditions in humans. Nor do they get sick from the human malaria parasite, which uses sialic acid to latch on to our blood cells."

    They don't have jobs, mortgages or marriages, either. Duh. Most of our 'modern living' brings with it comfortc and illness. That explains quite a bit.
    • f4nt0m4s, on 07/08/2008, -0/+17I wish I was a chimpanzee. Eat, sleep, mate, fling poo.
      Awwweeesssommmeee.
      • urothane, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5You sound like my daughter, except the mate part.
      • altinnovation, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4Yeah but you have to sleep on a tree. That's the damn most uncomfortable thing. And if you fall off, something will eat you.
      • Fordi, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4@urothane: give it 10 years. You'll be wishing for the 'fling poo' part to come back.
      • urothane, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1@Fordi She is 9 going on 16 now, I don't think I will make it 3 years much less ten.
    • jferrari, on 07/08/2008, -1/+8And they don't live much more than 20 years.
      • billbugger, on 07/08/2008, -2/+3i agree with f4nt0m4s, cuz you prob. onl spend about 20 years of your whole live actually doing what you love. :-p
    • kelly, on 07/08/2008, -11/+4That and the fact that humans and chimpanzees are in no way related to one another whatsoever.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 07/08/2008, -1/+10Our common ancestor would beg to differ.
    • swrostmore, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2It's so obvious! Jobs, mortgages, and marriages must produce sialic acid! Eureka!
  • Onechrisn, on 07/08/2008, -2/+13So, Animals have something we don't and when we eat them it can make us sick.

    The only answer ...CANNIBALISM!
    • neomiasma, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2You'd have to eat Vegans for it to work, though. They're not usually very appetizing. Or filling.
  • CrazedLeper, on 07/08/2008, -30/+2Bull(*sneeze*)it!

    You want to be animals so you have an excuse for your conduct and your godless wars. There is no one chemical that can account for art, music, language and all the myriad abilities that separate humans from lower life forms but you can dream the neverlution dream if you *want* to--and you want to.
    • xutopia, on 07/08/2008, -1/+10Non-sequitur.
    • Hetman, on 07/08/2008, -1/+16Godless wars. The majority of wars are fought over God. Or something as asanine and as silly as "holy land."
      • CrazedLeper, on 07/09/2008, -9/+1I did specify "godless" to show that neverlution is not a peaceful religion.
      • Lewie, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6You are crazy for confusing evolution with religion.
      • Fordi, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3I'm confused.
        Are you insinuating that wars have been started over... evolution .. as a ... religion?

        Dude. You *are* nuts.
    • ApokalypseNow, on 07/08/2008, -1/+12"lower life forms"
      That term has no meaning within the field of evolutionary biology.
      • CrazedLeper, on 07/09/2008, -9/+2"evolutionary biology" is a phrase that means nothing since your religion (Neverlution) has no basis in reality.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9Evolutionary biology is a field of science, and thus is based on evidence, study, experimentation, and subject to peer review.
        You are confusing science and religion again - the tinfoil on your head must be restricting oxygen flow to your brain.
    • zomglolcats, on 07/08/2008, -1/+10So a war involving God is better?
      • CrazedLeper, on 07/09/2008, -11/+1A war involving *no* God is *no* better. Don't act like you have some moral high ground. You don't.
      • zomglolcats, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3@CrazedLeper: At no time did I mention that a war involving no god was better than one that does. Fact of the matter is, conflict of faith has spawned a lot of wars. If you refuse to acknowledge this fact, then you fail at history. I was merely responding to the comment of "godless wars" when in fact, many wars are waged in the name of god.
    • Fordi, on 07/08/2008, -1/+13Yeah. Because the Iraq war that's being waged right now is being waged by an atheist.

      Wait. You say that Dubya's a Born-again Christian? And that he's fighting against Muslim fundamentalists? You're kidding! That's rather *far* from a "Godless" war.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 07/09/2008, -1/+8Maybe if our President weren't convinced all our troops were going to heaven, he wouldn't be so eager to send them to die.
      • CrazedLeper, on 07/09/2008, -9/+1Bush is a devil worshiper. Whenever he says "God" he means Satan. Why do you take him at his word? How have you not learned that the "man" speaks NO truth. None. Ever.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9No, Bush is a member of the United Methodist church.

        Your tinfoil is still preventing you from checking your sources (assuming you have any this time).
      • Phyraxus, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9Wow, crazedleper is aptly named.
      • Fordi, on 07/09/2008, -1/+7*blink*

        That's a new one. CL, are you sure, man? We're pretty certain he's one of yours.
    • nitsuj, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5"There is no one chemical that can account for art, music, language and all the myriad abilities that separate humans from lower life forms but you can dream the neverlution dream if you *want* to--and you want to."

      The theory of evolution does not make this claim. This has been pointed out to you on several occassions now.

      Interesting how you hint at human aspiration to art, music and language whilst dismissing any kind of aspiration to intellect that clearly shows how idiotic, and frankly border-line insane, your arguments are.
  • Ghoztt, on 07/08/2008, -6/+9Wow. Very interesting article.
    Glad I'm a vegetarian.
  • screamingjoker, on 07/08/2008, -4/+8If I can draw one possible conclusion from this theoretical article, don't eat too much meat, your body will thank you by not being forced to attack itself for something that shouldn't be put in there in the first place.
    • Elliuotatar, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2It's not as simple as "shouldn't be put there". We clearly evolved to eat meat. But maybe we didn't evolve to eat beef.
      • altinnovation, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Wait... the article was very long and I didn't feel like reading the whole thing...
        So, when we eat beef our immune system attacks the proteins absorbed?
      • Elliuotatar, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2That's the jist of it, and it appears most meats contain some level of the stuff, but some far less than others:

        "After testing a range of foods, they found the highest levels of Neu5Gc in red meat: up to 11,600 micrograms could be absorbed from the recommended daily serving of beef, 5,100 from pork and 4,900 from lamb. The level in goat's cheese was 5,500, but fell to around 700 in milk and salmon. Cod, tuna, turkey and duck were in the twenties."

        So basically, beef is loaded with the stuff, and if you just started eating more lamb, fish, and fowl instead, you could cut your intake by over half.

        Of course, the problem is, you might cut this stuff out, but if you start eating lots of tuna maybe you'll be increasing your intake of mercury, or if you switch to pork, maybe you'll increase your blood pressure or cholesterol.

        Still, fish is well known to be better for you, and I've never heard a bad word said about lamb or turkey. So I'll certainly take this information into consideration when choosing my next meal. Variety is nice anyway.
  • Hiji, on 07/08/2008, -4/+1Its Axe body spray!
  • coolingstar9, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4Very good discussion on these, I think I should eat more vegetable now.
  • Merendino, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4That is a very interesting article. I am annoyed though to find out that Red Meat may be the cause of this, as I eat a LOT of beef and red meat products.... son of a bitch.
    • Elliuotatar, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Well the good news is lamb and pork has half as much of this stuff as beef does.

      And you can't say "red meat" because they only tested beef. Red meat can come from other sources, like deer, and they make no mention of how much that contains.
  • zadadka, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2...and there I was hoping how to to just add Chemical X and become a Powerpuff Girl.
    *sulks*
  • ender7074, on 07/08/2008, -9/+4"For every animal you dont eat, I'll eat 2." - Maddox
  • JoshuaLowe, on 07/08/2008, -1/+18In West Virginia there is nothing that separates people from their closest relatives.
    • seomike, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4Must be pretty hard to hold hands when you have webbed fingers.
  • EmperorAwesome, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2But I want a baboon heart!

    If only for the opportunity to wrestle the baboon for it.
  • andy2125, on 07/08/2008, -4/+3For all the vegetarians....keep in mind that humans wouldn't have evolved down our current path if we didn't get the boost in protein from eating meat. No meat, no protein, no evolved brain.

    But on the plus side, we never would have figured out a lack of a chemical would have potentially caused chronic diseases. I guess maybe we wouldn't have those diseases either. Who knows.
    • tiburocin, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5i'm not a vegetarian, so i'm not replying to that--but i'm pretty sure that you can get protein from things other than meat. if that weren't the case, no one would be a vegetarian, because they would be dead.
      • Fordi, on 07/08/2008, -1/+3The meat-like levels of protein found in things like Seitan, TVP, etc, aren't found otherwise in flora. Even beans and nuts, which are the best protein carriers in the plant world, have less than half the protein per unit mass than meat.

        We have the luxury of going vegetarian now because we can process our food to the point where meat isn't strictly necessary for most people.

        Then, you have people like me, who get anemic if we don't get our weekly fix of red meat.
    • jimmydurden, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3yeah meat is the only source of protein available to humans.....do a little research before you spout this crap please....
      • TheGhostMan, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1You're the stupid one saying the "only source of protein available to humans" is meat. I'm sure a lot of research backed that.
  • Elliuotatar, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2So how much of this stuff does buffalo contain?
  • JointVenture, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2Like a lot of DIGG posts this one is served with a heaping pile of "could".
  • joelf, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0linked to monkey-man hands?
  • BabyWookie, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5Man... this strikes home. I just recently met this wonderful girl, who gets very sick, because her immune system attacks her own tissue. I really do hope that this will help them better understand and potentially treat auto-immune diseases.
  • jabelar, on 07/09/2008, -1/+0Hopefully science will find a way to put our brains in orangutan bodies. I'm already pretty hairy, so it will be all benefit.
  • Spamiclese, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1Go to http://www.goveg.com for a free vegetarian starter kit (or just go to http://www.petaliterature.com/VEG297.pdf and download it yourself). Includes recipes, tips, and tons of other info.
  • liuite, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1he says eating red meat triggers inflammation. I say that it is the way you cook the meat. Unfortunately most people will cook their meat at high temperature. Cooking duck at high temperature increases the "Advanced Glycation End-Products" 100 fold. AGEs is responsible for inflammation. It has nothing to do with red meat.
    • Ingersoll23, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1"It has nothing to do with red meat."

      With what authority are you making this statement. I have no doubt you are knowledgeable but this statement has nothing to back it up. - Cooking meat creates AGE's therefor red meat has nothing to with this study?
      • liuite, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1red meat, white meat, dark meat...if you cook it at high temperature you will cause inflammation. eating fried potatoe can be just as bad as eating steak.
  • mstrebe, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Chimpanzees die at an average age of 24 years. We have no idea what chronic "old-age" illnesses they would be subject to if they lived as long as we do. Furthermore, studying the effects of this sugar is trivially easy: Do vegetarians get the autoimmune disorders they suspect might be caused by it at the same rate as red meat eaters or not? Why bother even talking about this until that study has been done?
  • caponumen, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Are you ***** Brits capable of any good news on any subject whatsoever?
    I know the weather over there sucks, but good grief already, you've corned the market on the bleak outlook angle.
    You are some gloomy little *****, we get it......
  • StrykeBlade, on 07/09/2008, -2/+0This is a fascinating article, the continuing discoveries about the human species is as grand as the discovery of over 277 discovered planets. Talk about something to live for, there always seems to be something that signifies our purpose. I think the thing that some of you atheist & religious people must realize is that there is "some" truth in "both" sides of what you believe in! Fact is there hasn't been any human who has lived long enough to provide "any completely solid facts" to either side of the story. I truly believe that there is much, much more to the "human story" than any of us realize, and I'm not going to make a fool of myself by "easily" being conclusive about what one side says! But one thing you all can be sure of is that the truth will slowly reveal itself in due time as it always has, and I'm sure every institution of "man made" religion or science will end up looking like a fool to some extent as it always has...
  • flowctrl, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1This is indeed good news. If the enzyme that we lack can be isolated, synthesized, and made into a nutritional supplement, then maybe we could gain the ability to properly metabolize Neu5Gc.
    • bipolarruledout, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Or you could avoid the stuff because you know it's not very good for you anyway.

      /I know it sucks.
  • Ingersoll23, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1This article made no claims of strong or absolute finding. Nothing in science is stationary or absolute. Like many comments before this - it is best to be rationally skeptical and to insist on a lot more research. This could be the beginning of a very exciting branch of diagnosis, prevention and treatment of disease.

  • Illuminatrix, on 07/12/2008, -0/+0Ahh, glad I'm a vegan.
  • efeikiss, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0OK.WWW.CHEMICALALL.COM
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.