So Gout is a problem.

Well. Not so much a problem as an oddity.

Some of the worst triggers for Gout are in
fact aquatic foods!

They are not the only triggers.

Also, Gout typically strikes at an evolutionarily
insignificant time... over 30. Neanderthals were
the first believed to have lived beyond this age.
I've heard it claimed that Neanderthals may
have been the first to have known grandparents!

So in the entire history of the genus Homo, Gout
may have been an issue for the last 10% of the
time span... or less.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20627967/

: various mutations of its gene during the Miocene epoch

That's interesting. The timing. And it's not just
humans.

So Gout, the mutation that allows it, doesn't
exclude Aquatic Ape but it seems significant. At
least it's estimated origins.

NOTE: Molecular dating is false. It's just plain
wrong. We know this. There are many, many
examples of a species "Suddenly" appearing in
the fossil record, and even accepting that they
were probably around for a lot longer, there is no
way that a "Clock Like" mutation rate can account
for them.

Nor us.

Without selective pressures, our mtDNA, for
example, doesn't seem to have any "Clock"
anymore... such as the LM3 insert in Chromosome
11.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com

Op dinsdag 3 januari 2023 om 09:18:55 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

> So Gout is a problem.

Yes, I had once a gouty attack,
my father had perhaps 100 (he didn't take allopurinol).

"Uric acid and evolution"
Bonifacio Álvarez-Lario & Jesús Macarrón-Vicente 2010
doi 10.1093/rheumatology/keq204

UA is the end-product of Hs purine metabolism,
due to the loss of uricase activity (various Miocene mutations of its gene), Hs have higher UA levels than other mammals.
90 % of UA filtered by the kidneys is re-absorbed, instead of being excreted:
- have evolution & physiology not treated UA as a harmful waste product, but as something beneficial, that has to be kept?
- were there evol.advantages of uricase loss & increased UA levels?
- was (cf. the powerful anti-oxidant activity of UA) the evol.benefit the increased life-expectancy of hominids?
- was uricase loss & UA increase a mechanism to maintain BP in times of very low salt ingestion?
- does UA increase intelligence in Hs?
- does UA protect against several neuro-degenerative diseases: actions on neuronal development & function?
These hypotheses are discussed from an evol.perspective & their clinical significance.
UA has
- some obvious harmful effects,
- some (not so well-known) beneficial effects as an anti-oxidant & neuro-protector.

Why Miocene?? what about UA & uricase in other Hominoidea?
You know my hypothesis:
late-Oligo-, perhaps early-Miocene, Hominoidea colonized the island archipels between India & S-Asia (hominoid/cercopithecoid split),
they became "aquarboreal" (google): bipedally wading + climbing arms overhead:
larger size, tail loss, broad sternum-thorax & pelvis, vertical spine, shorter lumbar spine, dorsal scapulas, longer arms, lateral arm+leg movements etc.
Probably also an other diet: shellfish?? mangrove oysters??
but why uricase loss??

> Well. Not so much a problem as an oddity.
> Some of the worst triggers for Gout are in
> fact aquatic foods!
> They are not the only triggers.
> Also, Gout typically strikes at an evolutionarily
> insignificant time... over 30. Neanderthals were
> the first believed to have lived beyond this age.
> I've heard it claimed that Neanderthals may
> have been the first to have known grandparents!
> So in the entire history of the genus Homo, Gout
> may have been an issue for the last 10% of the
> time span... or less.
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20627967/
> : various mutations of its gene during the Miocene epoch
> That's interesting. The timing. And it's not just humans.
> So Gout, the mutation that allows it, doesn't
> exclude Aquatic Ape but it seems significant. At
> least its estimated origins.
> NOTE: Molecular dating is false. It's just plain
> wrong. We know this. There are many, many
> examples of a species "Suddenly" appearing in
> the fossil record, and even accepting that they
> were probably around for a lot longer, there is no
> way that a "Clock Like" mutation rate can account
> for them.
> Nor us.
> Without selective pressures, our mtDNA, for
> example, doesn't seem to have any "Clock"
> anymore... such as the LM3 insert in Chromosome 11.