[HN Gopher] Ancient switch to soft food gave us overbite-the abi...
___________________________________________________________________
Ancient switch to soft food gave us overbite-the ability to
pronounce 'f's,'v'
Author : NoRagrets
Score : 118 points
Date : 2025-02-20 17:49 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.science.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
| BJones12 wrote:
| Just a reminder that we are in the middle of a silent epidemic of
| small jaws [0] and that if you feed your kids hard food they will
| grow up to be healthier and more attractive.
|
| [0]] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32973408/
| iwsk wrote:
| ...so mewing is real and it is not a coincidence that it's
| suddenly a thing now?
| tkahnoski wrote:
| Mewing is something _intended_ to address this, but evidence
| isn 't there. Everyone wants a non-invasive solution rather
| than jaw expanders, braces, retainers etc.. so depending on
| where your bias, you might be against "Big-Ortho" and try
| this, or you could invest in proven orthodontics.
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _proven_
|
| Dr Mew doesn't claim that orthodontics don't work, he
| points out they are expensive and lucrative, and he claims
| that if we maintain a "jaw healthy" diet from childhood,
| orthodontic problems will be much less prevalent in the
| population (this is a related but independent claim from
| the "mewing" regimen) He says that the evidence is found by
| comparing modern jaws/bites with historical skulls which
| show there has been a dramatic "20th century" emergence of
| orthodontic problems which would indicate a developmental
| issue rather than a genetic one.
|
| I don't know if he is correct or not, but it's a claim that
| can be independently measured/verified. Instead of using
| and publishing such sound science, the orthodontia
| community is using "cancellation" against him which
| certainly matches the lucrative aspect, though doesn't
| provide direct evidence.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Well, can you link us to the best scientific evidence
| that he's not full of shit instead of just saying he's
| being "cancelled"?
|
| Please no more blog posts or journal articles.
| fsckboy wrote:
| you sound angry, science is best conducted from a neutral
| POV
|
| I've listened to his evidence, repeated it clearly here
| for you, and am aware of no counterevidence.
|
| there is nothing wrong with calling his license
| revocation over this precise topic "cancellation";
| cancellation is a more precise term than "full of shit"
| which could refer to constipation.
|
| You don't seem curious to learn, the hallmark of HN's
| ethos.
| moralestapia wrote:
| What is hard food? Can you be more specific?
|
| I am definitely interested in this.
| NalNezumi wrote:
| Not OP, but I remember as a kid being told to eat crispbread
| (freely available in schools, I assume in most of
| Scandinavia) because it was good for your teeth/jaw.
|
| I guess one could also include chewy / starchy food; my Asian
| side family had similar saying but more towards chewing thing
| properly. (chew 100 times per food in mouth)
|
| So things like crispbread, (raw) carrots, dried
| fruits/vegetables/meat/squid, etc
| bloomingkales wrote:
| Some people chew on the bones of meat.
| Vecr wrote:
| That's too hard. Chew on raw carrots.
| moralestapia wrote:
| I chew raw carrots regularly, and they also clean your
| mouth as well.
| tosser0001 wrote:
| Anything that requires hard chewing like nuts, raw vegetables
| and tough meats.
|
| The first I ever heard of this topic was from reading the
| book "The Evolution of the Human Head" (2011) by Daniel E.
| Lieberman. It's an academic book, and parts are not exactly
| light reading targeted for the general public. I had read it
| when it first came out, seemingly well before it because such
| of point of discussion.
|
| The problem with this topic is, if you try to look anything
| up on line you can quickly find yourself in the "manosphere"
| with its associated toxicity.
| bitwize wrote:
| Does it go "crunch" in your mouth?
|
| Even things like crackers may count, but generally hard foods
| include raw vegetables and certain fruit like apples and
| nuts.
| gattr wrote:
| On a related (?) note, I was taken aback by the scene from
| "Kill Bill 2" ([1]), where Bill makes a sandwich for Bibi
| and... cuts off the crust. And it was the soft "toast" bread
| anyway. Doing this was not a thing when I was a kid; actually,
| eating the crunchy heel of a (Central-European style) loaf was
| a pleasure.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXXXIokuYGM
| cafard wrote:
| I grew up in the Wonder Bread days, and definitely remember
| people cutting off the crusts.
| saalweachter wrote:
| This is an absurdly common request from small children.
|
| If you don't do it, you may still find them eating around the
| crusts, for instance if you cut a sandwich in half, or even
| gnawing through a single point on the sandwich's crust and
| then leaving behind a crust-rind when they're done.
|
| As a parent, you're then left with no other choice than to
| eat all of the grilled cheese rinds yourself, so you don't
| tend to push too hard on the childish habit.
| crazygringo wrote:
| As a kid, I hated the crust. It tasted gross.
|
| But that's because it was gross industrial bread to begin
| with, and the crust was just drier and unpleasant.
|
| But I also remember eating sourdough with its chewy crust and
| loving that.
|
| Cutting off crusts is very specific to bread that is bad to
| begin with, I think.
| niceice wrote:
| Rich vs poor. The rich can literally chop off food and throw
| it in the trash.
| barrucadu wrote:
| But the crust is nice, why would you throw it away just
| because you're rich?
| dpcx wrote:
| This is discussed at length in (Breath)[0] which also discusses
| other things about how it's caused issues with breathing.
|
| [0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48890486-breath
| begueradj wrote:
| That's also why humans have maybe the weakest teeth among the
| mammals ... and a narrow mouth which caused us to lose certain
| teeth we no longer have nowadays.
|
| In an interview with Joe Rogan, James Nestor suggested to
| encourage our kids to eat non soft food daily.
| soperj wrote:
| Does he give some examples of non soft foods?
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Guy sounds like a crockpot like half of Joe Rogan's guests
| these days, but isn't it obvious which foods make you chew
| or not? Compare yogurt to a bowl of vegetables.
| triceratops wrote:
| > Guy sounds like a crockpot
|
| Ironic you can only make soft foods with those
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| Pumpernickel bread... tough slices of meat?
| saalweachter wrote:
| Bones are the historical example, IIRC.
|
| Obviously there are downsides to letting small children
| chew on bones.
| sxp wrote:
| This book is amazing. Two useful bits that really helped me
| were mastic gum and mouth tape. Both of them made it much
| easier for me to breath through my nose at night and avoid
| waking up with a dry mouth in the morning.
|
| There are also some interesting bits on breathwork and the
| scientific aspects of it. I was able to use those techniques to
| temporarily lower my heart rate to 45 BPM during meditation.
| soperj wrote:
| > I was able to use those techniques to temporarily lower my
| heart rate to 45 BPM during meditation.
|
| What's your normal resting heart rate? Mine hovers around
| 39-40, so getting to 45 isn't really an issue.
| sxp wrote:
| An average of 60-70 according to watch.
| martinjacobd wrote:
| Are you an endurance athlete?
|
| I was surprised at how quickly my rhr came down after I
| started cycling more even though I've never been very
| active in my life.
|
| It also (I think!) helped with my sleep apnea/general sleep
| problems, and I've always assumed a good bit of that was
| literally just being better at breathing.
| 42772827 wrote:
| Great book. I'm still working on breathing because of it.
| Here's a bookshop.org ebook link for it:
| https://bookshop.org/p/books/breath-the-new-science-of-a-los...
| deadbabe wrote:
| What sounds can we only pronounce with underbites?
| tboyd47 wrote:
| There's a sound you can make like an /f/ by pressing your lower
| row of teeth against your top lip and blowing. That one. (It
| sounds basically the same as /f/).
| peterfirefly wrote:
| I can easily make it when pushing my lower jaw forward (to
| give myself an underbite). Pretty sure everybody else can
| too. The kids I met with an underbite (when I myself was a
| kid) had no trouble making that sound.
| pineaux wrote:
| I really dont buy the premisse of this piece. I can easily make
| the same sounds with an underbite
| tlb wrote:
| But is it comfortable to talk that way for hours? Can you
| shout and whisper and sing that way? If not, people would've
| gradually shifted to easier sounds.
| tiltowait wrote:
| Speaking as someone with an underbite: yes. Easily.
| turtlemir wrote:
| I feel there are so many health issues plaguing our modern
| population.
|
| -Bad conditions for eyes leads to growing amounts of glasses
| wearers, glasses make an active healthy lifestyle harder, early
| health development seems really important (playing physically as
| a kid) putting glasses on kids seems a terrible thing, and worse,
| people act like this is normal.
|
| -The types of food we eat, and our bad breathing habits (maybe
| from posture or air pollution), maybe even our tongue posture,
| leave us with poor jawlines, poor facial structure.
|
| -Our disconnect from the natural world leaves us unwhole.
|
| -The extreme of either sedentary lifestyles (office worker) or
| too repetitively physical (warehouse worker) breaks people down.
|
| Its really sad, most people I see today seem really unhealthy.
| Fat or flabby, aching body, bad posture, stressed out. I fell
| into the trap too, had to loose 50 pounds recently. Cleaned up
| diet, working on posture, flexibility, strength, proper muscle
| activation, knowing ones body. And that is hard to do, maybe only
| possible because a WFH job lends towards healthy living. Most are
| not so fortunate. Also having no family or responsibility beside
| myself really helps. But neglecting such things are not
| sustainable for society.
|
| We need a society where being healthy is easier, and better
| rewarded.
|
| I am sorry if this rant is not acceptable to Hacker News, but I
| wish as a society our focus was "what makes us healthy".
| Literally that should be a primary principle in guiding our
| politics. Compared to the rest of history, we are living in a
| special time, at least in developed countries. We have the means
| to be creating healthy, beautiful, smart, well rounded, well
| adjusted individuals. But I feel the opposite is happening, and
| it seems like the majority of people don't care
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| > putting glasses on kids seems a terrible thing, and worse,
| people act like this is normal
|
| I'm not following on this one - is it because this may make
| them less physically active?
|
| You should be asking what kind of vision problems they may
| have, that got them the glasses in the first place. For
| example, I have astigmatism, have crossed eyes without glasses,
| and +8 power correction. I had to have surgery when I was 3
| years old _just to be able_ to get glasses in the future. Not
| having glasses is a great way to make me miserable and unable
| to see or read _anything_.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| The intent is to reduce the likelihood of these conditions
| developing by encouraging exposure to sunlight and far
| distances as a child.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| In my case, I'm farsighted; and while screen time and lack
| of sunlight can make myopia worse, there's already a
| genetic tendency that is being aggravated.
|
| Farsighted though is awfully convenient for staring at
| screens with a good prescription - at worst, my vision
| _improves_ over time. :)
| bluGill wrote:
| There are plenty of people who got exposure to sunlight and
| far distances as a child who need glasses anyway.
|
| My dad grew up on a farm, and rarely spent much time
| inside, still needed strong glasses all his life to see.
| Clamchop wrote:
| Anecdotally, I grew up playing outdoors on a farm, not
| much computer time until I was 11 or 12 or so, which is
| also around the time I had to get glasses with almost the
| same prescription strength as my father.
|
| Either computers are quick to ruin eyesight or it was
| genetic.
| WithinReason wrote:
| Hence GP's use of the word _reduce_ instead of
| _eliminate_
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| I got plenty of both of those things as a child (grew up on
| a farm). I still needed glasses from the age of 9 to see
| far away things clearly. Some people get cursed with bad
| genes.
| amluto wrote:
| Not wearing glasses is a poor solution, to say the least.
| I, personally, would much rather have myopia as an adult
| than be unable to see or read well for years as a kid.
|
| There's an interesting middle ground that's being studied:
| "peripheral defocus" lenses. The idea, as I understand it,
| is to give sharp central vision, but to blur the peripheral
| vision in a way that encourages the eyes to grow
| appropriately.
| master-lincoln wrote:
| Health is just a means to an end. Eating healthy and exercising
| comes at a cost. There is no benefit I see for me in having
| different jaw lines or facial structure. I don't need to live
| as long as possible. I just want to maximize the enjoyment
| while I am here. So I just do enough so I have the body to do
| my favorite hobbies.
| garbageman wrote:
| Some hobbies also happen to be exercise and can be done
| nearly daily. Just do more of them and now there's a much
| lower 'cost' to exercise. Whether or not you find these types
| of hobbies enjoyable is another story.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| I'm glad you're getting healthier, but what are the odds that
| all of your theories have any basis in reality, after spending
| , I'm guessing, years or decades living an unhealthy lifestyle.
|
| Like, do you really think your tongue position is affecting
| your facial and jaw structure? I'm guessing you believe in
| "mewing", and every before/after image I have seen has just
| been a joke.
| undersuit wrote:
| I'm waiting for them to drop mouth-breather as some kind of
| slur.
| flarzzarp wrote:
| Your comment makes me feel mixed feelings. First, I think
| generally speaking, we do live in a time and society where
| people can be and are healthier than ever before. I agree with
| you, that it should be a priority to further improve that
| situation. Some of your points however (e.g. glasses, jawline,
| beatiful, well rounded) sound like you are confusing modern
| beauty standards with good health. As someone who really enjoys
| wearing glasses, I am also a tiny bit offended by your view :)
| And kids seeing well with glasses vs not seeing sharp is an
| absolute no brainer to me... There are glasses for doing sports
| too. The main driver of poor health today, imo is inequality.
| Being healthy is a privilege. While, generally speaking,
| illness does not care about your net worth, treatment options
| do. Eating healthy is expensive in terms of money and time. So
| are healthy hobbies, physio therapists and so on. Living a
| healthy lifestyle should not be better rewarded but more
| accessible.
| SirHumphrey wrote:
| "Our disconnect from the natural world" makes us not die at 40
| from a broken leg.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| "By means of some 90 models of Eskimo teeth, Dr. Adelbert
| Fernald, Curator of the Harvard Dental School Museum, has proved
| that eating a strictly meat diet is the ideal way in which to
| keep the human mouth in a healthy condition, and that it is due
| to the fact that civilized people do not eat enough meat that
| they as a rule have decayed teeth." - Harvard Crimson (1929) [1]*
|
| The neolithic flip completely upended the world of Homo-Sapiens
| such that majority of modern humans come from the bottlnecked
| group of 10-100k sapiens that left Africa, interbred with
| Neanderthal and developed the structural heirarchical systems
| that dominate the world now.
|
| Almost no humans today eat, cohabitate, socialize, "work" or play
| in a way that is coherent with our biology.
|
| *Notable that the student newspaper from 1929 is better science
| reporting than any news outlet today
|
| [1] https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1929/1/29/esquimo-
| teeth-p...
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Someone's claim in a 1929 blog satisfies your epistemic
| standards?
|
| Most ancient mummies also have atherosclerosis.
|
| Fortunately we can run the test today to see what causes these
| things, not regress to story-telling about what might be true
| because we want to believe it.
|
| "Coherent with our biology" is just going to cash out into yet
| more story-telling over evidence.
| Daishiman wrote:
| > Almost no humans today eat, cohabitate, socialize, "work" or
| play in a way that is coherent with our biology.
|
| We have adaptations for lactose tolerance that emerged in the
| fast few thousand years. Our extremely energy-intensive brains
| can only be fed because we pre-digest our meals through fire.
|
| We are, in fact, quite well adapted to the society that we've
| built, certainly much more so than peoples who had to spend a
| good chunk of their life just looking for food and not dying of
| mosquito-borne diseases.
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| >Our extremely energy-intensive brains can only be fed
| because we pre-digest our meals through fire.
|
| The exception being animal derived foods. ( eggs, meat, fish,
| milk etc.). These food can be raw, and will still reliably
| fuel the brain.
| adrian_b wrote:
| This is correct.
|
| Heat treatment of animal food has benefits, like killing
| parasites, softening meat enough for weak human teeth,
| extracting proteins from bones through boiling, or
| denaturating harmful proteins, like those from egg whites,
| but it has little importance for digestibility.
|
| In general, heat treatment is not useful for fatty
| substances and it is seldom useful for proteins. Heat
| treatment is important mainly for making starch digestible
| and for releasing various components of vegetable cells
| that would otherwise require much more chewing or much more
| fermentation time in the guts than possible for humans.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| Not me trying to pronounce those with an underbite just to be
| contrarian
| ryanmcbride wrote:
| I was able to!
| tiltowait wrote:
| I have an underbite and pronounce those sounds just fine, so
| I'm a little suspicious of the assertion.
| perthmad wrote:
| It reminds me of this weird theory about proto-Castillan.
| According to some scholars, the change from initial /f/ in Latin
| to /h/ in Spanish could have been caused by the bad teeth of the
| speakers of lore, a phenomenon ultimately due to the water
| quality in some areas.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonetic_change_%22f_%E2%86%92...
|
| Needless to say I've always found this hypothesis doesn't really
| hold water...
| elnatro wrote:
| All speakers of old Spanish had bad teeth? And from all zones?
| Doesn't make sense.
| ysavir wrote:
| I don't know anything about Spanish language changes, but a
| change needn't have the entire population afflicted in order
| to occur-just enough people for it to become fashionable. And
| as modern trends constantly demonstrate, fashionable trends
| can come from anywhere, no matter how small a section of of a
| population, nor how silly the trend seems to be to the
| population at large, even as the population at large is
| overtaken by the fashion.
| crazygringo wrote:
| How reliable is this finding?
|
| It's hard to believe that we gained an overbite over a few
| thousand years. Evolution doesn't generally happen that fast, nor
| will it happen worldwide at the same time. And the idea that
| someone born today will develop an overbite vs edge-to-edge bite
| based on diet is generally _not_ accepted by scientists, correct?
|
| And trying to prove how ancient peoples _pronounced_ words seems
| virtually impossible. It 's one thing to find a change in
| writing, but it's another thing to assume you know how the given
| consonants were actually pronounced. Even today, there can be
| gigantic variation in pronunciation between dialects of the same
| language, including consonants.
|
| So this finding seems _extremely_ hypothetical at best, unless I
| 'm missing something?
| tsimionescu wrote:
| This is not about a genetic, evolutionary change from an
| underbite/edge-to-edge mastication back to overbite/up-down
| mastication. The theory is that this happens in individual
| humans based on their diet growing up: if you were to take a
| hunter gatherer child and raise them with a modern diet, they
| would have the modern overbite; and conversely, if you raised
| your child with a hunter-gatherer diet, they would develop an
| underbite.
|
| And while the exact cause may be debatable, as is the impact on
| language, the fact that this change happened over the last few
| thousand years is established fact, easily visible in human
| skeletons.
| metalman wrote:
| Hunter gatherer is not a monolithic term, and it is completly
| obvious that humans have adapted to inumerable diets in
| countless ecological nieches. We have always been omnivores
| and semi nomadic and in the vast majority of cases have
| utilised dramaticaly diffrent food sources, based on seasonal
| availibility, and chance oportunity. Cant see any plausable
| reason to make the conection that is bieng made with
| language.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _and conversely, if you raised your child with a hunter-
| gatherer diet, they would develop an underbite._
|
| I.e. an edge-to-edge bite?
|
| I understand this is the idea behind "mewing", but I thought
| there was no actual evidence for that, and that it is not the
| consensus scientific position? Or has something changed?
| quanto wrote:
| Indeed. In fact, as a tongue-in-cheek example in real life,
| you can see the subtle facial structure difference between
| Asians (say, southern Han Chinese in Fujian) versus 3rd
| generation Chinese Americans from the same region (with no
| mixed ancestry). Diet, language, facial muscle behaviors
| (e.g. frowning), and surrounding beauty standards may have
| contributed to differences in the mandibular (and elsewhere)
| structure. Western diet tends to be a bit more chewy and
| meaty than, say, softer carb-heavy southern Chinese diet.
| Zenbit_UX wrote:
| It's not evolution, just look at your mouth breather friend as
| an example. Recessed jaw, poor intake of breath due to a
| constricted airway, sleep apnea, gerd, bruxism, cavities...
| it's all related.
| jerf wrote:
| It's the opposite of evolution. The environment changed, the
| genetics didn't. It's not that the genes changed, it's
| precisely that they _didn 't_.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| Can someone help me find this amazing site that was once featured
| on HN that had basically a cut-out anatomical view of the human
| mouth and throat and then you could pick any sound to see how the
| body forms it with an animation in-sync with the audio (iirc)?
| jszymborski wrote:
| https://dood.al/pinktrombone/
| newfocogi wrote:
| That was wild
| yorwba wrote:
| https://seeingspeech.ac.uk/ipa-charts/
| justinko wrote:
| It also gave us sleep apnea.
|
| Agriculture was without a doubt the worst thing to ever happen to
| us.
| Zenbit_UX wrote:
| Na, the worst thing to ever happen to us was hyperbole.
| theultdev wrote:
| Nothing stopping you from reversing the trend and start hunting
| if your sleep apnea is so bad.
| marssaxman wrote:
| Nothing but the fact that agriculturally-based civilization
| has already claimed the land, cleared the forests, farmed the
| grasslands, and killed off the wild animals, so you'd spend
| your time starving to death and hiding from game wardens: but
| at least you'd get better sleep, maybe.
| tlb wrote:
| There are lots of places you can still hunt (or trap) and
| gather. The actual problem most people would face is (a)
| they're not very good at it and (b) it's extremely tedious.
| marssaxman wrote:
| You can still hunt and trap a little, sure, but I took
| the previous commenter to be suggesting that one could
| trade agricultural civilization for a hunter-gatherer
| lifestyle, and I can't see how a person could get enough
| calories to survive that way without egregiously
| violating bag limits. Maybe up in Alaska or the Yukon you
| could still get away with it, but here in Washington, a
| little quick math suggests that hunting all the deer and
| game birds you're allowed in a year would only keep you
| fed for 6-8 weeks.
| amriksohata wrote:
| _When humans switched to processed foods after the spread of
| agriculture, they put less wear and tear on their teeth. _
|
| What? When were foods processed thousands of years ago? Also
| Carrots and fruit are not "soft"
| ivanbakel wrote:
| Humans have been processing foods for a long time. Milling,
| threshing, malting, fermentation are all traditional processing
| techniques which often make food easier and more nutritious to
| consume.
|
| And while cultivated fruits and veggies are not pap-soft, they
| are significantly less fibrous than seeds, stalks, husks etc
| that you would get from foraged, unprocessed food. Especially
| our farmed leaves are much softer than grass, leaves etc, that
| animals eat.
| nkrisc wrote:
| Various breads, cheeses, and alcoholic drinks have been
| produced for thousands of years. Grains were domesticated well
| over 10,000 years ago, cheese has been produced for at least
| 7,000 years, and alcoholic drinks probably as long as grains
| have been farmed, if not longer. Likewise, humans have been
| curing and preserving meats and other food for thousands of
| years as well.
|
| "Processed" doesn't just mean Doritos.
| tlb wrote:
| In the Levant and Europe, they ground up wheat to make flour
| and baked it into bread. You can eat raw wheat but it's a lot
| of work.
|
| In the Americas they ground up corn instead. In Africa, millet.
|
| In New Guinea they still harvest sago palms. They chop up the
| insides, extract the starch through several washing cycles, and
| make a sort of pancake out of it. The palm itself is inedible.
| Harvesting a palm takes several people all day. In the end they
| have a portable, storable, easily digestible food.
|
| Around the Pacific, taro has to be cooked and mashed before
| eating. It's toxic if you don't cook it and discard the water.
| A lot of greens need to be cooked too due to calcium oxalate.
| adrian_b wrote:
| Once the inedible husks are removed from wheat grains, they
| can be eaten with minimal work, actually less work than when
| grounding them into floor.
|
| Wheat grains (without husks) or any other cereal grains, can
| be eaten easily just by adding an appropriate amount of water
| (e.g. 4 times their weight) and boiling them, exactly like
| one would make cooked rice from rice grains.
|
| Making flour and bread (initially unleavened, then leavened)
| has required considerably more work, not less work, but it
| has become the preferred way to eat wheat because it was
| considered much more tasty than boiled grains or porridge.
|
| The varieties of wheat that were available before
| domestication had seeds from which it was difficult to remove
| the hulls, so milling them into coarse floor and boiling that
| into a porridge was actually easier than removing just the
| husks and boiling the whole grains.
|
| Even in this case, when some kind of flour has been used
| since the beginning, instead of whole grains, the evolution
| from coarse floor and porridge to fine floor and bread has
| increased the amount of work required for eating wheat.
| hello_computer wrote:
| Leaning on the biological and evolutionary conclusions of
| linguists... New talk-show "science" to replace the old talk-show
| "science".
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-21 23:00 UTC)