How is losing an ability part of evolution?

Alright, so it's believed the appendix and one point helped in our disgestion of dietary fibers, and we could consume grass/bark/plants like heribovores. So how is losing that ability evolutionary?

Because no one eats grass/bark any more.

>>2
Because no one can live of eating grass/bark any more

Because no one can eat grass/bark without throwing up.

How do you explain hardcore Vegans?

It is called a vestigial structure when we don't need it anymore. I think what >>1 is trying to say is, how does evolution select against something? It's not because the organism does not need that particular function anymore but because the organ is harmful to it living or procreating. So for humans to evolve to having no appendix, having no appendix should be beneficial to it.

>>5
I told you I was hardcore

>>4
That's exactly why people smoke it instead.

One needs to realize that evolution is not a conscious choice towards a "better" organism.  It is simply the combination of a  constantly changing envyronment and a constantly changing genetic makeup shifting.  when you ask why something is or why something isn't, there isnt always an "It's better that way" answer.  sometimes, and indeed with more recent genetic mutations, oftentimes, the answer is simply chance.

>>9
yeah but really, whats the chance that all humans would evolve out of the ability to digest dietary fiber? It just seems that at least some people would have kept the ability unless it was harmful.

>>10

Most people still have the ability, it's just that bark doesn't take good.

>>11
No, I mean actually digest it. Humans cannot digest dietary fiber. It just passes through their systems. Other animals, like cows, can actually get enough nutrients out of grass and hay to grow, mature, and eventually bear children. A human could not live on grass.

>>1 is from Kansas. People from Kansas are not allowed on world4ch or 4chan in general. It's a fact.

Because growing an organ that we no longer need (human moved away from hardcore vegetarianism to more energy efficient omnivorous diet ages ago) constitute waste, and therefore render the person with appendix evolutionarily unfavourable. Instead the energy can be used for more important things like developing brain cells etc.

>>14
Actually that makes sense. If you think about it, fiber is made of carbon mostly, so animals probably digest it and reconstruct it into proteins for body growth. Since humans moved into directly eating protein from animals and were able to reconstruct that into their own protein at much less of an energy cost, the energy-wasting digestion and reconstruction of dietary fiber using the appendix would become outdated and evolution would move against it.
At least... I think that information is accurate.

Of course it makes sense. It's science.

Indeed, just to reiterate, abilities that are not needed are selected against because they require energy, so an organism without the ability wouldn't need to expend the energy.

>>12
Such animals don't just have functional apendices--they also have multiple stomachs and the ability to continuously regugitate their food, chew it some more, swallow it, repeat.  Fully digesting dietary fiber isn't a simple task.  It's pretty understandable why they human body evolved to disregard it.

>>16
SCIIIIEEEEEENNNNNCNCCCCCE!

People that were able to digest fiber were never selected because their shit stuck to the ass. The smell was a turn off when finding mates. So eventually they died out. The "malfunctioning" humans with failed appendicies propagated.

Why don't we see more mutations?  Sure there are deformities and retardations, but rarely is there some mutation that screams "holy shit we need to procreate and pass that gene on."  For example, a human who could live normally with horns, wings, and a tail.

>>21
Because the human race isn't stressed, and also because mutations happen over a long period of time. It generally takes AT LEAST 2 generations for a mutation to surface with any specific advantages.
Plus, humans don't need horns or a tail, and wings are too great of a leap without technology.

>>21
>>22 is rigth in the spot;  for a mutatin to become fenotipical (classy biology word for "duh, i can see it ") it need at least 2 generations in wich BOTH parents have the same mutation which has also to be a benefical one or the individuals will reject our litle freak (not you, he...); suposing this mutation does provide an evolutionary advantage and thet he has decendance, and that his decendance is aizlated from the non mutated individuals for long enoug to more mutations to addup, you'll have made an species

the response of the mate that alows this passing down is normaly not a "ZOMFG hot genes" but a " this dude looks more "survivey" than the rest of this /b/tards, so it'll have to be he..."

the more radical mutations tend to bee seen as diseases, and tus not good for mating, so evoliton goes slow unles somtig realy fucked up goes on on the envoriement...