howsois

Human beings can innovate constantly. Animal innovation is limited.

The article makes it very clear

Many animals have the ability to learn. In addition to genetic survival instinct, other survival skills are obtained through learning. 
Animals don't have flexible hands like humans, can't make and use tools, and their innovative ability is limited.

Innovation requires not only brains, but also hands. The brain is for thinking, the hand is for doing. Both are indispensable to innovation.

What makes human beings different from other animals is that they are constantly innovating. This is obvious. The known course of human evolution is dominated by human innovation. This is also obvious. The stone tools known to human were not the first tools that influenced human evolution. So it's pretty easy to know what the previous innovations were. Because progressive innovation is necessary.

Does evolution ever require a cause ? 

Actually, I'm looking forward to this problem. It seems that everything is back to its origin. This is worth thinking about. When discussing some problems, is it a mistake to study them? Whose argument is wrong? I don't think so.

I couldn't help laughing. Everyone said their own words, as if they were discussing a problem in more places. In fact, just try to stick to their point of view.
My personal views are clearly expressed in the article. As for whether they are right or wrong, I'm afraid we have to wait for the future.
In this discussion, a lot of controversy has arisen. Fortunately, there are no more views to join in.

Maybe you should study the endurance running hypothesis based on fossilized records of human evolution.I have already analyzed the development of human endurance for meat. It is in this process that human body hair disappears.

1. Humans know that they are invincible after using weapons.
2. Humans stand upright and cannot run very fast.
3, the human eye's night vision ability is very poor.
4. Humans must acquire prey during the day.
5. Humans have only one way to solve this problem.
6. Follow the hunting target.
7. The chasing process requires heat dissipation.
8, humans retreat body hair, replaced by sweat glands.
9. Although the animal runs fast, it lacks stamina, which is because it cannot dissipate heat.
10. Therefore, humans successfully hunt and win with endurance.

In order to save energy, comparing human bipedal walking with chimpanzee limb walking is problematic. Experiments should compare chimpanzee walking on four limbs with chimpanzee walking on two feet. If chimpanzees are more energy-efficient in bipedal walking, it is possible to evolve into bipedal walking. Actually, the answer is there. Chimpanzees walk on four feet. There is no need to do experiments.
If we want to compare energy saving of limb walking or bipedal walking, we should make a comparison with walking as a single purpose. For example, people walk on two feet and dogs walk on four limbs. Chimpanzees have better limbs for climbing trees.

Natural evolution is a very slow process, especially changes in the body and organs. Sudden changes in the natural environment can only lead to the extinction of organisms that cannot adapt to the changes. Standing upright on two feet offers few benefits other than the release of human hands. The aches and pains caused by being upright are obvious. But humans chose this for a simple reason: they could use the tools of human innovation. I don't know why some people choose not to see such obvious facts.

For science, the most important thing is to discover the principles and rules, not the so-called evidence. Science is not a collection of phenomena. A single, small amount of so-called evidence is probably not evidence, such as the discovery of a few fossilized teeth, and the rest is imagination, based on a few teeth.

Chimpanzees know to use sticks for defense, but they don't know to use sticks to survive in the grasslands. So, they're chimpanzees.

The advantage is intelligence, which is a very interesting idea. Intelligence serves no purpose without power to back it up. And, there is no evidence to support this claim.

Some people think that people's vision is very good, in fact, people's vision, hearing and smell are not very prominent. People can't run fast, they don't have sharp teeth, they don't have sharp claws. As far as their own functions are concerned, people have almost no advantage in hunting.
I don't know why some people come up with ridiculous imaginations.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Assertion without evidence. Again.

The evidence is obvious. Chimpanzees still live in the jungle and they walk on all fours.

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

Good thing your not trying to survive in the woods. The predator most likely already knows your there. They have other senses than just sight  ie stong sense of smell.

 If you don't stand up to spot the predator to know where it is when you catch it's scent or hear it you won't know which direction to run.

 I believe we already covered this ground difficult doesn't mean impossible. Every mammal or bird lifts their heads from grazing to spot predators why would you decieve yourself this doesn't apply to standing up if possible. Just watch some nature shows you will see this behavior in too many numerous animals to count 

Example gophers 

But hey go visit Africa and keep your head below the grass if you honestly believe that will protect you or increase your odds.

 As for myself it's far more important to see the potential threat at a distance so you can stay clear of the threat. Seeing that threat early on such as grizzly bears is one reason reason I am still alive.

 

An experience is not convincing. When you meet a predator, it happens that when they are hungry, how many opportunities do you have? Don't say that you can successfully find threats every time. A snake in the grass will be deadly.

Did the ancient apes walk upright to see farther?Ancient apes had far less vision than predators, and
when they stood upright, they were only more likely to be found by predators. This shows that it is
difficult to find the threat by standing upright.
So, what about prey? Maybe. But there must be a premise that these prey are very afraid of ancient
apes, so much more terrible than jumping off the cliff.There is no such possibility at all.

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

So that is an interesting claim that I have not hear before. I am aware that chimpanzees are predators of other animals and that they are also prey to some large predators (there quite a few studies out there describing e.g. defensive strategies against leopards). . There are also observational studies that, as you implied, deadly intergroup violence has been reported, often the actions of small groups of male chimpanzees. However, while persistent, the occurrence  is very low , even when their territories are very small due to human actions and in cases of limited resources. I am not sure whether leopard predation rates are higher (considering that they are also getting extinct).  However, considering the overall rarity it does not make it terribly likely that it is a significant selective pressure. 

Considering the constraints on chimpanzee habitats, it is not unlikely that their population density was lower than early hominids and probably also hominins. 

I stand corrected. However, considering the lack of usage in our cousins it does seem to imply that weapon use may have developed relatively late in hominid evolution, though. So if we move away from innerspecies violence, there is apparent evidence for predation ca. 1.9 million years ago. That, IIRC has been associated with access to more proteins and improved brain development (or at least it has been speculated as such). Bipedalism on the other hand most likely evolved ca. 6-7 million years ago. Predating the increase in skull size by a fair bit. I do not believe we do have tools older than ~4 million years ago, so these various developments (bipedalism, tool use for feeding, tool use for hunting, skull size increase) seem to have occured in waves. Though certain aspects are likely to have affected subsequent developments. I.e. bipedalism could have freed up hands for tool use.

Chimpanzees can use weapons (branches, stones) to fight each other and use these tools to fight dangerous animals. You can find such a video. Chimpanzees use small branches to get termites. This is a way to get food with tools. How many years has this innovation been? This cannot be verified at all.

3 minutes ago, howsois said:

Chimpanzees can use weapons (branches, stones) to fight each other and use these tools to fight dangerous animals. You can find such a video. Chimpanzees use small branches to get termites. This is a way to get food with tools. How many years has this innovation been? This cannot be verified at all.

We have no way of knowing when chimps learn to use tools. Is our common ancestor already mastered? There will be different opinions about this. In fact, the ancient apes have indeed mastered it. This can only be achieved by reasoning because there is no evidence.

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Yes but the other detail is not to discount other evidence out of hand. A truly robust (strong lasting) theory needs to be able to account and address as many pieces of evidence as possible into a collective and complete theory. 

 I don't know how many times I've heard

"But that's not my theory" arguments brought up in the Speculation forum in response to counter evidence 

Needless to say simple denial is a poor methodology.

Yes, I like to discuss something. But some people are emotional about their intentions.

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 

Willingness has nothing to do with logic or science.

 

You are right. There are two methods of scientific proof, one is logic and the other is evidence.
Logical proofs are often used in mathematics.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nonsense

This is a strong expression of willingness.

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not like what, exactly? Science is nothing but varying levels of confidence and uncertainty based on varying weights of evidence. It's always provisional at best.

Your answer is very interesting. Since it is the science of uncertainty, what should we talk about? There can be no conclusion. All people need to do is stick to their will.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Maybe. All depends on the definitions you’re choosing for those words in your sentence. 

I appreciate your skeptical attitude. Uncertain answers can give you room to talk. But science is not like this, and logic is not like this.

47 minutes ago, iNow said:

Even the most precise logic rooted in invalid premises still leads one to wrong conclusions. Logic is necessary, but not sufficient for correctness. 

Then I want to ask you, whether the known history of human development can explain the evolution of human survivability during this period is due to human innovation.

Science and logic are inseparable, and thinking without logic is chaotic.
This is why I have seen some people here that the arguments are confusing and difficult to understand.
Logical methods are not only able to reason, but also to prove, but logic must have a theoretical basis.
But many people ignore logic.
The article has analyzed that the evolution of human (survival ability) relies on innovation, and human survival cannot leave innovation.
Even if it is reality, but there are still people who disagree. They believe that human evolution has nothing to do with human innovation.
In fact  prove this is very simple, as long as he does not relay human innovation, I can say that his viability is immediately becomes zero.

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Right so let's look at prehistoric  man. His diet would only rarely consist of meat. Previous to tool development. He would have eaten largely roots, bugs such as ants worms etc. His meat diet would probably be in the form of small rodents. Large game would be a very rare luxury. He wouldn't be able to preserve meat so largely wasted. If anything he may be a scavenger hence a larger pancreas. Much like the diet of apes and monkeys we see today. One big distinction is our young cannot hang onto their mothers so the mothers would have to pack them. That's difficult to do when your walking on all four limbs. Particularly if you have to flee from danger.

 We don't have a strong sense of smell so rely mostly on our sight. Being able to see farther for early warning is a huge factor.  If a predator is stalking you. He already knows your there. Hence standing upright allows us to see at a better elevation. We can't smell danger like a typical herbivore nor can we hear as well as many animals.

 

African buffaloes are high enough. But they are hard to find lions until the lions attack them.

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Not as many as I would like but consider this a wild animal typically looks for the easiest and most risk free meal.

 Hence wolves weed out the weak and young. Adult seals have chased off predators from their young even though the seal couldn't possibly win the fight.

 Nature is full of examples where simply implying a risk of injury is sufficient.

 No predator risks unneeded injury, a simple cut can get infected. Predators look for those easy meals unless starved to aggressive levels where the risk of starvation outweighs the risk of injury.

I agree that any animal will stay away from potential harm. It is the basis of individual survival.

Just now, howsois said:

I agree that any animal will stay away from potential harm. It is the basis of individual survival.

But when they need food to survive, they take risks.

5 minutes ago, howsois said:

I agree that any animal will stay away from potential harm. It is the basis of individual survival.

But when they need food to survive, they take risks.

For example, wildebeests cross rivers that they know have crocodiles.

6 minutes ago, howsois said:

 Human innovation leads to human evolution.Human beings do not have the innovation of modern agriculture. How many people can survive? Human beings have no agriculture, how many people can survive? How many people can survive without human tools?

How do you keep yourself safe?

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Don't judge ppl today to ppl that existed before all these inventions. You would be amazed how much food exists in every forest or even in grasslands.

 Desert and artic survival is tricky but possible. 

Humans have destroyed the natural ecology, how many wild animals? You know there is safe.

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Don't judge ppl today to ppl that existed before all these inventions. You would be amazed how much food exists in every forest or even in grasslands.

 Desert and artic survival is tricky but possible. 

Being alert and sleeping in a safe area such as a tree. Grizzly bears can't climb trees and mountain lions are a rare occurrence.  The biggest danger is wolves. 

In addition, I want to know, what do you eat? If you do not get high-energy food, you will gradually lose weight, how can these high-energy foods be obtained?