swansont

No, that's not sufficient. Something can provide food, but that does not mean food is not a problem if you have to change the effort required to obtain sufficient food for survival. You can die of malnutrition but still be getting some food. Exactly. They needed to forage over a wider area in order to get the same amount of nutrition. This means there is an advantage to walking upright, which is more energy-efficient. And it has nothing to do with holding a club.

So it seems your contention is that a tree, which is very tall and has lots of surface area (lots of bark, leaves, twigs and fruit/nuts) for the ground space it takes up, contains less food than the equivalent space in the savannah. And I am not convinced that this is true.

I didn’t ask why they didn’t move to an environment into which they did not move. You claimed that in moving to the grassland, food is not a problem. I asked for evidence to support this claim. All you’re doing is making another bald assertion. This isn’t evidence. If they can’t change a lot, how could they eat the different food from the grassland?

You have said that safety is the only problem in moving to the grasslands, and food is not an issue. You need to support that this is true, rather than to claim it. I think it is false. I asked for evidence that food is not a problem, as you have not presented anything to support your contention. Back up your claim. Don't just write the same thing.

Grasslands have fewer trees than forest/jungle, by definition. So why does studiot have to justify this, when you have already set the scenario? Repeating this does not make it true, nor does it address the objections/questions I have raised.

This has nothing to do with archaeology. what is the evidence that the paleontological dates vary widely and are inaccurate? Bollocks Why is it that when you do it, it’s “logic”? (not that there isn’t evidence of the environment; there is. Plus, you stipulated to this already) They don’t eat meat very much. Why are they hunting for their food?

So why would they be stalking prey as soon as they got to the grassland? do they live in the grassland, where bipedalism would be an advantage?

This is science, though. Bipedal walking by humans is much more efficient than either bipedal or quadrupedal locomotion by our close relatives https://www.nature.com/news/2007/070716/full/news070716-2.html As expected, chimps were significantly less efficient at walking than humans, using up 75% more energy, irrespective of whether they were walking on two legs or four. Actual study, actual science. Is this true? Did our ancestors eat grass? Is the edible food density as high in the grassland as it is in the jungle? Can you present evidence to support your claim? Your premise included "The ancient apes mainly feed on plants." So this was presumably the diet they were adapted to as they left the jungle/forest. How hard is it to follow a plant? Are you saying there was an immediate switch from mostly herbivore to mostly carnivore? because that seems to be required by your "logic"

A just-so story is not evidence, and the way you have presented it, the innovation happened with the tree-dwellers. If they have this new innovation, why must they leave the trees? There is at least some evidence that the forests were shrinking at this time, the habitat was becoming drier, and that's what forced hominid populations into the open spaces, for at least part of the time. Walking is more energy efficient, so you can walk to forage for food, and if you have a population living at the edge of a forest they still have the protection of the trees. http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/climate-and-human-evolution/climate-effects-human-evolution

You could post it here, at least the relevant parts (like posting the best argument for a claim. Posting evidence that supports it). As it is, you're making claims, and not backing them up. That makes it indistinguishable from guessing without any basis.

Agriculture is a relatively recent innovation. I'm not sure how population pressure comes into this, and what innovation is involved. One is unlikely to see much in the way of evolution in such a short time span as the last 10,000 years, except in isolated cases. Nothing with the bulk of the population. If you're going to make such sweeping claims, it would be nice to see more detailed support

I think you have put the horse before the cart. Is there any evidence that tool use predates the opposable thumb and improved dexterity, and thus was a driver of the change? Even your own statement above implies that the increased dexterity came first. You aren't even arguing that there was co-evolution. (plus the issue of animals without opposable thumbs/precision grip who can and do use tools) Which also implies that evolution permits innovation. Innovation is not so much a driver of evolution. In fact, I would argue that innovation tends to prevent evolution, as it lessens selection pressure. You don't need to have the body adapt as much if an innovation is giving you an additional ability.

I wan't thinking of temperature as the only factor. No, that's not a response consistent with evolution. You can't validly claim a specific feature must evolve in response to some environment. You also can't compare beings in different niches, since the selection pressure is not the same. Other primates have lots of hair. What niche do they occupy? What niche did the branch that walked upright occupy? And they live in somewhat different climates. You have to consider all selection pressures on a population.

Not sure what you mean by "evolution in tool using hominids" Bipedalism predates the evidence of tool use (Australopithecenes were bipedal). Admittedly that's not conclusive, though, since tool use wouldn't leave the same kind of evidence in the fossil record. Good luck discerning that from the evidence we have available to us. We have hair. Or, perhaps, living in the plains in Africa? Ah, I was not aware of this. (earlier statement stricken)

Please upload the math, too.

Gater has been suspended for repeated thread hijacking

UltraPolymath has been banned as a sockpuppet of PervPhysProf. Additionally, an unused sock account, SupraPolymath, has been banned.

(Unfortunately, crackpots never get past step 1...)

scifimath suspended for hijacking/spamming: repeatedly bringing up his pet theory in multiple threads

FreeWill has been banned because we’re tired of the trolling

You can make a falsifiable claim and not have it be a scientific theory. Falsifiability is one element — a necessary but insufficient condition. "Elvis is still alive" is a falsifiable claim. It's not a theory. Theories have to make specific enough predictions that they can be shown to be wrong. If you have competing theories, you need to be able to do an experiment where they will give conflicting predictions, so one can be eliminated.

Amazing Random has been suspended pending staff deliberations. spamming, soapboxing and sockpuppetry (AUDI R6)

BraveDoNut banned for gross violations of our civility rules

AUDI R6 has been suspended 3 days for abusive comments and blatant trolling

I've worked through Luther and DCI Banks on Amazon prime. Can't seem to be able to find other good whodunnit detective stories (where they actually work through the clues, instead of having the murder be a mcguffin in a drama that happens to be about police/detectives)