swansont

That’s valid if you have eliminated the scenario where Belichick is a better coach than most, and the Patriots have amassed better talent than most other teams. (In part because they work well within the salary cap limitations)

A serious flaw here is that you are thinking that you can come up with a strategy that perhaps 50 other professional head coaches have not been able to devise, along with the reality that strategy (and its success) is impacted by talent. The best strategy, it seems, is to make the Patriots play in Miami against a Dolphins team that isn't historically bad (i.e. not this year's incarnation) Brady was 7-10 in Miami going into yesterday's game

Still not game theory.

Obvious BS, no evidence Fast is not quantified Since when are vegetables “prey”? You don’t hunt fruits and vegetables So walking upright gives an advantage that is not due to carrying a club for defense. Congratulations! You have rebutted your claim.

Already addressed. It’s about the same for chimpanzees. It’s not the same for humans. But nobody is here has claimed that this is the cause of bipedalism. It was presented to rebut your claim that carrying a club is the only advantage of bipedalism (which was based on your erroneous claim that the only problem was defense)

Doesn’t seem obvious to the person who started the thread.

I don’t recall anyone saying that this is the case. The only one proposing a scenario is the OP, and it involves walking upright so you can carry a club (and insisting this is the only advantage of bipedalism)

Again, we have a claim without evidence. You don’t actually know this. An interesting idea is not evidence, and science requires evidence. One can come up with multiple plausibility arguments for advantages that intelligence brings that do not involve making weapons. e.g. better decision-making on where to sleep (defense against predators) or to look for food (pattern recognition, understanding issues of depletion a region of resources). Strategies about hunting, as with the previously-mentioned herding animals over a cliff. Presenting intelligence as having a single advantage and that advantage as the lone driver of evolution is ridiculous.

Then ask questions about game theory. That's really not what game theory does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interaction in between rational decision-makers.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic and computer science. Originally, it addressed zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of the other participants. Today, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations, and is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, and computers." IOW, it's not about strategy or tactics, per se. Football isn't a zero-sum game, and it can't really be boiled down to logical decision-making. That's also not game theory

That's not what you asserted, i.e. the statement "Chimpanzees still live in the jungle and they walk on all fours" is not the same as (or seemingly connected to) "Ancient apes had far less vision than predators" or "when they stood upright, they were only more likely to be found by predators" Further, your observation that chimps use branches as clubs seems to be in contradiction with your premise that you need to walk upright to be able to use a club.

Assertion without evidence. Again.

! Moderator Note Is there any substance to discuss here?

Science must include logic, but logic alone is not science. Survival ≠ evolution These are two separate arguments "Nothing to do with" is not what you proposed. You were arguing that the evolution of humans was solely due to innovation. That it was the driving force.

I am not the one presenting the scenario. I am rebutting the silly claim that the only advantage to walking upright is carrying a club.(and that walking is less efficient than continuing to stay on all fours) Please read the thread

I don’t see where I claimed a future advantage, or that the change was not incremental. Why is this not directed at the OP, who presented the scenario? This contradicted by the Nature paper I cited earlier. And if you can’t see them, but they can still see you? That’s better, somehow?

This does not rebut what I wrote. It's like I am saying "These apples are red!" and you are claiming I'm wrong because they are spherical. Can you actually make an argument that efficient locomotion, by requiring less food, is not an advantage in and of itself (i.e. without bringing other factors into the discussion) when food availability decreases? Same question, only applied to being able to see predators from a distance.

Seeing predators more easily is an advantage the enhances survival probability. Efficient locomotion is an advantage the enhances survival probability.

Blatantly untrue, and evidence has been presented to the contrary.

I don't know how you could think this is a reasonable argument. If food is somewhat scarcer, you have to expend more calories to find food. Energy efficiency of movement could be crucial. If you continually expend more calories than you ingest, you will die. How can you "guarantee survival" if everyone starves?

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?