dimreepr

I'd smile, if only I had teeth...

Tell you what, you explain this sentence; and I'll explain why I'm lying.

That's an interesting notion... But I'm lying...

That's a heaping helping of irony. The advantage is intelligence (as has been explained), the irony is, WRT this thread, it's also the reason for inovation. Incidentally most tools can be used while seated, so technically...

It's a rite of passage in some cultures...

That's rich, so far in this thread you've ignored every logical arguement that explains why your logic is flawed; kind of poetic really. No one has said/implied/bazzinga'd that, which suggests a strawman. Another example of your faultless logic; that's like saying birds only evovled because of feathers and by way of proof see what happens when I pluck an eagle.

Indeed, but we can be sure that innovation isn't the reason for bipedalism (or human evolution). Panic suspends the rational mind, people drown all the time when they panic in water (an intelligent hunter would learn to take advantage of that)... We learn how to survive in the enviroment we're born to and some go on to learn how to survive in other enviroments; Ray Mears for example has learned how to make the tools needed for making fire and a flint blade; so he would survive and those he's taught. The point being, we have human tools, so how do we unlearn that?

Indeed. And then they weren't.

Are you suggesting there's no proof that humans are intelligent? Indeed you can, but unless you can back it up with resonable observations (you know, evidense), it's reasonable for me to dismiss you as a troll. Let me give you a piece of advice, if you can't find evidense for your assertions, when you need too; it's an opinion and your in a hole...

Next you'll be asking for evidense.

By that logic, bookworms are doomed... I only have to run faster than you.

Yes, it can be observed today, sometimes: To hold them up. To fish for ants, or other food. To create a display, that's intimidating to others. If they're already viable, that begs a question. That one is just pulled out your arse.

The fundamental problem, is your aproach to the problem. Your premise has no connection to your conclusion (nothing and no-one can guarantee survival). At this point, you're going to have to provide evidense; lest be tarnished with the lable "Troll"...

When did our body hair disapeare?

Alien to what??? That, I'm guessing...

Your missing the point, innovation just enables this. We survived just fine before farming.

So you agree that innovation is not necessary for our survival?

That can be said of every living creature on the planet; innovation isn't necessary for survival, in fact it can be argued that it's detrimental to survival. https://www.mic.com/articles/85541/nasa-study-concludes-when-civilization-will-end-and-it-s-not-looking-good-for-us

It's not very often that they're the only victim ("no man is an island"), and you're the only one assuming 'committed' has negative implications. In fact you seem to on a crusade to defend these unfortunate people, when no-one is attacking them; what's your agenda?

Nothing will change because the problem happens tomorrow; and however relevant, history is, it won't happen tomorrow...

Your replies are very frustrating because you seem so close and then "We are how we eat. Food is medicine." Whereas it should read: We are because we eat and medicine is medicine and food is just healthy, if you eat it...

You're nearly there but instead of "Just try your best" just try and not die...

No more than a plan to avoid death. My plan is to not stop breathing... You could just smile...

Or you could just stop worrying about "a plan" and cross the bridge when you get to it.