Jump to content
howsois

Why do humans walk upright?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Why humans walk upright is because of human innovation

howsois

Abstract

Survival depends on the environment. A creature survives in a new environment, and its ability to survive is the decisive factor. Human survival ability comes from knowledge, and knowledge comes from innovation, which is the fundamental reason leading human evolution. Human upright walking is a sign of the evolution of ancient apes to humans. However, walking upright is only a result, and the reason is that ancient apes need to use their hands to solve the problem of survivability in the new environment. The evolution of human beings is fundamentally different from that of other creatures, which indicates that the evolution of human beings has inherent and essential particularity. This particularity lies in the occasional emergence of innovative people in human groups. Their innovation has not only improved human survival, but also led to human evolution.

 

 

Edited by Strange
Removed large amounts of text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

This is a discussion forum. What do you want to discuss?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, howsois said:

The evolution of human beings is fundamentally different from that of other creatures,

I don't see that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of this shows a lack of understanding wrt evolution, and the rest is pretty vague. Innovation? I'd want to hear more about how bipedalism affects our cognition. And there were a LOT of other factors at work. Tool use and cooking food happened before we started walking upright, and they were essential to changing how we walked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:
!

Moderator Note

This is a discussion forum. What do you want to discuss?

 

Tell everyone my findings. Science is not discovering, exploring, creating?

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

I don't see that.

This is a long article, I don’t understand why it’s only a little bit.

39 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Most of this shows a lack of understanding wrt evolution, and the rest is pretty vague. Innovation? I'd want to hear more about how bipedalism affects our cognition. And there were a LOT of other factors at work. Tool use and cooking food happened before we started walking upright, and they were essential to changing how we walked.

This is a long article, I don’t understand why it’s only a little bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, howsois said:

Tell everyone my findings. Science is not discovering, exploring, creating?

How did you come to the conclusion that "The evolution of human beings is fundamentally different from that of other creatures"? It's not true at all, so I'm curious why you think this. Humans are amazing, but we're not special wrt evolution. Evolution is blind to species, and is part of the biology of all living things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

How did you come to the conclusion that "The evolution of human beings is fundamentally different from that of other creatures"? It's not true at all, so I'm curious why you think this. Humans are amazing, but we're not special wrt evolution. Evolution is blind to species, and is part of the biology of all living things.

Can you see the full text? There is a very detailed analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, howsois said:

Can you see the full text? There is a very detailed analysis.

I briefly did before moderators removed parts that are not needed to start a discussion. I dont think Phi’s question was answered. can you post (a less detailed) answer how evolution is fundamentaly different for humans? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you want everyone to discuss this issue?

8 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I briefly did before moderators removed parts that are not needed to start a discussion. I dont think Phi’s question was answered. can you post (a less detailed) answer how evolution is fundamentaly different for humans? 

 

8 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I briefly did before moderators removed parts that are not needed to start a discussion. I dont think Phi’s question was answered. can you post (a less detailed) answer how evolution is fundamentaly different for humans? 

Do you want everyone to discuss this issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

We want to discuss something. Phi's question is a good place to start.

Edited by zapatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, zapatos said:

We want to discuss something. Phi's question is a good place to start.

 

19 minutes ago, zapatos said:

We want to discuss something. Phi's question is a good place to start.

I am in China, it is very inconvenient, my English is not good, I hope to discuss with you, but I am not very easy here. This is a paper, published a lot of resistance. My discovery, I just want to tell everyone.

Edited by howsois
You have reached the maximum number of posts you can make per day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, howsois said:

 

I am in China, it is very inconvenient, my English is not good, I hope to discuss with you, but I am not very easy here. This is a paper, published a lot of resistance. My discovery, I just want to tell everyone.

This is a science discussion site. Not a place to publish. People come here to discuss, not just to read papers. That is why you were not able to simply post the entire paper without setting a topic for discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 minutes ago, howsois said:

Do you want everyone to discuss this issue?

I would want to participate in discussing of your findings, initially to see if your ideas and arguments are supported by mainstream science.

6 minutes ago, howsois said:

My discovery, I just want to tell everyone.

This is a discussion forum, so your discovery will be discussed. The outcome of such a discussion will partly depend on what and how you choose to contribute.

 

(Side note: My first language is not english, but on this forum language is seldom a problem. General attitude of most members is helpful; language issues are identified and overcome)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, howsois said:

Tell everyone my findings. Science is not discovering, exploring, creating?

This is a long article, I don’t understand why it’s only a little bit.

This is a long article, I don’t understand why it’s only a little bit.

!

Moderator Note

This is a discussion forum, not your blog or a place to publish scientific papers. 

I left the abstract. If you want to discuss your idea you are free to do that. If you want your paper published then submit it to a journal. 

 
!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations. Please read the special rules for this section of the forum. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2019 at 5:26 AM, howsois said:

Why do humans walk upright?

When early unhuman apes used all four limbs as walking appendages they werwn't yet considered human. What makes us distinctly human are our hip bones and back curvature and the shape and size of our brains and our teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue that Howsois has a good point: as I see it evolution in tool using hominids has indeed been unique. Whether that is the basis for becoming bipedal is still a question - so I don't necessarily support the conclusion that it did, but I think it has been pivotal to the evolution and success of the homo sapiens variant. I would like to read the rest before looking specifically at the walking upright trait.

I think intelligent, problem solving tool makers can and did overcome limitations that would otherwise seriously reduce evolutionary fitness - in ways no other evolutionary line has. It does look unique to our evolutionary line. Example - fire and clothing and built shelters overcoming the disadvantages from lack of fur. Not just compensating but overcompensating in ways that created significant advantages - in this case that allow migration into regions with climates that would have been unlivable even with fur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I would argue that Howsois has a good point: as I see it evolution in tool using hominids has indeed been unique. Whether that is the basis for becoming bipedal is still a question - so I don't necessarily support the conclusion that it did, but I think it has been pivotal to the evolution and success of the homo sapiens variant. I would like to read the rest before looking specifically at the walking upright trait.

I think intelligent, problem solving tool makers can and did overcome limitations that would otherwise seriously reduce evolutionary fitness - in ways no other evolutionary line has. It does look unique to our evolutionary line. Example - fire and clothing and built shelters overcoming the disadvantages from lack of fur. Not just compensating but overcompensating in ways that created significant advantages - in this case that allow migration into regions with climates that would have been unlivable even with fur.

Even the development of tool use is not necessarily unique. Rather the cognitive abilities to make more elaborate ones are. Also tools use by hominids predates that of Homo sapiens. A few years ago (in Nature, I believe) folks reported stone tool findings that are dated 3.3 million years ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Even the development of tool use is not necessarily unique. Rather the cognitive abilities to make more elaborate ones are. Also tools use by hominids predates that of Homo sapiens. A few years ago (in Nature, I believe) folks reported stone tool findings that are dated 3.3 million years ago. 

Tool use per se is not unique but hominid evolution diverged in unique ways because of it. Having the early tool use improved the survival abilities of the very hominids that were progenitors of the ancestors with improved cognitive abilities, capable of more elaborate tool use. And I said "intelligent" and "problem solving" as well as tool making/using - and intelligence and problem solving are not unique either, but the combination and the accumulated benefits and results in homo sapiens are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I think intelligent, problem solving tool makers can and did overcome limitations that would otherwise seriously reduce evolutionary fitness - in ways no other evolutionary line has. It does look unique to our evolutionary line. Example - fire and clothing and built shelters overcoming the disadvantages from lack of fur. Not just compensating but overcompensating in ways that created significant advantages - in this case that allow migration into regions with climates that would have been unlivable even with fur.

That's an interesting thought, item for item, in what order did each mutation occur in human physical morphology and what changes were the catalyst for new changes? Suppose that lack of fur inspired early humans to make clothing. Then you could ponder what inspired the chromosomes to remove fur? Was it a spark of intelligence in the human brain that pushed the mutation subconsciously? Like, the ape didn't consciously think, hey I think I will lose my fur, the early human brain put two and two together and said well, this ape could do so much more but he needs some motivation. So, the mutation happens and one day an ape was born naked and right away he was like man I need to cover up because man its chilly.

The loss of fur was likely a gradual process anyways. Have you ever wore a sweat band or a beanie down to your eyebrows? Imagine a permanent sweat band you could never remove. That would make you irate after a while. And thats essentially what having fur on your face is like.

Edited by Art Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Tool use per se is not unique but hominid evolution diverged in unique ways because of it. Having the early tool use improved the survival abilities of the very hominids that were progenitors of the ancestors with improved cognitive abilities, capable of more elaborate tool use. And I said "intelligent" and "problem solving" as well as tool making/using - and intelligence and problem solving are not unique either, but the combination and the accumulated benefits and results in homo sapiens are.

I think I am unsure whether "unique" really applies. Of course if we use the term hominids in the strictest sense and include chimpanzees it may be true, but then there is quite a divergence in the development of humans are other extant hominids, despite that all have developed various degrees of tool use. So in the end I do think it is more matter of degree rather than uniqueness per se.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Art Man said:

That's an interesting thought, item for item, in what order did each mutation occur in human physical morphology and what changes were the catalyst for new changes? Suppose that lack of fur inspired early humans to make clothing. Then you could ponder what inspired the chromosomes to remove fur? Was it a spark of intelligence in the human brain that pushed the mutation subconsciously? Like, the ape didn't consciously think, hey I think I will lose my fur, the early human brain put two and two together and said well, this ape could do so much more but he needs some motivation. So, the mutation happens and one day an ape was born naked and right away he was like man I need to cover up because man its chilly.

No need for invoking any directing of mutations or motivations for bodily change.

4 hours ago, Art Man said:

The loss of fur was likely a gradual process anyways.

Some people think that. I don't. I wonder if that is an academic holdover from the idea that because body hair has no significant survival function (which is a false premise), those ancestors with less of it had a metabolic advantage and therefore over many generations it got lost - and this is something still going on. The problem with that is that it has a continuing sensory function, extending our sense of touch beyond the skin - and is a principle component of the skin's ability to feel things; more sensitive I would argue as small hairs than as dense fur. ie humans gained improved sensory acuity. I think there are problems with invoking sexual selection too - what kind of sexual selection results in traits that primarily and profoundly affect juveniles in ways that are detrimental? That might be unique if so. Human juveniles all universally develop without fur, whilst only in adults are there significant differences - which suggests whatever evolutionary events caused it is in our entire species not responsible for the variations amongst modern human adults.

Personally I find the notion that it was specific mutations that resulted in distinct furless variants pretty much as soon as they appeared (or, if recessive, when supplied by both parents) to be compelling - and they did okay and survived as a variant because they were members of groups of intelligent problem solvers. Or perhaps their parents did some of the problem solving; caring for vulnerable young is kind of fundamental. Why the furred variants did not survive - the natural selection part of evolution - seems a more pertinent question. But this is taking this away from bipedality into hairlessness - something I've had a long running interest in and have (as might be evident) my own speculations about.

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

I think I am unsure whether "unique" really applies. Of course if we use the term hominids in the strictest sense and include chimpanzees it may be true, but then there is quite a divergence in the development of humans are other extant hominids, despite that all have developed various degrees of tool use. So in the end I do think it is more matter of degree rather than uniqueness per se.

Yet that matter of degree did result in a unique evolutionary history - whilst all such histories are unique I suggest that our line of intelligent tool users are more unique. I cannot really equate examples of chimpanzee tool use with what our tool using hominid forebears could do - they took it to a whole, unique new level that impacted and improved survival abilities ever after.

 

Edited by Ken Fabian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I would argue that Howsois has a good point: as I see it evolution in tool using hominids has indeed been unique. Whether that is the basis for becoming bipedal is still a question - so I don't necessarily support the conclusion that it did, but I think it has been pivotal to the evolution and success of the homo sapiens variant. I would like to read the rest before looking specifically at the walking upright trait.

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. 

9 hours ago, Art Man said:

That's an interesting thought, item for item, in what order did each mutation occur in human physical morphology and what changes were the catalyst for new changes?

Good luck discerning that from the evidence we have available to us.

 

Quote

Suppose that lack of fur inspired early humans to make clothing.

We have hair.

Quote

Then you could ponder what inspired the chromosomes to remove fur? Was it a spark of intelligence in the human brain that pushed the mutation subconsciously?

Or, perhaps, living in the plains in Africa?

 

12 hours ago, CharonY said:

Even the development of tool use is not necessarily unique. Rather the cognitive abilities to make more elaborate ones are. Also tools use by hominids predates that of Homo sapiens. A few years ago (in Nature, I believe) folks reported stone tool findings that are dated 3.3 million years ago. 

Ah, I was not aware of this. (earlier statement stricken)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Yet that matter of degree did result in a unique evolutionary history - whilst all such histories are unique I suggest that our line of intelligent tool users are more unique. I cannot really equate examples of chimpanzee tool use with what our tool using hominid forebears could do - they took it to a whole, unique new level that impacted and improved survival abilities ever after.

Well, here is the thing, chimpanzees are also hominids and they also have developed tool use with rudimentary development of culture.  And  the split between our ancestors are as close as 4 million years ago, due to ongoing hybridization.  While the current outcome in humans seems to be fairly unique for humans, it is not quite clear how much of a biological difference it really took . And with respect to uniqueness, I could argue that the development of photosynthesis is something that took evolution to a completely new level on Earth. Or perhaps the development of organelles as a means to partition cellular function. Or perhaps the rise of multicellularity as that opened quite a few doors. Perhaps the difference viewpoint we have is outcome vs mechanism?

To OP, however, it is clear that tool use has developed independently from bipedal movement. So there is no obvious connection between those two developments. The focus of research in that area (to my limited knowledge) tend to focus on changing environmental conditions (including transition from arboeral lifestyle to ground-based) and the question that is more commonly asked is whether foot evolution shaped our tool use (rather than vice versa). There is interesting evidence out there highlighting that bipedal development could have coincided with adaptation to rough terrain as a transitional phase (i believe Winder et al. called it the topography hypothesis in their papers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Personally I find the notion that it was specific mutations that resulted in distinct furless variants pretty much as soon as they appeared (or, if recessive, when supplied by both parents) to be compelling - and they did okay and survived as a variant because they were members of groups of intelligent problem solvers. Or perhaps their parents did some of the problem solving; caring for vulnerable young is kind of fundamental. Why the furred variants did not survive - the natural selection part of evolution - seems a more pertinent question.

Could be our nervous systems function more efficiently without fur. Also, your skin is more sensitive to the touch on parts of your body that are hairless in contrast with the harrier parts because the hair follicles decentralize and soften the pressure when contacted. A hallmark of higher intelligence is attention to detail and deeper sensitivities. The more sensitive they were physically to detail the more apt they were to be observant and able to process information, heightening their chance of intelligence gain. Look at earths most intelligent mammals. Elephants and dolphins and whales are at the top of that list and all of them are hairless for the most part.

17 hours ago, swansont said:

Or, perhaps, living in the plains in Africa?

There's plenty of hairy animals in that hot climate, so, temperature isn't likely a factor, or else Paleolithic Europeans would have gained fur for warmth. Mediterranean humans are generally hairrier than Northern Europeans. Maybe its the wind that fur is most concerned with.

Edited by Art Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Art Man said:

 There's plenty of hairy animals in that hot climate, so, temperature isn't likely a factor

I wan't thinking of temperature as the only factor.

 

5 hours ago, Art Man said:

, or else Paleolithic Europeans would have gained fur for warmth.

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?

 

5 hours ago, Art Man said:

Mediterranean humans are generally hairrier than Northern Europeans. Maybe its the wind that fur is most concerned with.

And they live in somewhat different climates. You have to consider all selection pressures on a population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.