Jump to content
howsois

Why do humans walk upright?

Recommended Posts

    We want to know why humans walk upright, then we must know the attributes and characteristics of human beings. First, human beings are a kind of creatures. Secondly, human beings belong to animals. Then, human beings must have the commonality of living things and the commonality of animals. Third, We also need to be aware of the characteristics of people, especially those that are different from other animals;
    I have summarized four basic theoretical basis.

1. the essence of biological evolution is the evolution of the ability to survive.
This is easy to understand. creatures without viability do not exist.

2. Food and safety are the two basic elements of animal survival. 
This is also very easy to understand.
3. Human innovation leads to human evolution. 
This needs to be explained in detail, otherwise it is not very easy to understand.
4. Scientific innovation must start from the most basic innovation, and it is gradual and impossible to leap over.
This is also very easy to understand.

    Innovative ability is the ability to discover and create new knowledge. Learning ability is the ability to accept and master existing knowledge. The generation of knowledge is inseparable from the ability to innovate, and the application of knowledge is inseparable from the ability to learn. The ability to innovate is contingent, even unique, and the learning ability is universal. 
    Obviously, the development (evolution) of human survivability depends on innovation. If human beings suddenly have no knowledge, can human beings survive?
(There is no discrimination against anyone, people are equal, but each person's ability is different. Individual differences are common phenomena.)

    the most important innovation throughout the history of human evolution is weapons. Human ancestors evolved flexible hands, which enabled humans to use external weapons (the branches) to improve their defenses. The weapons of other animals are the result of the evolution of body organs, such as fangs, claws, horns, hooves, etc. These weapons are very difficult to improve. The advancement of the weapons used by human beings depends entirely on the advancement of human knowledge. Therefore, in the Stone Age, due to the development of innovation, the performance of weapons used by ape-man has surpassed the weapon performance of all animals, which means that the ape-man at this time have no rivals. In this case, humans began to hunt all the animals that can be hunted, and followed the animal's footprints to travel the world.

Share this post


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

 

3. Human innovation leads to human evolution. 
This needs to be explained in detail, otherwise it is not very easy to understand.
 

...

 

 

    the most important innovation throughout the history of human evolution is weapons. Human ancestors evolved flexible hands, which enabled humans to use external weapons (the branches) to improve their defenses. The weapons of other animals are the result of the evolution of body organs, such as fangs, claws, horns, hooves, etc. These weapons are very difficult to improve. The advancement of the weapons used by human beings depends entirely on the advancement of human knowledge. Therefore, in the Stone Age, due to the development of innovation, the performance of weapons used by ape-man has surpassed the weapon performance of all animals, which means that the ape-man at this time have no rivals. In this case, humans began to hunt all the animals that can be hunted, and followed the animal's footprints to travel the world.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, swansont said:

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.

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.

From the beginning, human innovation has solved the problem of survival, and it has always been the case, such as population pressure, human innovation in agriculture.

Share this post


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

From the beginning, human innovation has solved the problem of survival, and it has always been the case, such as population pressure, human innovation in agriculture.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, swansont said:

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 don't know how to make you see the article. It will be disorganized to discuss this issue. In fact, this is just a logical question. Everyone just likes to guess without any basis, so there are many kinds of questions about the problem of human walking upright.

Share this post


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

I don't know how to make you see the article. It will be disorganized to discuss this issue. In fact, this is just a logical question. Everyone just likes to guess without any basis, so there are many kinds of questions about the problem of human walking upright.

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, swansont said:

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.

 

From the jungle to the grasslands

The living environment is the basis for the existence of all living things. The ancient apes lived in the jungle, which is the result of long-term evolution of their ancestors to adapt to the jungle environment. This result is mainly reflected in the body structure characteristics of the ancient apes: The hands and feet of the ancient apes have the ability to grasp and easily climb and hang on the trees, which is very suitable for jungle life; Ancient apes spend most of their time in trees, mainly relying on the upper limbs to move their bodies, while the lower limbs only play a supporting role. Evolution is characterized by longer upper limbs than lower limbs, higher flexibility and more powerful. Ancient apes often used their hands to grab food, fiddle with branches, combing hair and other movements, resulting in the ancient ape's hands are very dexterous. Ancient apes mainly depended on four limbs for ground activities, and had the ability to stand with the lower limbs. That is because the ancient apes often need to keep their lower limbs upright when climbing trees. The ancient apes was accustomed to supporting the body with the limbs, when the body was only supported by the lower limbs on the ground, the strength of the lower limbs would be insufficient, it could not stand for a long time, and the movement was inconvenient. The ancient apes can evolve into human beings, the hand with the ability to grasp and the lower limbs that can support the body separately are necessary conditions, and must also have a clever brain.

 

In the jungle, the ancient apes cannot evolve into humans, because this is the most adaptable environment for the ancient apes, there is no reason to make a major changes, such as walking upright. It must be that the living environment of the ancient apes has changed, In order to adapt to the new environment, the ancient apes itself must change. It is certain that the new environmental was the root cause of the evolution of the ancient apes.

 

This new environment could not be barren places such as deserts and barren mountains, where there was not enough food for the ancient apes to survive; it was also impossible to be rivers and lakes and swamps. These environments were very dangerous to the ancient apes. And the ancient apes lacked the ability to obtain food in these environments. So this new environment could only be grasslands, where there are foods such as grassland plants, insects, small animals, etc.

 

For any animal, two basic conditions that must be met to ensure survival: food and safety. The ancient apes mainly feed on plants. There are trees, shrubs and grass in the jungle. These plants can provide food for the ancient apes. In terms of safety, the ancient apes lived on trees and lived together in the form of groups, and members of the group assisted each other. The large carnivores were mainly active on the ground. The carnivores that were able to climb trees were not big enough to pose a threat to the ancient apes group. After all, the ancient apes also had a certain counterattack capability. It can be confirmed that the ancient apes had few natural enemies in the jungle. The jungle was the most suitable living environment for the ancient apes.

 

The changes in the living environment of animals are mainly reflected in two situations: First, the emergence of more competitive animals, leading to the deterioration of the living conditions of local animals, the most prominent example is the emergence of humans leading to the extinction of many animal species. Second, the average amount of resources owned by individuals is reduced, and the food needs of all individuals cannot be guaranteed. For the ancient apes, the first situation does not exist, and some of their descendants still live in the jungle. The second condition can be attributed to two factors: First, the number of individuals caused by the breeding of ancient apes has increased, while the resources have not increased, resulting in the average amount of resources owned by individuals decreased. Second, the number of ancient apes has not increased, and changes in the natural environment have led to a decrease in the average amount of resources owned by individuals.

 

The ancient apes lived in the jungle in the form of a tribal. Each tribal will define a range of resource territories belonging to them, and the ancient ape tribes lived in their own territory. The territorial boundary is fixed, and the living resources belonging to the tribe are limited. Reproduction is controlled by the intrinsic biological mechanism of the ancient apes. That is to say, in the case of sufficient resources, the increase in the number of individuals caused by the reproduction of the ancient apes is uncontrollable, and it will continue to develop until the resources cannot meet the needs of the tribe. The resource territory directly involves the survival guarantee of the tribe, so the territorial consciousness of tribal members is very strong. However, the resources of their own territories cannot guarantee their own needs, which will inevitably lead to the expansion of territories and encroach on the territories of neighboring tribe, thus triggering conflicts between tribes. The result is that vulnerable tribe are either eliminated or left the jungle to find other living resources. The only place to go is the grassland. The ancestors of mankind were at a disadvantage in the competition and had to go out of the jungle to the grassland for food.

 

The ancient apes left the jungle to live in the grasslands. Food is not a problem. The problem is security. Without security, and there is no possibility of survival. In the grasslands, the greatest threat to the safety of the ancient apes comes from the large carnivores living in the grasslands, such as lions and leopards. In the jungle, the ancient apes can quickly climb up trees to avoid large carnivore. In the grassland, this security protection skill of the ancient apes is useless. However, the ancient apes had to get out of the jungle to evolve into humans. Therefore, the ancient apes must solve the problem of security in the grassland. It was not until the emergence of a clever ancient ape (named him JM), that the problem was finally solved.

This is part of it, it is easier to understand, others are analysis and summary, and conclusion

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

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.

 

Innovation solves the problem

One day, JM was quietly searching for food in the grass near the jungle. He was suddenly attacked by a beast. He caught sight of a branch in the process of his escape. He picked up the branches and hit the beast hard. The beast was wounded and escaped. This is only a possible scenario, and it could be another. Such a scenario only shows the fact that: The ancient ape hit the beast with branches, and the beast retreated, and he survived. This situation actually happened from time to time. However, those surviving ancient apes may only be glad that they have succeeded in escaping, and not think about the truth. JM thought about this and came up with an idea: In the face of a large beast attack, he can strike it with the branches in his hand, and the beast will retreat for fear of injury, so that he is safe. JM shared his ideas with the entire tribe, and the tribe members understood and endorsed his ideas. So, when the tribe went to the grasslands for food, each member of the tribe held a branch in his hand. When encountering a beast, the tribe members shouted and waved the branches by hand to successfully scare off or repel the beast, and the results proved that this method was effective. Since then, a strange tribe of ancient apes has appeared in the grassland, foraging for food with a branch in their hand. They walked on two legs.

 

JM's tribes failed to compete with other tribes in the jungle, and they had to leave the jungle to the grasslands for food. However, it is easy to encounter grassland carnivores such as lions or leopards on the grasslands. The ancient apes have no ability to deal with such grassland beasts, and even have no ability to escape. In this case, the ancient apes cannot rely on instinct to ensure their own safety. JM's idea not only enabled his tribe to survive successfully in the grasslands, but also opened the door for the evolution of the ancient apes into humans.

 

The tools used by the ancient apes were branches rather than stones, for the following reasons: First of all, the ancient apes mainly lived on the trees, knew the branches very well, and knew that hitting with the branches could cause harm. Secondly, the ancient apes often grasped the branches with their hands, and the skills of hitting with the branches were more skillful than the skills of throwing stones. Thirdly, if ancient apes were holding stones in their hands, when they encountered a beast, they threw stones at the beast, and the stone was thrown away, but they did not hurt or frighten away the beast. It means that the ancient apes no longer have defensive means. In fact, until the Stone Age, the descendants of the ancient apes still held the branches (weapons) that had been processed by them, which just were more powerful than the unprocessed branches and could be used to kill prey.

 

So, the ancient apes used the branches to improve their defense ability. How did this lead the ancient apes to walk upright? On the grassland, the ancient apes could not get branches anytime or anywhere, and the only solution was to hold them with their hands, which would make it very difficult for the ancient apes to walk on four limbs. In this case, the ancient apes had to choose to walk upright with their lower limbs. Since the ancient apes mainly fed on plants, and the nutrient content of the plants is low, the ancient apes had to eat a large number of plants to meet their nutritional needs. Therefore, the ancient apes must spend more time searching for food. In the process of foraging, the ancient apes walked upright with branches in hand, which often exercised their lower limb muscles. When the lower limb muscles of the ancient apes had enough strength, they did not need to walk on four limbs. In fact, it did not take long for the ancient apes to exercise their lower limb muscles. Although the ancient apes were able to keep walking upright, their skeletal system still needs to evolve to adapt to the upright posture, and to meet the corresponding functions, such as walking steadily, running fast, jumping high. This process is quite long and may have gone through hundreds of thousands of years, or millions of years.

 

The ancient apes were able to use the branches to effectively guard against grassland beasts. This does not mean that they can immediately leave the trees to live on the grass; the ancient apes could be fatally attacked by large carnivores while sleeping on the grassland. Therefore, the ancient apes still needed to inhabit the tree until they had fully mastered the grassland survival skills, but the importance of trees for their survival was diminishing, probably just the place where they slept.

Share this post


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

From the beginning, human innovation has solved the problem of survival, and it has always been the case, such as population pressure, human innovation in agriculture.

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

Quote

The report, written by applied mathematician Safa Motesharrei of the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center along with a team of natural and social scientists, explains that modern civilization is doomed. And there's not just one particular group to blame, but the entire fundamental structure and nature of our society.

Quote

Motesharrei's report says that all societal collapses over the past 5,000 years have involved both "the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity" and "the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or "Commoners") [poor]." This "Elite" population restricts the flow of resources accessible to the "Masses", accumulating a surplus for themselves that is high enough to strain natural resources. Eventually this situation will inevitably result in the destruction of society.

 

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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

 

Yes, I agree with this view. But innovation is just a personal behavior, and individuals do not have enough social awareness. The purpose of innovation is to be more viable and unable to consider the full impact.

Share this post


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

Yes, I agree with this view. But innovation is just a personal behavior, and individuals do not have enough social awareness. The purpose of innovation is to be more viable and unable to consider the full impact.

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

Share this post


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

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

Yes, innovation is a must. Otherwise, there is no human being. It is human greed, not innovation, that has a bad influence on human beings.

Human innovation leads to human evolution

Innovative ability is the ability to discover and create new knowledge. Learning ability is the ability to accept and master existing knowledge. The generation of knowledge is inseparable from the ability to innovate, and the application of knowledge is inseparable from the ability to learn. The ability to innovate is contingent, even unique, and the learning ability is universal. Scientific innovation must start from the most basic innovation, and it is gradual and impossible to leap over.

 

The difficulty of innovation lies in the breakthrough of traditional mindset. For example, the ancient ape knew that he has no ability to confront the lion. If he met a lion, the only idea of the ancient ape was to escape for survival. This is the traditional mindset. JM's idea is that he can defeat a lion with the help of a branch, and can also achieve the purpose of survival. This is a breakthrough of the traditional mindset. This innovation needs not only wisdom, but also courage.

 

JM has used its innovative capacity to gain knowledge of the use of tree branches to keep life safe, and his tribe members have learned new knowledge from him, and the practice of new knowledge has enabled this tribe to successfully survive in the new environment.JM is not a omnipotent individual. He was only a little smarter than other ancient apes at that time. However, this cleverness was unique in the ancient ape world at that time. After JM, an innovator appeared again among the descendants of the ancient apes, perhaps millions of years later. His innovation is simply sharpening the branches with stones, and human beings enter another state of survival - hunting. The emergence of JM is fortunate for humans. Without the innovation of JM, there would be no human being. Nowadays, human innovation has been a lot, but no one's innovation can be compared with JM's innovation, because JM is the pioneer of human innovation, and his innovation has created the miracle of the animal world-human beings.

 

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

 

The ancient apes depended on the innovation of a branch to improve their defensive ability, to survive successfully in the grassland, and finally walked upright.  The descendants of the ancient apes did not stop innovating, but be able to continue to do so, thanks to their increasingly developed brains and increasingly dexterous hands. By the Stone Age, the descendant of the ancient apes, ape-men, had learned to make stone tools, spears, and the use of fire. These innovations enabled ape-men to hunt other animals, further improving their survival status until the completion of evolution to humans. Today, human beings have developed agriculture, industry, information industry, etc. All these achievements are the result of gradual and continuous innovation. It is foreseeable that human beings will continue to exert their innovative ability in the future, coexist harmoniously while satisfying the material living conditions, and protect our own living environment.

 

Innovation is the root cause of human evolution

The evolutionary history of human beings is different from that of other species. It is because in the process of human evolution, individuals with innovative ability can emerge at intervals. Their innovation makes human beings get rid of the shackles of ecological environment and dominate human evolution, while the evolution of other species is completely limited by the ecological environment. Therefore, the history of human evolution is a history of innovation of special individuals in human beings. Without the emergence of these individuals, human beings would not be able to innovate and develop to today's human beings. At the same time, the history of human evolution is also a history of human groups learning and applying innovative knowledge.

 

Obviously, the most important innovation throughout the history of human evolution is weapons. Human ancestors evolved flexible hands, which enabled humans to use external weapons (the branches) to improve their defenses. The weapons of other animals are the result of the evolution of body organs, such as fangs, claws, horns, hooves, etc. These weapons are very difficult to improve. The advancement of the weapons used by human beings depends entirely on the advancement of human knowledge. Therefore, in the Stone Age, due to the development of innovation, the performance of weapons used by ape-man has surpassed the weapon performance of all animals, which means that the ape-man at this time have no rivals. In this case, humans began to hunt all the animals that can be hunted, and followed the animal's footprints to travel the world.

 

The Essence of Biological Evolution

To survive, a creature must have the ability to survive. Different organisms express their ability to survive in different ways, such as the various body forms, specific organs, habit preferences, speed, strength, etc.  The survival ability of the same species is determined by individual differences. There are two ways for organisms to obtain survival ability: one is obtained through genetics; the other is obtained through learning. In fact, the essence of biological evolution is the evolution of the ability to survive. Human evolution is mainly reflected in the evolution of human scientific knowledge, rather than the change of human appearance and characteristics. Without scientific knowledge, human beings cannot survive in the natural ecology at all. This is also the fundamental difference between human evolution and other biological evolution. In reality, people always associate the evolution of organisms with the appearance and characteristics of organisms, rather than exploring the intrinsic nature of biological evolution. Especially in the study of human evolution, people are often confused.

 

Theoretical basis for human evolution

From the study of human fossils and stone tools from the Stone Age, we know that ape-man walked upright and could use and make tools. However, how human ancestors evolved from walking on the limbs to upright walking, and there is no conclusion because of the lack of reliable evidence. As a result, many people speculated that what caused humans to walk upright and produced a variety of statements, but there is no good reason to support these statements. To solve this problem, we must first have the relevant theoretical basis, and then we can use the logical method to find the answer based on the existing evidence. These theoretical bases are: 1. the essence of biological evolution is the evolution of the ability to survive. 2. Food and safety are the two basic elements of animal survival. 3. Human innovation leads to human evolution. 4. Scientific innovation must start from the most basic innovation, and it is gradual and impossible to leap over.

Share this post


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

Yes, innovation is a must. Otherwise, there is no human being. It is human greed, not innovation, that has a bad influence on human beings.

Your missing the point, innovation just enables this.

Quote

Mouse plagues occur in southern and eastern Australia usually in the grain-growing regions around every four years. Aggregating around food sources during plagues, the density of mice can reach up to 3,000 mice per hectare.[2]

We survived just fine before farming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I don't like the implications that evolution isn't happening without innovation. I don't agree that weapons are the best human tools. I think the path to bipedalism is much more evidenced than you're claiming, and I don't like your conclusions. 

There are some lizards that run on their back legs, and one might think they're evolving to bipedalism, but actually it's just the momentum of their running and their counterbalancing tail that lifts their front feet off the ground. I think you need to reevaluate your premises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, swansont said:

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

 

 

This is not a story, just a simple logic. Walking on four legs is more energy efficient than walking on two legs. Otherwise, the four-legged animals are walking upright.

We know that the Stone Age ape-man was walked upright, and that ape-man was able to make stone tools and use them. So the stone tools that need to be processed are the most primitive tools? Obviously not (it is not the most basic innovation), the tools that do not need processing are the most primitive; the ancient apes must go out of the jungle to evolve into human beings. The only place to go is the grasslands. On the grasslands, food is not the problem, the only problem is safety. How to solve this problem? The only choice is to pick up the weapon. And this weapon can only be a branch (wooden stick) (there is a detailed analysis in the paper).Picking up a weapon is actually an innovation, the first innovation of human beings and the most basic innovation.

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Sorry, but I don't like the implications that evolution isn't happening without innovation. I don't agree that weapons are the best human tools. I think the path to bipedalism is much more evidenced than you're claiming, and I don't like your conclusions. 

There are some lizards that run on their back legs, and one might think they're evolving to bipedalism, but actually it's just the momentum of their running and their counterbalancing tail that lifts their front feet off the ground. I think you need to reevaluate your premises.

We know that the Stone Age ape-man was walked upright, and that ape-man was able to make stone tools and use them. So the stone tools that need to be processed are the most primitive tools? Obviously not (it is not the most basic innovation), the tools that do not need processing are the most primitive; the ancient apes must go out of the jungle to evolve into human beings. The only place to go is the grasslands. On the grasslands, food is not the problem, the only problem is safety. How to solve this problem? The only choice is to pick up the weapon. And this weapon can only be a branch (wooden stick) .Picking up a weapon is actually an innovation, the first innovation of human beings and the most basic innovation.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Your missing the point, innovation just enables this.

We survived just fine before farming.

The impact of alien species on ecology is certainly great. In the final analysis, it is also the impact of humans on ecology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does fur offer animals? Climate/temperature would seem to play a factor but isn't true accross the animal kingdom. For example, all bears have fur. A polar bears' fur is adapted for colder icy climate. Mountain bears are found all over the world and far enough south where the climate is hot to determine that they keep their fur not merely for the warmth. Fur protects against small damages such as scratches and accumulates dirt, keeping mud from sticking close to the skin. Fur also provides camouflage and in some species changes color season to season. In the chance of a lesion the hair can stick inside the wound increasing blood coagulation and strengthening the scab. I see the coat of fur more as a protectant against small skin injuries and infections such as staff. Ticks and lice love fur so theres some drawback. In early humans fur must have provided them the same advantages but as they became more intelligent they were able to avoid certain hardships that other animals arent mentally prepared to discern and parry.

So look at a simple task such as running through a wooded thicket. If a deer runs through the thicket they may do so at several times the speed of a human and crash through bushes and snap low branches of trees. A deer has no arms so he cannot move stuff out of the way. When a human walks upright her hands are free to move branches out of the way and she is free to vertically navigate obstacles and not stomp through the thicket with minimal attention.

I apologize that I took this off subject, the point about fur loss seems closely related to walking upright.

Edited by Art Man

Share this post


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

The impact of alien species on ecology is certainly great. In the final analysis, it is also the impact of humans on ecology.

Alien to what???

 

17 minutes ago, Art Man said:

What does fur offer animals? Climate/temperature would seem to play a factor but isn't true accross the animal kingdom. For example, all bears have fur. A polar bears' fur is adapted for colder icy climate. Mountain bears are found all over the world and far enough south where the climate is hot to determine that they keep their fur not merely for the warmth. Fur protects against small damages such as scratches and accumulates dirt, keeping mud from sticking close to the skin. Fur also provides camouflage and in some species changes color season to season. In the chance of a lesion the hair can stick inside the wound increasing blood coagulation and strengthening the scab. I see the coat of fur more as a protectant against small skin injuries and infections such as staff. Ticks and lice love fur so theres some drawback. In early humans fur must have provided them the same advantages but as they became more intelligent they were able to avoid certain hardships that otger animals arent mentally prepared to discern and parry.

So look at a simple task such as running through a wooded thicket. If a deer runs through the thicket they may do so at several times the speed of a human and crash through bushes and snap low branches of trees. A deer has no arms so he cannot move stuff out of the way. When a human walks upright her hands are free to move branches out of the way and she is free to vertically navigate obstacles and not stomp through the thicket with minimal attention.

That, I'm guessing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Alien to what???

 

That, I'm guessing...

You are right, the disappearance of human body hair is closely related to human upright walking.

Share this post


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

You are right, the disappearance of human body hair is closely related to human upright walking.

When did our body hair disapeare?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

When did our body hair disapeare?

After humans can hunt.

20 minutes ago, howsois said:

After humans can hunt.

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.

Share this post


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

We know that the Stone Age ape-man was walked upright, and that ape-man was able to make stone tools and use them. So the stone tools that need to be processed are the most primitive tools? Obviously not (it is not the most basic innovation), the tools that do not need processing are the most primitive;

I'm assuming by "processed" you mean "something that had to be made" like a stone knife, as opposed to "most primitive tools" like using a stick to get ants out of a log? I can agree to this. You're basically saying it's more innovative to strip the extra branches off a tree limb to make a stick than it is to simply pick up a stick. Is that right?

3 hours ago, howsois said:

the ancient apes must go out of the jungle to evolve into human beings. The only place to go is the grasslands. On the grasslands, food is not the problem, the only problem is safety.

Why do you place the use of fire for cooking meat in the Stone Age? Surely primitive humans encountered lightning strikes first among the trees. It was partly cooking our food that allowed us to lose the big gut that processed raw meat and kept us from walking upright and running on the plains. I see a bigger problem than safety in your assumptions. You have us running on the plains before we could possibly be quick enough.

3 hours ago, howsois said:

How to solve this problem? The only choice is to pick up the weapon.

But that doesn't automatically make it the most important type of tool we've ever come up with.

3 hours ago, howsois said:

And this weapon can only be a branch (wooden stick) (there is a detailed analysis in the paper).

Except it could have been a rock. Can you copy/paste your details here?

3 hours ago, howsois said:

Picking up a weapon is actually an innovation, the first innovation of human beings and the most basic innovation.

I can agree that it is one, but not that it's either the first or the most basic. I could be persuaded that this is so, but more evidence is needed.

Share this post


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

I'm assuming by "processed" you mean "something that had to be made" like a stone knife, as opposed to "most primitive tools" like using a stick to get ants out of a log? I can agree to this. You're basically saying it's more innovative to strip the extra branches off a tree limb to make a stick than it is to simply pick up a stick. Is that right?

Why do you place the use of fire for cooking meat in the Stone Age? Surely primitive humans encountered lightning strikes first among the trees. It was partly cooking our food that allowed us to lose the big gut that processed raw meat and kept us from walking upright and running on the plains. I see a bigger problem than safety in your assumptions. You have us running on the plains before we could possibly be quick enough.

But that doesn't automatically make it the most important type of tool we've ever come up with.

Except it could have been a rock. Can you copy/paste your details here?

I can agree that it is one, but not that it's either the first or the most basic. I could be persuaded that this is so, but more evidence is needed.

In the article, except for the scenario description, there are hypothetical components, and others are logical results. In fact, look at our hands, is it best to hold something? The tools we use every day are mainly in the way we hold them. This is the evidence now. In the past, weapons were also held in a way. Therefore, if you look at the archaeological finds and look at the evolution of human hands, you can explain the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, howsois said:

In the article, except for the scenario description, there are hypothetical components, and others are logical results. In fact, look at our hands, is it best to hold something? The tools we use every day are mainly in the way we hold them. This is the evidence now. In the past, weapons were also held in a way. Therefore, if you look at the archaeological finds and look at the evolution of human hands, you can explain the problem.

The evolution of the human hand influenced the tools we were able to utilize, not the other way around. We first used rocks as hammers because they fit in our hands so well with our opposable thumbs (they still do). Rocks broke into sharp shards, and then we had knife blades, which also fit our hands well. But both of these tools worked more efficiently, and fit the hand even better when we developed handles to protect our hands, extend our reach, and provide a better physical angle for the work we performed with them. The tools developed, but their impact on the evolution of the human hand hasn't had enough time to make the fundamental changes you've implied.

We can use a LOT of tools well because of our hands, but those tools didn't shape our hands. We chose them because they fit the jobs and our hands. Crows can use sticks to pick up other things and fly away with both, but it's because the stick works well with their beaks, not because the tool shaped their beaks. Does that make sense?

Weapons were held the way they were to gain the most advantage in their use. A rock can be held in the hand and swung hard to inflict damage, but the same exact hand can swing a rock tied to a stick with MUCH greater impact. The hand didn't need to change, the tool was made more efficient (hey look, an innovation!). 

Share this post


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

The evolution of the human hand influenced the tools we were able to utilize, not the other way around. We first used rocks as hammers because they fit in our hands so well with our opposable thumbs (they still do). Rocks broke into sharp shards, and then we had knife blades, which also fit our hands well. But both of these tools worked more efficiently, and fit the hand even better when we developed handles to protect our hands, extend our reach, and provide a better physical angle for the work we performed with them. The tools developed, but their impact on the evolution of the human hand hasn't had enough time to make the fundamental changes you've implied.

We can use a LOT of tools well because of our hands, but those tools didn't shape our hands. We chose them because they fit the jobs and our hands. Crows can use sticks to pick up other things and fly away with both, but it's because the stick works well with their beaks, not because the tool shaped their beaks. Does that make sense?

Weapons were held the way they were to gain the most advantage in their use. A rock can be held in the hand and swung hard to inflict damage, but the same exact hand can swing a rock tied to a stick with MUCH greater impact. The hand didn't need to change, the tool was made more efficient (hey look, an innovation!). 

The hand can do a lot of movements, but it is undeniable that the gripping action is the most basic movement of the hand. Chimpanzees also have the ability to grasp, but they are more suitable for hanging on a branch than holding it. The human hand is the opposite. I think this is not a problem.

Share this post


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

This is not a story, just a simple logic. Walking on four legs is more energy efficient than walking on two legs. Otherwise, the four-legged animals are walking upright.

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.

6 hours ago, howsois said:

On the grasslands, food is not the problem, the only problem is safety.

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?

 

 

3 hours ago, howsois said:

After humans can hunt.

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.

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"

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.