howsois

Human beings can innovate constantly. Animal innovation is limited.

The article makes it very clear Many animals have the ability to learn. In addition to genetic survival instinct, other survival skills are obtained through learning. Animals don't have flexible hands like humans, can't make and use tools, and their innovative ability is limited.

Innovation requires not only brains, but also hands. The brain is for thinking, the hand is for doing. Both are indispensable to innovation.

What makes human beings different from other animals is that they are constantly innovating. This is obvious. The known course of human evolution is dominated by human innovation. This is also obvious. The stone tools known to human were not the first tools that influenced human evolution. So it's pretty easy to know what the previous innovations were. Because progressive innovation is necessary.

Does evolution ever require a cause ? Actually, I'm looking forward to this problem. It seems that everything is back to its origin. This is worth thinking about. When discussing some problems, is it a mistake to study them? Whose argument is wrong? I don't think so.

I couldn't help laughing. Everyone said their own words, as if they were discussing a problem in more places. In fact, just try to stick to their point of view. My personal views are clearly expressed in the article. As for whether they are right or wrong, I'm afraid we have to wait for the future. In this discussion, a lot of controversy has arisen. Fortunately, there are no more views to join in.

Maybe you should study the endurance running hypothesis based on fossilized records of human evolution.I have already analyzed the development of human endurance for meat. It is in this process that human body hair disappears. 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.

In order to save energy, comparing human bipedal walking with chimpanzee limb walking is problematic. Experiments should compare chimpanzee walking on four limbs with chimpanzee walking on two feet. If chimpanzees are more energy-efficient in bipedal walking, it is possible to evolve into bipedal walking. Actually, the answer is there. Chimpanzees walk on four feet. There is no need to do experiments. If we want to compare energy saving of limb walking or bipedal walking, we should make a comparison with walking as a single purpose. For example, people walk on two feet and dogs walk on four limbs. Chimpanzees have better limbs for climbing trees.

Natural evolution is a very slow process, especially changes in the body and organs. Sudden changes in the natural environment can only lead to the extinction of organisms that cannot adapt to the changes. Standing upright on two feet offers few benefits other than the release of human hands. The aches and pains caused by being upright are obvious. But humans chose this for a simple reason: they could use the tools of human innovation. I don't know why some people choose not to see such obvious facts.

For science, the most important thing is to discover the principles and rules, not the so-called evidence. Science is not a collection of phenomena. A single, small amount of so-called evidence is probably not evidence, such as the discovery of a few fossilized teeth, and the rest is imagination, based on a few teeth.

Chimpanzees know to use sticks for defense, but they don't know to use sticks to survive in the grasslands. So, they're chimpanzees. The advantage is intelligence, which is a very interesting idea. Intelligence serves no purpose without power to back it up. And, there is no evidence to support this claim.

Some people think that people's vision is very good, in fact, people's vision, hearing and smell are not very prominent. People can't run fast, they don't have sharp teeth, they don't have sharp claws. As far as their own functions are concerned, people have almost no advantage in hunting. I don't know why some people come up with ridiculous imaginations.

The evidence is obvious. Chimpanzees still live in the jungle and they walk on all fours. An experience is not convincing. When you meet a predator, it happens that when they are hungry, how many opportunities do you have? Don't say that you can successfully find threats every time. A snake in the grass will be deadly.

Did the ancient apes walk upright to see farther?Ancient apes had far less vision than predators, and when they stood upright, they were only more likely to be found by predators. This shows that it is difficult to find the threat by standing upright. So, what about prey? Maybe. But there must be a premise that these prey are very afraid of ancient apes, so much more terrible than jumping off the cliff.There is no such possibility at all.

Chimpanzees can use weapons (branches, stones) to fight each other and use these tools to fight dangerous animals. You can find such a video. Chimpanzees use small branches to get termites. This is a way to get food with tools. How many years has this innovation been? This cannot be verified at all. We have no way of knowing when chimps learn to use tools. Is our common ancestor already mastered? There will be different opinions about this. In fact, the ancient apes have indeed mastered it. This can only be achieved by reasoning because there is no evidence.

Yes, I like to discuss something. But some people are emotional about their intentions.

You are right. There are two methods of scientific proof, one is logic and the other is evidence. Logical proofs are often used in mathematics.

This is a strong expression of willingness.

Your answer is very interesting. Since it is the science of uncertainty, what should we talk about? There can be no conclusion. All people need to do is stick to their will.

I appreciate your skeptical attitude. Uncertain answers can give you room to talk. But science is not like this, and logic is not like this.

Then I want to ask you, whether the known history of human development can explain the evolution of human survivability during this period is due to human innovation.

Science and logic are inseparable, and thinking without logic is chaotic. This is why I have seen some people here that the arguments are confusing and difficult to understand. Logical methods are not only able to reason, but also to prove, but logic must have a theoretical basis. But many people ignore logic. The article has analyzed that the evolution of human (survival ability) relies on innovation, and human survival cannot leave innovation. Even if it is reality, but there are still people who disagree. They believe that human evolution has nothing to do with human innovation. In fact prove this is very simple, as long as he does not relay human innovation, I can say that his viability is immediately becomes zero.

African buffaloes are high enough. But they are hard to find lions until the lions attack them.

I agree that any animal will stay away from potential harm. It is the basis of individual survival. But when they need food to survive, they take risks. For example, wildebeests cross rivers that they know have crocodiles.

Humans have destroyed the natural ecology, how many wild animals? You know there is safe. In addition, I want to know, what do you eat? If you do not get high-energy food, you will gradually lose weight, how can these high-energy foods be obtained?