Why do humans walk upright?

[studiot]

Part of the scientific process is considering and comparing alternative hypotheses

 

Here is an alternative hypothesis.

We know that we are descended from smaller members of the ape (?any biologist correct me if this wrong) family.

Within the last week, The BBC has reported the oldest ancestor  yet found at 3.6 million years ago, in Ethiopia.
Previous ancestors, eg 'Lucy' were also found in sub Saharan east Africa.
This was no a jungle by savannah.

There were/are few trees on the savannah to climb to see further (spotting predators)
So perhaps our ancestor stood up to raise the viewpoint?

It is also known that our vision is developed for standing upright, as compared to ancestors that has cranial arrangements more like quadrupeds.

[howsois]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

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.

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?

 

 

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"

This is very simple. What kind of food does the current primate eat? For example, the eating habits of chimpanzees. The shift in diet cannot be immediate, from plant-based food to meat-based food, which is a long process. This process is determined by the slow increase in the ability of the ancient ape to hunt animals.

Using energy experiments to prove that walking upright, science? So why do chimpanzees still walk on all fours?

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Part of the scientific process is considering and comparing alternative hypotheses

 

Here is an alternative hypothesis.

We know that we are descended from smaller members of the ape (?any biologist correct me if this wrong) family.

Within the last week, The BBC has reported the oldest ancestor  yet found at 3.6 million years ago, in Ethiopia.
Previous ancestors, eg 'Lucy' were also found in sub Saharan east Africa.
This was no a jungle by savannah.

There were/are few trees on the savannah to climb to see further (spotting predators)
So perhaps our ancestor stood up to raise the viewpoint?

It is also known that our vision is developed for standing upright, as compared to ancestors that has cranial arrangements more like quadrupeds.

There are no problems with the use of assumptions, but in the end it is either evidenced by newly discovered evidence or by the theory of discovery.

[studiot]

7 hours ago, howsois said:

There are no problems with the use of assumptions, but in the end it is either evidenced by newly discovered evidence or by the theory of discovery.

I made no assumptions, but offered you both evidence and discovery.

If that is all you have to say about it, good luck.

[howsois]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I made no assumptions, but offered you both evidence and discovery.

If that is all you have to say about it, good luck.

you say "We know that we are descended from smaller members of the ape (?any biologist correct me if this wrong) family."  In terms of scientific comparison, this is the conclusion that is missing from the comparison object. The archaeological ages vary widely, are inaccurate, and there are few fossils available for comparison that cannot explain the problem.

Lucy's fossils generated a lot of speculation beyond the fossils. And there is no or no other evidence.

"There were/are few trees on the savannah to climb to see further (spotting predators)", I'm afraid that's also speculation. And there's no evidence at all.

 

[swansont]

9 hours ago, howsois said:

This is very simple. What kind of food does the current primate eat? For example, the eating habits of chimpanzees. The shift in diet cannot be immediate, from plant-based food to meat-based food, which is a long process. This process is determined by the slow increase in the ability of the ancient ape to hunt animals.

So why would they be stalking prey as soon as they got to the grassland?

9 hours ago, howsois said:

Using energy experiments to prove that walking upright, science? So why do chimpanzees still walk on all fours?

do they live in the grassland, where bipedalism would be an advantage?

 

[howsois]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

So why would they be stalking prey as soon as they got to the grassland?

do they live in the grassland, where bipedalism would be an advantage?

 

They don't have the ability to track their prey as soon as they get to the grassland.
Hand-held weapons are the advantage, and bipedal walking is only for cooperation.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, howsois said:

you say "We know that we are descended from smaller members of the ape (?any biologist correct me if this wrong) family."  In terms of scientific comparison, this is the conclusion that is missing from the comparison object. The archaeological ages vary widely, are inaccurate, and there are few fossils available for comparison that cannot explain the problem.

This has nothing to do with archaeology.

what is the evidence that the paleontological dates vary widely and are inaccurate?

1 hour ago, howsois said:

Lucy's fossils generated a lot of speculation beyond the fossils. And there is no or no other evidence.

Bollocks

1 hour ago, howsois said:

"There were/are few trees on the savannah to climb to see further (spotting predators)", I'm afraid that's also speculation. And there's no evidence at all.

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)

1 minute ago, howsois said:

They don't have the ability to track their prey as soon as they get to the grassland.
Hand-held weapons are the advantage, and bipedal walking is only for cooperation.

They don’t eat meat very much. Why are they hunting for their food?

[howsois]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

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)

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. 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 weapons to improve survivability and solving security problems is an innovation. It is the first innovation and the most basic innovation that led to the evolution of the ancient apes into human beings. Innovation must have an innovative subject, that is, an individual with innovative ability. For the evolution of human beings, the above four theoretical foundations are indispensable. If these theories are wrong, human evolution will always be a mystery. We can only guess where we are from.

[studiot]

On 8/23/2019 at 3:53 PM, 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.

 

From this post and because it is clear that you are missing things other say to you I am going to assume your ability to produce written English is better than your ability to understand it.

 

1 hour ago, howsois said:

Lucy's fossils generated a lot of speculation beyond the fossils. And there is no or no other evidence.

Yes Lucy generated much speculation.

But there is also verified hard data.

The assertion that there is no other evidence is untrue.
I posted reference to new information, published very very recently.
The remains found included a complete skull.

You have ignored this new evidence.

 

1 hour ago, howsois said:

you say "We know that we are descended from smaller members of the ape (?any biologist correct me if this wrong) family."  In terms of scientific comparison, this is the conclusion that is missing from the comparison object. The archaeological ages vary widely, are inaccurate, and there are few fossils available for comparison that cannot explain the problem.

I don't understand this.

 

3 minutes ago, howsois said:

They don't have the ability to track their prey as soon as they get to the grassland.

Whilst I understand that there is a long held hypothesis that "apes came down from the trees to the grasslands"

I also understand that the anatomical evidence does not support this.

Again I ask those better informed than I to add in to this particular point.

 

1 hour ago, howsois said:

"There were/are few trees on the savannah to climb to see further (spotting predators)", I'm afraid that's also speculation. And there's no evidence at all.

No it is not speculation, it is one of the few facts we can be sure of.

By definition there are few trees on the savannah
 

If there were lots of trees then it would be something else such as forest or jungle.

 

[howsois]

19 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

From this post and because it is clear that you are missing things other say to you I am going to assume your ability to produce written English is better than your ability to understand it.

 

Yes Lucy generated much speculation.

But there is also verified hard data.

The assertion that there is no other evidence is untrue.
I posted reference to new information, published very very recently.
The remains found included a complete skull.

You have ignored this new evidence.

 

I don't understand this.

 

Whilst I understand that there is a long held hypothesis that "apes came down from the trees to the grasslands"

I also understand that the anatomical evidence does not support this.

Again I ask those better informed than I to add in to this particular point.

 

No it is not speculation, it is one of the few facts we can be sure of.

By definition there are few trees on the savannah
 

If there were lots of trees then it would be something else such as forest or jungle.

 

Yes, I can only try to understand what you said. I am not even familiar with the function of this scientific forum. The content I express may be inaccurate and I hope to understand it.

[studiot]

I found the link.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49486980

[howsois]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

I found the link.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49486980

The link cannot be opened here (net::ERR_CONNECTION_RESET)

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, howsois said:

The link cannot be opened here (net::ERR_CONNECTION_RESET)

You could try: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49486980 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, howsois said:

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. 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.

Grasslands have fewer trees than forest/jungle, by definition. So why does studiot have to justify this, when you have already set the scenario?

 

3 hours ago, howsois said:

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

Repeating this does not make it true, nor does it address the objections/questions I have raised.

 

 

 

[howsois]

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

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.

 

 

 

I hope you can give a simple, clear and direct point of view, which can be easily understood by a person who is not familiar with English. Otherwise, the possible misunderstanding errors lead to my wrong answer.

4 minutes ago, howsois said:

I hope you can give a simple, clear and direct point of view, which can be easily understood by a person who is not familiar with English. Otherwise, the possible misunderstanding errors lead to my wrong answer.

 

15 minutes ago, howsois said:

I hope you can give a simple, clear and direct point of view, which can be easily understood by a person who is not familiar with English. Otherwise, the possible misunderstanding errors lead to my wrong answer.

It is unscientific to answer the question with the ingredients of the guess. I think I am like this. language problem.

[howsois]

Anyone will stick to their own point of view, which is the inertia of consciousness. This can be understood by everyone.
My point of view is very clear, that is, four theoretical basis, why human beings walk upright is a logical inference based on these four theoretical basis. Of course, there are also accepted facts, such as the ancient apes living in the jungle, the Stone Age ape-man can walk upright, can use tools. If I am wrong, then it must be a mistake in the theoretical basis. Please point out, this is easy to discuss.
If the discussion is extended to how the ancient apes started hunting, how to retreat from the body hair, and even the mystery of the disappearance of the northern ape-man, I am also happy to share my views with you.

But please let me know what you want me to answer.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, howsois said:

I hope you can give a simple, clear and direct point of view, which can be easily understood by a person who is not familiar with English. Otherwise, the possible misunderstanding errors lead to my wrong answer.

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.

 

[howsois]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

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.

 

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 such an environment. So this new environment could only be grasslands, where there are foods such as grassland plants, insects, small animals, etc.(Grassland plants have fruits, flowers, tender stems, etc.)

 

2 minutes ago, howsois said:

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 such an environment. So this new environment could only be grasslands, where there are foods such as grassland plants, insects, small animals, etc.(Grassland plants have fruits, flowers, tender stems, etc.)

 

Ancient apes eat either fruit or leaves in the jungle, which can refer to the food characteristics of chimpanzees. They have been living in the jungle and can not change a lot.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, howsois said:

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 such an environment.

I didn’t ask why they didn’t move to an environment into which they did not move.

5 hours ago, howsois said:

So this new environment could only be grasslands, where there are foods such as grassland plants, insects, small animals, etc.(Grassland plants have fruits, flowers, tender stems, etc.)

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.

 

5 hours ago, howsois said:

Ancient apes eat either fruit or leaves in the jungle, which can refer to the food characteristics of chimpanzees. They have been living in the jungle and can not change a lot.

If they can’t change a lot, how could they eat the different food from the grassland?

[howsois]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

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?

The problem is too simple. What they can eat depends on what kind of food their digestive system can digest (digestive capacity of the digestive system). For example, chimpanzees can eat bark, leaves, and twigs, indicating that they can digest Crude Fiber foods, there are many such foods in the grasslands. As for which ones to eat, it depends on their own preferences. Of course, foods that are easier to digest than crude fiber foods can certainly be eaten. This change can only be reflected in the species of plants they eat, which may be different from the jungle.
For example, we all have the ability to speak, but we speak different languages. Although communication is a bit difficult, we are communicating.
What they eat is not important, what matters is their ability to digest.

[swansont]

7 hours ago, howsois said:

The problem is too simple. What they can eat depends on what kind of food their digestive system can digest (digestive capacity of the digestive system). For example, chimpanzees can eat bark, leaves, and twigs, indicating that they can digest Crude Fiber foods, there are many such foods in the grasslands. As for which ones to eat, it depends on their own preferences. Of course, foods that are easier to digest than crude fiber foods can certainly be eaten. This change can only be reflected in the species of plants they eat, which may be different from the jungle.
For example, we all have the ability to speak, but we speak different languages. Although communication is a bit difficult, we are communicating.
What they eat is not important, what matters is their ability to digest.

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.

 

[howsois]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

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.

 

It is only a description of the characteristics of the environment, as long as it can explain the problem. Some do not need special attention, such as the food distribution space of the jungle and the distribution characteristics of the grassland food, I only care about whether the environment can provide food.
If you consider the characteristics of food distribution, then the grassland food can be seen as a similar plane distribution, the food density is lower than the jungle. This means that ancient apes need to take a lot of roads to get enough food. Of course, this helps the upright walking training. .

[studiot]

13 minutes ago, howsois said:

It is only a description of the characteristics of the environment, as long as it can explain the problem. Some do not need special attention, such as the food distribution space of the jungle and the distribution characteristics of the grassland food, I only care about whether the environment can provide food.
If you consider the characteristics of food distribution, then the grassland food can be seen as a similar plane distribution, the food density is lower than the jungle. This means that ancient apes need to take a lot of roads to get enough food. Of course, this helps the upright walking training. .

 

You seem determined that your hypothesis is the only possible chain of events.

And whilst there are some logical parts to your hypotheses,

There are many gaps in our knowledge and there are many considerations and factors, some of which oppose each other.

Balancing such opposing factors is most often the way of the world.

So a good test of ideas is to answer why you considered and rejected altenative hypotheses.

 

Another useful avenue of enquiry is to look at animals that sometimes stand up, but also work on all fours.

Bears, for instance stand up to fight and appear more imposing.
They also stand up to reach up trees to get at desired objects.
Soem also stand in water an fish with their front paws.

Now consider is their visual apparatus set up to see best (look straight ahead) when they are standing up or on all fours?

 

How does this compare with say dogs or pigs?

Dogs are interesting because they hold bones with their front paws ti gnaw at them.

You mentioned the use of tools.

To make tools man needs to sit or squat. Even today workers are often hunched over their work say a lathe.

You don't chip flint arrowheads standing up.

But you use weapons standing up, the spear or bow and arrow.

 

As regards to food,

It may not be a pleasant thought to our modern ways but it is logical that early man ate a lot of worms, grubs, insects and the like.
In a way like badgers.
Evidence for this can be obtained by studying the evolution of our teeth, which is determined by the food we eat.

Talking of swamps, marshes and other very soft ground,

There is no evidence that early man did not occupy these.
This could be because the timescale is not long enough for genuine fossils to have formed from those lands, as we have for say dinosaurs.
But bodies will have decayed completely.

Our evidence is based on remains rather than fossils.
And the sort of semi arid regions or cooler caves are the best bet for preservation of remains.

It is also true that neolithic Man lived and built substantial communities in swampland.
The lake villages of Somerset are a fine example.
Today tourists go for excursions in replica dugout canoes.

But remember the time period of your transition / migration is really before the stone age proper.

It's the time period that led to the stone age.
 

 

[howsois]

25 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

You seem determined that your hypothesis is the only possible chain of events.

And whilst there are some logical parts to your hypotheses,

There are many gaps in our knowledge and there are many considerations and factors, some of which oppose each other.

Balancing such opposing factors is most often the way of the world.

So a good test of ideas is to answer why you considered and rejected altenative hypotheses.

 

Another useful avenue of enquiry is to look at animals that sometimes stand up, but also work on all fours.

Bears, for instance stand up to fight and appear more imposing.
They also stand up to reach up trees to get at desired objects.
Soem also stand in water an fish with their front paws.

Now consider is their visual apparatus set up to see best (look straight ahead) when they are standing up or on all fours?

 

How does this compare with say dogs or pigs?

Dogs are interesting because they hold bones with their front paws ti gnaw at them.

You mentioned the use of tools.

To make tools man needs to sit or squat. Even today workers are often hunched over their work say a lathe.

You don't chip flint arrowheads standing up.

But you use weapons standing up, the spear or bow and arrow.

 

As regards to food,

It may not be a pleasant thought to our modern ways but it is logical that early man ate a lot of worms, grubs, insects and the like.
In a way like badgers.
Evidence for this can be obtained by studying the evolution of our teeth, which is determined by the food we eat.

Please directly point out my hypothesis. And do you think the direct cause of human walking upright.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, howsois said:

It is only a description of the characteristics of the environment, as long as it can explain the problem. Some do not need special attention, such as the food distribution space of the jungle and the distribution characteristics of the grassland food, I only care about whether the environment can provide food.

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.

 

1 hour ago, howsois said:

If you consider the characteristics of food distribution, then the grassland food can be seen as a similar plane distribution, the food density is lower than the jungle. This means that ancient apes need to take a lot of roads to get enough food. Of course, this helps the upright walking training. .

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.