Why do humans walk upright?

[studiot]

2 hours ago, howsois said:

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

I do not have a view because I think that

1) Your hypothesis is about a time after any spread to the savannah and much of your argument is about the time after hominids had mastered tools.

I think they may well have been walking upright before these times.
Clearly one cannot hold and use tools very well when one is on all fours.

2) As I have pointed out we do not have enough information as to what hominid we are descended from and cannot therefore say whether that ancestor was upright or not.

3) I think the process of  was a regenerative gradual process.

Some ancestor(s) found advantage in standing upright sometimes.
Evolution suggests that they will prosper.
Further evolution improved their uprightness and perhaps altered their physiology a little at a time to adapt.
So they stayed upright for longer periods.

and so on.

It has been suggested that this happened to the dinosaurs, ending in the tyrannosaurus.

4) Of course there is the question of when (and why) did humanoids loose their tails? Was this part of the standing upright process?

You might also like to contrast my suggestion about standing up to see better with other creatures.

Some developed long and mobile necks.
Some developed better eyes.

 

Edited September 6, 2019 by studiot

[howsois]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

I know the idea of energy saving. First of all, we must consider the survival of ancient apes, how do they guarantee safety? How to get food? Where to get food? This is a fundamental problem that must be considered. Under the premise of not guaranteeing survival, Energy-saving erect walking does not make any sense. So you must first demonstrate how ancient apes can guarantee survival.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, howsois said:

I know the idea of energy saving. First of all, we must consider the survival of ancient apes, how do they guarantee safety? How to get food? Where to get food? This is a fundamental problem that must be considered. 

The fundamental problem, is your aproach to the problem.

9 minutes ago, howsois said:

Under the premise of not guaranteeing survival, Energy-saving erect walking does not make any sense. So you must first demonstrate how ancient apes can guarantee survival.

Your premise has no connection to your conclusion (nothing and no-one can guarantee survival).

At this point, you're going to have to provide evidense; lest be tarnished with the lable "Troll"...

[howsois]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I do not have a view because I think that

1) Your hypothesis is about a time after any spread to the savannah and much of your argument is about the time after hominids had mastered tools.

I think they may well have been walking upright before these times.
Clearly one cannot hold and use tools very well when one is on all fours.

2) As I have pointed out we do not have enough information as to what hominid we are descended from and cannot therefore say whether that ancestor was upright or not.

3) I think the process of  was a regenerative gradual process.

Some ancestor(s) found advantage in standing upright sometimes.
Evolution suggests that they will prosper.
Further evolution improved their uprightness and perhaps altered their physiology a little at a time to adapt.
So they stayed upright for longer periods.

and so on.

It has been suggested that this happened to the dinosaurs, ending in the tyrannosaurus.

4) Of course there is the question of when (and why) did humanoids loose their tails? Was this part of the standing upright process?

You might also like to contrast my suggestion about standing up to see better with other creatures.

Some developed long and mobile necks.
Some developed better eyes.

 

1.I have not made any specific assumptions. Is it a hypothesis that ancient apes would use branches? When they hold branches in their hands to do anything, the branches are tools. When they use branches to hit others, they must Knowing that this will cause harm. This kind of experience can be understood only need one time.

2.Human beings are a kind of creature, a primate. Human beings can continue to innovate and use innovative knowledge to improve their viability.

3.If humans don't use tools, there is no advantage in walking upright. Can someone go to a place with a lion or wolf without a weapon?

[swansont]

50 minutes ago, howsois said:

I know the idea of energy saving. First of all, we must consider the survival of ancient apes, how do they guarantee safety? How to get food? Where to get food? This is a fundamental problem that must be considered. Under the premise of not guaranteeing survival, Energy-saving erect walking does not make any sense. So you must first demonstrate how ancient apes can guarantee survival.

I don't know how you could think this is a reasonable argument.

If food is somewhat scarcer, you have to expend more calories to find food. Energy efficiency of movement could be crucial. If you continually expend more calories than you ingest, you will die. How can you "guarantee survival" if everyone starves?

 

[studiot]

1

Of course they used branches.

It is likely that pointed sticks, sharpened and hardened in a fire, wire* were used before stone tools/weapons were made.    Edit*

2

Yes that's true. Why is this relevent to the question of why they walk upright?

3

I have already pointed out one advantage.
They can see further from the increased height.

How many lions or wolves are there in the jungle?

 

 

Edited September 6, 2019 by studiot

[howsois]

23 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The fundamental problem, is your aproach to the problem.

Your premise has no connection to your conclusion (nothing and no-one can guarantee survival).

At this point, you're going to have to provide evidense; lest be tarnished with the lable "Troll"...

The premise is to survive. It is empty to talk about standing upright without surviving. Science must conform to logic.All conclusions without logical basis are hypotheses.

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, howsois said:

 3.If humans don't use tools, there is no advantage in walking upright. 

Blatantly untrue, and evidence has been presented to the contrary.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, howsois said:

Is it a hypothesis that ancient apes would use branches? 

Yes, it can be observed today, sometimes:

To hold them up.

To fish for ants, or other food.

To create a display, that's intimidating to others.

8 minutes ago, howsois said:

2.Human beings are a kind of creature, a primate. Human beings can continue to innovate and use innovative knowledge to improve their viability.

If they're already viable, that begs a question.

10 minutes ago, howsois said:

3.If humans don't use tools, there is no advantage in walking upright.

That one is just pulled out your arse.

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, howsois said:

The premise is to survive. It is empty to talk about standing upright without surviving. Science must conform to logic.All conclusions without logical basis are hypotheses.

Seeing predators more easily is an advantage the enhances survival probability. Efficient locomotion is an advantage the enhances survival probability.

[howsois]

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

1

Of course they used branches.

It is likely that pointed sticks, sharpened and hardened in a fire, wire used before stone tools/weapons were made.

2

Yes that's true. Why is this relevent to the question of why they walk upright?

3

I have already pointed out one advantage.
They can see further from the increased height.

How many lions or wolves are there in the jungle?

 

 

Standing tall can see lions or wolves? When these animals are hunting, try not to let the prey see them, such as lowering the body. If you stand tall, you will be discovered by it.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, howsois said:

The premise is to survive. It is empty to talk about standing upright without surviving. Science must conform to logic.All conclusions without logical basis are hypotheses.

By that logic, bookworms are doomed... 

4 minutes ago, howsois said:

Standing tall can see lions or wolves? When these animals are hunting, try not to let the prey see them, such as lowering the body. If you stand tall, you will be discovered by it.

I only have to run faster than you. 

[zapatos]

26 minutes ago, howsois said:

Science must conform to logic

No. That is what got us a geocentric view of the universe. 

[studiot]

29 minutes ago, howsois said:

Standing tall can see lions or wolves? When these animals are hunting, try not to let the prey see them, such as lowering the body. If you stand tall, you will be discovered by it.

Yes but did I not say that sometimes there are opposing factors to balance?

And if you are to defend yourself when caught by a more powerful predator, having a weapon is better than no weapon.
And weapons can only be used ( I would say wielded here) by standing on two legs.

Please try to look at all my points, just as I have tried to look at all yours.
Thus you did not answer my question how many lions or wolves are there in the jungle?

Another opposing factor is

Do these animals hunt by sight or sense of smell?

Whatever, when dealing with these animals, humans have learned to cooperate.
That is another factor.

[howsois]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Thus you did not answer my question how many lions or wolves are there in the jungle?

Lions and wolves are grassland animals.

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Whatever, when dealing with these animals, humans have learned to cooperate.

Yes, ancient apes are social animals, they know each other's exchanges and cooperation.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Seeing predators more easily is an advantage the enhances survival probability. Efficient locomotion is an advantage the enhances survival probability.

Walking upright is a confident expression, dare to stand upright and not afraid of being discovered by possible predators. What makes them have such confidence?

[Curious layman]

3 hours ago, howsois said:

What makes them have such confidence?

 

5 hours ago, howsois said:

Standing tall can see lions or wolves? When these animals are hunting, try not to let the prey see them, such as lowering the body. If you stand tall, you will be discovered by it.

Moving around in groups would make a lot of predators more hesitant to attack. Whenever there's a mountain lion attack in US, it's generally on somebody walking alone. A group of noisy humans even without weapons will keep away most predators. Predators are mostly ambush specialists, they prefer to stay low and wait, or pick off the weak ones. Standing upright would of give humans a better chance of spotting them, or looking for the places there most likely to be hiding, and then be able to plan safer routes, not to mention the advantage of being able to spot dinner further away.

 

 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, howsois said:

Walking upright is a confident expression, dare to stand upright and not afraid of being discovered by possible predators. What makes them have such confidence?

This does not rebut what I wrote. It's like I am saying "These apples are red!" and you are claiming I'm wrong because they are spherical.

Can you actually make an argument that efficient locomotion, by requiring less food, is not an advantage in and of itself (i.e. without bringing other factors into the discussion) when food availability decreases?

Same question, only applied to being able to see predators from a distance.

[howsois]

4 hours ago, Curious layman said:

 

Moving around in groups would make a lot of predators more hesitant to attack. Whenever there's a mountain lion attack in US, it's generally on somebody walking alone. A group of noisy humans even without weapons will keep away most predators. Predators are mostly ambush specialists, they prefer to stay low and wait, or pick off the weak ones. Standing upright would of give humans a better chance of spotting them, or looking for the places there most likely to be hiding, and then be able to plan safer routes, not to mention the advantage of being able to spot dinner further away.

 

 

Buffaloes are in groups. Why do lions still dare to attack cattle? Can the anti-attack ability of an upright ancient ape with no weapons be comparable to that of buffalo? You know, carnivores are hunting experts. Very simple, self-confidence comes from powerful. Ancient The power of the apes is inseparable from the weapons. If the ancient apes stand up to look farther, there is absolutely no need to walk upright, they stand up when they need to look farther.

[Curious layman]

They attack the young or the old, causing panic to separate them. male and groups of buffalo would, and do, kill lions. And most cattle are either fenced in or tied up, not to mention stupid, People tend to farm placid animals, easy prey for a lion.

I'd say the power of acient apes is inseparable from intelligence not weapons, with weapons being a byproduct. Intelligence is a much more powerful tool, you can use it with or without a weapon.

[studiot]

6 hours ago, Curious layman said:

They attack the young or the old, causing panic to separate them. male and groups of buffalo would, and do, kill lions. And most cattle are either fenced in or tied up, not to mention stupid, People tend to farm placid animals, easy prey for a lion.

I'd say the power of acient apes is inseparable from intelligence not weapons, with weapons being a byproduct. Intelligence is a much more powerful tool, you can use it with or without a weapon.

Yeah. +1

[howsois]

7 hours ago, Curious layman said:

They attack the young or the old, causing panic to separate them. male and groups of buffalo would, and do, kill lions. And most cattle are either fenced in or tied up, not to mention stupid, People tend to farm placid animals, easy prey for a lion.

I'd say the power of acient apes is inseparable from intelligence not weapons, with weapons being a byproduct. Intelligence is a much more powerful tool, you can use it with or without a weapon.

Are you sure that you are serious, not a joke?

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, howsois said:

Are you sure that you are serious, not a joke?

Next you'll be asking for evidense.

[howsois]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Next you'll be asking for evidense.

No. There's no proof.You can talk about how the ancient apes showed "intelligence". Of course, you should know. You can imagine anything. As long as it is reasonable.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, howsois said:

No. There's no proof.

Are you suggesting there's no proof that humans are intelligent?

3 minutes ago, howsois said:

You can imagine anything. As long as it is reasonable.

Indeed you can, but unless you can back it up with resonable observations (you know, evidense), it's reasonable for me to dismiss you as a troll.

 

Let me give you a piece of advice, if you can't find evidense for your assertions, when you need too; it's an opinion and your in a hole...

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, howsois said:

Are you sure that you are serious, not a joke?

There is evidence that early humans drove certain types of prey to the edges of cliffs so they'd fall to their deaths. No weapons needed. It's a pretty intelligent hunter that can get an animal to kill itself.