Why do humans walk upright?

[howsois]

6 minutes ago, howsois said:

 Human innovation leads to human evolution.Human beings do not have the innovation of modern agriculture. How many people can survive? Human beings have no agriculture, how many people can survive? How many people can survive without human tools?

How do you keep yourself safe?

 

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Don't judge ppl today to ppl that existed before all these inventions. You would be amazed how much food exists in every forest or even in grasslands.

 Desert and artic survival is tricky but possible. 

Humans have destroyed the natural ecology, how many wild animals? You know there is safe.

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Don't judge ppl today to ppl that existed before all these inventions. You would be amazed how much food exists in every forest or even in grasslands.

 Desert and artic survival is tricky but possible. 

Being alert and sleeping in a safe area such as a tree. Grizzly bears can't climb trees and mountain lions are a rare occurrence.  The biggest danger is wolves. 

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?

[Mordred]

Not as many as I would like but consider this a wild animal typically looks for the easiest and most risk free meal.

 Hence wolves weed out the weak and young. Adult seals have chased off predators from their young even though the seal couldn't possibly win the fight.

 Nature is full of examples where simply implying a risk of injury is sufficient.

 No predator risks unneeded injury, a simple cut can get infected. Predators look for those easy meals unless starved to aggressive levels where the risk of starvation outweighs the risk of injury.

[howsois]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Not as many as I would like but consider this a wild animal typically looks for the easiest and most risk free meal.

 Hence wolves weed out the weak and young. Adult seals have chased off predators from their young even though the seal couldn't possibly win the fight.

 Nature is full of examples where simply implying a risk of injury is sufficient.

 No predator risks unneeded injury, a simple cut can get infected. Predators look for those easy meals unless starved to aggressive levels where the risk of starvation outweighs the risk of injury.

I agree that any animal will stay away from potential harm. It is the basis of individual survival.

Just now, howsois said:

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.

5 minutes ago, howsois said:

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.

[Mordred]

Right so let's look at prehistoric  man. His diet would only rarely consist of meat. Previous to tool development. He would have eaten largely roots, bugs such as ants worms etc. His meat diet would probably be in the form of small rodents. Large game would be a very rare luxury. He wouldn't be able to preserve meat so largely wasted. If anything he may be a scavenger hence a larger pancreas. Much like the diet of apes and monkeys we see today. One big distinction is our young cannot hang onto their mothers so the mothers would have to pack them. That's difficult to do when your walking on all four limbs. Particularly if you have to flee from danger.

 We don't have a strong sense of smell so rely mostly on our sight. Being able to see farther for early warning is a huge factor.  If a predator is stalking you. He already knows your there. Hence standing upright allows us to see at a better elevation. We can't smell danger like a typical herbivore nor can we hear as well as many animals.

 

Edited September 8, 2019 by Mordred

[howsois]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Right so let's look at prehistoric  man. His diet would only rarely consist of meat. Previous to tool development. He would have eaten largely roots, bugs such as ants worms etc. His meat diet would probably be in the form of small rodents. Large game would be a very rare luxury. He wouldn't be able to preserve meat so largely wasted. If anything he may be a scavenger hence a larger pancreas. Much like the diet of apes and monkeys we see today. One big distinction is our young cannot hang onto their mothers so the mothers would have to pack them. That's difficult to do when your walking on all four limbs. Particularly if you have to flee from danger.

 We don't have a strong sense of smell so rely mostly on our sight. Being able to see farther for early warning is a huge factor.  If a predator is stalking you. He already knows your there. Hence standing upright allows us to see at a better elevation. We can't smell danger like a typical herbivore nor can we hear as well as many animals.

 

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

[Mordred]

True but it's much harder to spot a lion with your head below the grass isn't it. There is no perfect adaptation.

It is whatever slight advantage you can gain it won't work every time but if it increases your chances all the better.

Water buffalo  has poor eyesight compared to a human.

You should really look at the importance of an animals senses and how it detects danger for its primary sense instead of rattling off situations to counter the advantages of elevation to sight. It doesn't mean it works every time it just means it increases your chances.

 An animal with the strongest sense of smell can still be ambushed it just means the animal has a better chance.

Edited September 8, 2019 by Mordred

[studiot]

5 hours ago, howsois said:

But when they need food to survive, they take risks.

I'm not sure why you are concentrating on African animals.

One of the interesting things that has come out of the many wildlife televesion programmes is the behaviour of african animals around a water hole in times of shortage.

The hostility between species that normally fight on contact is suspended.

 

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

True but it's much harder to spot a lion with your head below the grass isn't it. There is no perfect adaptation.

It is whatever slight advantage you can gain it won't work every time but if it increases your chances all the better.

Water buffalo  has poor eyesight compared to a human.

You should really look at the importance of an animals senses and how it detects danger for its primary sense instead of rattling off situations to counter the advantages of elevation to sight. It doesn't mean it works every time it just means it increases your chances.

 An animal with the strongest sense of smell can still be ambushed it just means the animal has a better chance.

 

Many more good points showing just how complicated and varied life forms are, leading to complicated and varied activity.

Howsois, I say again there is no simple answer to your question, nor did any transition happen suddenly.
Further we are still a long way from having enough evidence to fit the jigsaw together.

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Howsois, I say again there is no simple answer to your question, nor did any transition happen suddenly.
Further we are still a long way from having enough evidence to fit the jigsaw together.

Indeed, but we can be sure that innovation isn't the reason for bipedalism (or human evolution).

18 hours ago, howsois said:

The nature of animals is to try to avoid potential threats, especially those they have not seen. If they find a possible threat, they will choose to stay away, but it will not lead them to commit suicide. If there is no retreat, they will rush to you.

Panic suspends the rational mind, people drown all the time when they panic in water (an intelligent hunter would learn to take advantage of that)...

10 hours ago, howsois said:

Human beings do not have the innovation of modern agriculture. How many people can survive? Human beings have no agriculture, how many people can survive? How many people can survive without human tools?

We learn how to survive in the enviroment we're born to and some go on to learn how to survive in other enviroments; Ray Mears for example has learned how to make the tools needed for making fire and a flint blade; so he would survive and those he's taught.

The point being, we have human tools, so how do we unlearn that?

Edited September 8, 2019 by dimreepr

[howsois]

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.

[iNow]

Even the most precise logic rooted in invalid premises still leads one to wrong conclusions. Logic is necessary, but not sufficient for correctness. 

[howsois]

47 minutes ago, iNow said:

Even the most precise logic rooted in invalid premises still leads one to wrong conclusions. Logic is necessary, but not sufficient for correctness. 

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.

[iNow]

Maybe. All depends on the definitions you’re choosing for those words in your sentence. 

[howsois]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Maybe. All depends on the definitions you’re choosing for those words in your sentence. 

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.

[Mordred]

Logic also needs to consider all possible factors and doesn't discount any factor out of hand.

So far this thread you have denied any other possibility except the need to use tools causes man to evolve to a biped.

 You refuse to consider factors before man developed tools. 

It would be impractical for man to develop a spear before he could walk or carry the spear.

 

Edited September 9, 2019 by Mordred

[iNow]

1 minute ago, howsois said:

Uncertain answers can give you room to talk. But science is not like this, and logic is not like this.

Not like what, exactly? Science is nothing but varying levels of confidence and uncertainty based on varying weights of evidence. It's always provisional at best.

[howsois]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not like what, exactly? Science is nothing but varying levels of confidence and uncertainty based on varying weights of evidence. It's always provisional at best.

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.

[Mordred]

Sticking to your will and belief in the face of other scientific evidence isn't logic it's blind faith.

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, howsois said:

There can be no conclusion.

Nonsense

[howsois]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nonsense

This is a strong expression of willingness.

[Mordred]

 

1 minute ago, howsois said:

This is a strong expression of willingness.

Willingness has nothing to do with logic or science.

 

[howsois]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 

Willingness has nothing to do with logic or science.

 

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.

[Mordred]

Yes but the other detail is not to discount other evidence out of hand. A truly robust (strong lasting) theory needs to be able to account and address as many pieces of evidence as possible into a collective and complete theory. 

 I don't know how many times I've heard

"But that's not my theory" arguments brought up in the Speculation forum in response to counter evidence 

Needless to say simple denial is a poor methodology.

There is no denying innovation can certainly aid in survival. That's not the problem.

 The problem is can innovation cause evolutionary effects ? This I seriously doubt. You don't design tools that aren't designed for how your body functions.

 

Edited September 9, 2019 by Mordred

[howsois]

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Yes but the other detail is not to discount other evidence out of hand. A truly robust (strong lasting) theory needs to be able to account and address as many pieces of evidence as possible into a collective and complete theory. 

 I don't know how many times I've heard

"But that's not my theory" arguments brought up in the Speculation forum in response to counter evidence 

Needless to say simple denial is a poor methodology.

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

[Mordred]

Ok let's try this argument try fending off a predator with a stick or branch for a club when your mode of travel is on all four limbs.

 When your confronted by a dangerous animal you don't want anything to affect your ability to dodge blows or flee.

[iNow]

39 minutes ago, howsois said:

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

You’re projecting