Why do humans walk upright?

[swansont]

9 hours ago, howsois said:

Science and logic are inseparable, and thinking without logic is chaotic.

Science must include logic, but logic alone is not science.

9 hours ago, howsois said:

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.

Survival ≠ evolution

These are two separate arguments

9 hours ago, howsois said:

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.

"Nothing to do with" is not what you proposed. You were arguing that the evolution of humans was solely due to innovation. That it was the driving force.

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, howsois said:

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.

That's rich, so far in this thread you've ignored every logical arguement that explains why your logic is flawed; kind of poetic really.

Quote

Even if it is reality, but there are still people who disagree. They believe that human evolution has nothing to do with human innovation.

No one has said/implied/bazzinga'd that, which suggests a strawman.

Quote

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.

Another example of your faultless logic; that's like saying birds only evovled because of feathers and by way of proof see what happens when I pluck an eagle.

[Curious layman]

On 9/8/2019 at 2:43 AM, howsois said:

You try 10 people, no,20 people, to scare off a lion. No weapons.
You can call on some people to experiment. Don't use weapons to the nature reserve to experience the survival of intelligence. The administrators of the reserve will not let you in, because he is worried about your life, not wild animals.
 

 How about 3?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDubMeNlSxc&app=desktop (50 secs in)

Ok, they have bows, but impressive nonetheless, I wouldn't walk up to a spider, never mind a lion.

Edited September 9, 2019 by Curious layman

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

Ok, they have bows, but impressive nonetheless, I wouldn't walk up to a spider, never mind a lion.

It's a rite of passage in some cultures... 

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, howsois said:

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

We're trying to help you refine and improve your idea. You need more than "innovation" to account for the way humans evolved to walk upright. Every animal on the planet is capable of new behavior. Even unicellular organisms can react to new environments. Humans are able to access a broader range of innovative behavior because we can take the same information other animals get and put it together in more meaningful, more predictive, more adaptive ways because of our higher levels of intelligence, cooperation, and communication. 

Also, while logic has its place in maths and sciences, I think you're talking about critical thinking, or reasoned thinking rather than formal logic. 

It also isn't correct to refer to "proof" when you mean "evidence". That can turn a perfectly supportive statement into an assertion that needs more than an opinion. The members here respect the difference between "evidence suggests humans walked upright to free up their hands for tool use", and "human evolution is fundamentally different from that of other animals".

[mistermack]

When discussing our ancestors' use or need for weapons, it's tempting to go along with the old "Savannah Hypothesis", because that involves much more contact with the significant predators, than jungle or forest living apes would be used to. 

The latest evidence is leading more and more towards a transition to upright walking in a heavily forested environment. You don't get many of the major predators in the forest, because the prey are mostly highly agile tree climbers, so the food is very difficult to catch. 

Chimpanzees suffer very little predation, which is just as well, given their slow rate of reproduction, and it's a fair guess that our ancestors were similar. But, by far the biggest danger to a Chimpanzee, is another Chimpanzee. And that's today, when they are rare. Six million years ago, our ancestors would probably have been much more numerous than modern Chimpanzees, so territorial competition would have been far more intense. The clan next door would have been a constant threat to life, and in my opinion, it would have been that pressure that resulted in the development of weapon and tool technology. By the time they moved out onto Savannah, they would have been pretty proficient at making and using weapons. They wouldn't really have stood a chance without them.

[CharonY]

That is an interesting hypothesis, however to my knowledge there is not a lot of evidence of weapon use. The oldest identified tools were  pounding tools, mostly associated with food acquisition and preparation. I doubt that there is sufficient evidence to properly assess selective pressure due to predation or competition for that time frame. The oldest artifact that could be considered a weapon of sorts was found ca. 280,000 years ago, a spear tip which was presumed to be used for hunting. But this is of course way later than when bipedalism occured. That at least make a direct co-evolution of these factors not very likely (or at least there is little evidence for it),

[mistermack]

The sharpened stick is by far the most effective weapon available to hominids at the time of the transition to a bipedal stance. But the chances of one surviving in recognisable form in Africa must be very nearly nil. 

Spear evidence goes back a lot more than 280,000 years, but nowhere near millions of years. I think these are the current oldest : 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schöningen_spears   

There's far more chance of a wooden artefact being preserved in the cool North than a humid African forest. Probably the best chance of evidence of spear use by early hominids would be fossil tracks, like the Laetoli footprints. You might get the impression of a spear being dragged along, or used now and then for balance. But if you are not looking for it, you're not going to find it. 

[CharonY]

48 minutes ago, mistermack said:

But, by far the biggest danger to a Chimpanzee, is another Chimpanzee.

So that is an interesting claim that I have not hear before. I am aware that chimpanzees are predators of other animals and that they are also prey to some large predators (there quite a few studies out there describing e.g. defensive strategies against leopards). . There are also observational studies that, as you implied, deadly intergroup violence has been reported, often the actions of small groups of male chimpanzees. However, while persistent, the occurrence  is very low , even when their territories are very small due to human actions and in cases of limited resources. I am not sure whether leopard predation rates are higher (considering that they are also getting extinct).  However, considering the overall rarity it does not make it terribly likely that it is a significant selective pressure. 

Considering the constraints on chimpanzee habitats, it is not unlikely that their population density was lower than early hominids and probably also hominins. 

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Spear evidence goes back a lot more than 280,000 years, but nowhere near millions of years. I think these are the current oldest : 

I stand corrected. However, considering the lack of usage in our cousins it does seem to imply that weapon use may have developed relatively late in hominid evolution, though. So if we move away from innerspecies violence, there is apparent evidence for predation ca. 1.9 million years ago. That, IIRC has been associated with access to more proteins and improved brain development (or at least it has been speculated as such). Bipedalism on the other hand most likely evolved ca. 6-7 million years ago. Predating the increase in skull size by a fair bit. I do not believe we do have tools older than ~4 million years ago, so these various developments (bipedalism, tool use for feeding, tool use for hunting, skull size increase) seem to have occured in waves. Though certain aspects are likely to have affected subsequent developments. I.e. bipedalism could have freed up hands for tool use.

[mistermack]

On the question of evidence, there actually IS evidence, but it's indirect. 

The oldest stone tools are the Oldowan "choppers", going back about two and a half million years. Electron microscopes have found tiny fossilised wooden splinters in the sharp edges of these. If they were chopping wood 2.5 million years ago, sharpening a stick is by far the most likely candidate explanation. I think it's good evidence of spear making from that period, but it could go back double or treble that amount of time. Technology moved pretty slowly back then. You can sharpen a stick just by dragging it around, and that would have surely been the first method.

[howsois]

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

So that is an interesting claim that I have not hear before. I am aware that chimpanzees are predators of other animals and that they are also prey to some large predators (there quite a few studies out there describing e.g. defensive strategies against leopards). . There are also observational studies that, as you implied, deadly intergroup violence has been reported, often the actions of small groups of male chimpanzees. However, while persistent, the occurrence  is very low , even when their territories are very small due to human actions and in cases of limited resources. I am not sure whether leopard predation rates are higher (considering that they are also getting extinct).  However, considering the overall rarity it does not make it terribly likely that it is a significant selective pressure. 

Considering the constraints on chimpanzee habitats, it is not unlikely that their population density was lower than early hominids and probably also hominins. 

I stand corrected. However, considering the lack of usage in our cousins it does seem to imply that weapon use may have developed relatively late in hominid evolution, though. So if we move away from innerspecies violence, there is apparent evidence for predation ca. 1.9 million years ago. That, IIRC has been associated with access to more proteins and improved brain development (or at least it has been speculated as such). Bipedalism on the other hand most likely evolved ca. 6-7 million years ago. Predating the increase in skull size by a fair bit. I do not believe we do have tools older than ~4 million years ago, so these various developments (bipedalism, tool use for feeding, tool use for hunting, skull size increase) seem to have occured in waves. Though certain aspects are likely to have affected subsequent developments. I.e. bipedalism could have freed up hands for tool use.

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.

3 minutes ago, howsois said:

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.

[howsois]

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.

[Mordred]

Good thing your not trying to survive in the woods. The predator most likely already knows your there. They have other senses than just sight  ie stong sense of smell.

 If you don't stand up to spot the predator to know where it is when you catch it's scent or hear it you won't know which direction to run.

 I believe we already covered this ground difficult doesn't mean impossible. Every mammal or bird lifts their heads from grazing to spot predators why would you decieve yourself this doesn't apply to standing up if possible. Just watch some nature shows you will see this behavior in too many numerous animals to count 

Example gophers 

But hey go visit Africa and keep your head below the grass if you honestly believe that will protect you or increase your odds.

 As for myself it's far more important to see the potential threat at a distance so you can stay clear of the threat. Seeing that threat early on such as grizzly bears is one reason reason I am still alive.

 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Mordred

[swansont]

3 hours ago, howsois said:

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.

Assertion without evidence. Again.

[howsois]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Assertion without evidence. Again.

The evidence is obvious. Chimpanzees still live in the jungle and they walk on all fours.

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

Good thing your not trying to survive in the woods. The predator most likely already knows your there. They have other senses than just sight  ie stong sense of smell.

 If you don't stand up to spot the predator to know where it is when you catch it's scent or hear it you won't know which direction to run.

 I believe we already covered this ground difficult doesn't mean impossible. Every mammal or bird lifts their heads from grazing to spot predators why would you decieve yourself this doesn't apply to standing up if possible. Just watch some nature shows you will see this behavior in too many numerous animals to count 

Example gophers 

But hey go visit Africa and keep your head below the grass if you honestly believe that will protect you or increase your odds.

 As for myself it's far more important to see the potential threat at a distance so you can stay clear of the threat. Seeing that threat early on such as grizzly bears is one reason reason I am still alive.

 

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.

[Mordred]

How many experiences in the woods have you had ? I grew up in a small village in Northern Canada in grizzly country. That was one of the reasons I joined the Navy to make enough money to pay for my degrees.

 I've had numerous encounters with dangerous wildlife in my life. 

If you think hiding will help your wrong bears can smell you from several km's away and can locate you from scent alone.

Your far better off spotting them as soon as possible. 

If a predator is stalking you he has already located you and getting into position for the kill.

Edited September 14, 2019 by Mordred

[howsois]

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.

[dimreepr]

[swansont]

9 hours ago, howsois said:

The evidence is obvious. Chimpanzees still live in the jungle and they walk on all fours.

That's not what you asserted, i.e. the statement "Chimpanzees still live in the jungle and they walk on all fours" is not the same as (or seemingly connected to) "Ancient apes had far less vision than predators" or "when they stood upright, they were only more likely to be found by predators"

Further, your observation that chimps use branches as clubs seems to be in contradiction with your premise that you need to walk upright to be able to use a club.

 

 

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, howsois said:

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.

That's a heaping helping of irony.

2 hours ago, howsois said:

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.

The advantage is intelligence (as has been explained), the irony is, WRT this thread, it's also the reason for inovation. 

Incidentally most tools can be used while seated, so technically... 

Edited September 14, 2019 by dimreepr

[howsois]

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.

[swansont]

16 minutes ago, howsois said:

Chimpanzees know to use sticks for defense, but they don't know to use sticks to survive in the grasslands. So, they're chimpanzees.

Again, we have a claim without evidence. You don’t actually know this.

Quote

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.

An interesting idea is not evidence, and science requires evidence. One can come up with multiple plausibility arguments for advantages that intelligence brings that do not involve making weapons. e.g. better decision-making on where to sleep (defense against predators) or to look for food (pattern recognition, understanding issues of depletion a region of resources). Strategies about hunting, as with the previously-mentioned herding animals over a cliff.

Presenting intelligence as having a single advantage and that advantage as the lone driver of evolution is ridiculous.

 

 

[Art Man]

I just got the notion that the answer is simply that as apes brains grew there was a higher need to protect those brains from low lying hazards.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Art Man said:

I just got the notion that the answer is simply that as apes brains grew there was a higher need to protect those brains from low lying hazards.

That's an interesting notion...

 

But I'm lying...

[Art Man]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's an interesting notion...

 

But I'm lying...

Well that doesn't contribute much as a response.

Wink.