Why do humans walk upright?

[dimreepr]

11 minutes 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.

Tell you what, you explain this sentence; and I'll explain why I'm lying.

[Art Man]

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Tell you what, you explain this sentence; and I'll explain why I'm lying.

It seems pretty self explanatory to me. Imagine a four legged animal with a brain the size of a human brain.

[howsois]

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.

[dimreepr]

20 minutes ago, howsois said:

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.

I'd smile, if only I had teeth...

Edited September 14, 2019 by dimreepr

[mistermack]

The idea of humans becoming upright to see further on open savanna is a non-starter, to the point of silliness, to me. If you are a small ape, new to the savanna, it may make sense to stand up now and then and look around, but if you walk around upright, you are just making yourself prominent. Lots of prey animals will stand and look around, but they all drop back down to move around. 

Or you can use a termite mound or a heap of rocks or a tree to scan for danger. Becoming upright for that reason just doesn't cut it.

Some of the latest evidence points to the transition to bipedal walking happening in thick dry forest. There is a hominin species, Orrorin Tugensis, that is nearly twice as ancient as Lucy, (Australopithecus Afarensis) , and is more human-like in many ways. There is strong evidence of bipedal walking, but also good evidence of tree climbing. Which points to an animal that lived in a wooded environment, climbed trees for food and protection, but still had a strong selection pressure for becoming bipedal.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrorin     

Using the stick weapon could be an explanation. It would aid males in becoming dominant over their less dextrous rivals, and also help defend the clan against raids by the neighbours. You could have an evolutionary arms race scenario, like the antlers of stags, or the big canines in male Gorillas and Chimps. Skill using weapons would one day replace big canine teeth in fights between our ancestors. 

[Mordred]

Your personal viewpoints means nothing in science try supplying evidence.

I can quarantee if you hear a threatening sound you will try to see the source. It's in our very nature to identify the location of a threat.

Edited September 14, 2019 by Mordred

[mistermack]

36 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Your personal viewpoints means nothing in science try supplying evidence.

I can quarantee if you hear a threatening sound you will try to see the source. It's in our very nature to identify the location of a threat.

Your point is what?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

The idea of humans becoming upright to see further on open savanna is a non-starter, to the point of silliness, to me.

I don’t recall anyone saying that this is the case. The only one proposing a scenario is the OP, and it involves walking upright so you can carry a club (and insisting this is the only advantage of bipedalism)

[Mordred]

41 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Your point is what?

There is an advantage being able to spot predators early enough to run and flee in the right direction. That is undeniable a predator stalking already knows your location.

I have repeated this numerous times now at what point do you listen to other view points ?

It is a provable fact that many animals not just human will look to find their enemy. Nature is full of examples where sight is used to spot predators. Higher ground is a key to spotting predators early on as opposed to your eyes being blocked by foliage.

That is literally common sense.

What you refuse to understand is that there is never any single contributing factor in evolution. 

It is always a combination of miniscule advantages. Evolution is a slow gradual process 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Mordred

[mistermack]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

There is an advantage being able to spot predators early enough to run and flee in the right direction. That is undeniable a predator stalking already knows your location.

I have repeated this numerous times now at what point do you listen to other view points ?

It is a provable fact that many animals not just human will look to find their enemy. Nature is full of examples where sight is used to spot predators. Higher ground is a key to spotting predators early on as opposed to your eyes being blocked by foliage.

That is literally common sense.

But this is just stating the bleedin obvious. You are not making any credible link to bipedalism in our ancestors. Other animals that evolved on the plains, unlike ours, have shown no sign of becoming bipedal, even though they have had the incentive of looking for predators for millions of years. I can't think of one single example. You might quote the ostrich, except that it's obvious that it became bipedal by developing wings, like other birds. 

When you balance the benefits against costs, it's a non-starter as an explanation for bipedal walking. Apes like our ancestors live in very large troops, with many pairs of eyes, and that's how they effectively spot predators. At any one time, someone will be scanning for trouble, and they give a very loud warning. 

I've read studies that have found that Leopards actively avoid Chimpanzee territories, because they get spotted so very quickly, and the alarm is so loud that their chances of successfully hunting anything at all are very low. That's not to say that they don't occasionally get lucky, and snatch a chimp, but it's very rare.

[Mordred]

And yet you simply refuse to accept any other plausible factors.

[mistermack]

The whole thread is about speculation. Nobody knows what made our ancestors become habitually bipedal.

The fact that I posted earlier, that apes have been becoming gradually more upright over tens of millions of years in in the scientific record, and it's generally linked to size by evolutionists. That is obviously part of the cause, but it's the final jump, from a chimp-like ancestor to an upright ape that's unexplained.

The fact that apes like chimps forage on the ground a lot, due to competition from monkeys for the fruit in the trees is also on the record, and not really disputed. But something happened to our ancestors, that didn't happen to chimps or gorillas. It might well have been a life transforming weapon or tool use. If it was, it has to be wood, because if it was stone, we would see the evidence. That's my line of thinking, but as I wrote earlier, the chances of any solid evidence turning up are pretty slim, given that the transition probably happened about 7 million years ago, and wooden artefacts are unlikely to last much more than a few decades in an African forest.

[swansont]

59 minutes ago, mistermack said:

But this is just stating the bleedin obvious.

Doesn’t seem obvious to the person who started the thread.

 

[howsois]

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.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, howsois said:

. I don't know why some people choose not to see such obvious facts.

Perhaps for the same reason you keep ignoring obvious facts like the better vantage point and increased vision upright standing offers, or the better access to auditory stimuli from farther distances standing upright provides, or any of the great many other things already and repeatedly shared with you across 8 (seriously, 8? Are you effing kidding me?) pages of this thread. 

I’d have closed it by now, probably 6 pages ago, but YMMV

[Mordred]

There is also studies showing that bipeds are more energy efficient and as a result have higher endurance. You also appear larger and more threatening

Lol another question could be asked why did the tyrannosaurus rex walk on two legs it certainly wasn't for innovation reasons or use of its hands.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Mordred

[howsois]

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.

[Mordred]

Maybe you should study the endurance running hypothesis based on fossilized records of human evolution.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis

[howsois]

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.

[dimreepr]

53 minutes ago, howsois said:

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.

Humans can track and kill animals using intelligence, kinda puts a hole in your argument.

[mistermack]

As an explanation for human bipedalism, endurance running is a joke. Chimps have far more endurance on four legs than two, they can only wobble around for about 100 m before getting exhausted on two legs. They generally walk on two legs for displays of male aggression, not for non-existent endurance reasons. 

Of course, endurance is selected for in nearly all animals, there's nothing unique about humans, but the endurance hunting hypothesis is full of holes as a proposed hunting technique for human ancestors millions of years ago. 

I've seen documentaries on the San people, and out of whole tribes, there are only one or two who can actually do it, and they wore modern trainers, and employed some very sophisticated tracking skills. None of that would be available to our ancestors, who would have been less well evolved for upright walking or running anyway. 

Endurance might well come into play once effective weapons were developed. You lie in ambush, and cause an animal a serious wound, and you then have to follow a blood trail to finish off the victim. That's a much more real-life scenario than ancient men running fit animals to a standstill. 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, howsois said:

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.

Already addressed. It’s about the same for chimpanzees. It’s not the same for humans.

But nobody is here has claimed that this is the cause of bipedalism. It was presented to rebut your claim that carrying a club is the only advantage of bipedalism (which was based on your erroneous claim that the only problem was defense)

[dimreepr]

26 minutes ago, mistermack said:

As an explanation for human bipedalism, endurance running is a joke. Chimps have far more endurance on four legs than two, they can only wobble around for about 100 m before getting exhausted on two legs. They generally walk on two legs for displays of male aggression, not for non-existent endurance reasons. 

Of course, endurance is selected for in nearly all animals, there's nothing unique about humans, but the endurance hunting hypothesis is full of holes as a proposed hunting technique for human ancestors millions of years ago. 

I've seen documentaries on the San people, and out of whole tribes, there are only one or two who can actually do it, and they wore modern trainers, and employed some very sophisticated tracking skills. None of that would be available to our ancestors, who would have been less well evolved for upright walking or running anyway. 

Endurance might well come into play once effective weapons were developed. You lie in ambush, and cause an animal a serious wound, and you then have to follow a blood trail to finish off the victim. That's a much more real-life scenario than ancient men running fit animals to a standstill. 

At some point you might want to throw in some evidence, your imagination is no more compelling than the OP's.

BTW a pointy stick is not much of a weapon if you throw it...

Edited September 15, 2019 by dimreepr

[swansont]

2 hours ago, howsois said:

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.

Obvious BS, no evidence

 

2 hours ago, howsois said:

2. Humans stand upright and cannot run very fast.

Fast is not quantified

 

2 hours ago, howsois said:

4. Humans must acquire prey during the day.

Since when are vegetables “prey”?

 

2 hours ago, howsois said:

5. Humans have only one way to solve this problem.
6. Follow the hunting target.

You don’t hunt fruits and vegetables 

2 hours ago, howsois said:

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.

So walking upright gives an advantage that is not due to carrying a club for defense. Congratulations! You have rebutted your claim.

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

At some point you might want to throw in some evidence, your imagination is no more compelling than the OP's.

BTW a pointy stick is not much of a weapon if you throw it...

Where's YOUR evidence? I gave a link to the Schöningen spears earlier, but here it is again, as you obviously have memory problems. 

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

Please note that they are throwing spears, and the people who used them to survive obviously didn't have your superior hunting experience.  The associated cache of 16,000 animal bones must have come from a lucky hit.