Why do humans walk upright?

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

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.  

Do you think that stick is pointy enough to be an effective weapon without a sharp peice of stone?

 

[howsois]

I couldn't help laughing. Everyone said their own words, as if they were discussing a problem in more places. In fact, just try to stick to their point of view.
My personal views are clearly expressed in the article. As for whether they are right or wrong, I'm afraid we have to wait for the future.
In this discussion, a lot of controversy has arisen. Fortunately, there are no more views to join in.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, howsois said:

My personal views are clearly expressed in the article. As for whether they are right or wrong, I'm afraid we have to wait for the future

Now that's ironic... I'm not sure if I should clap or charge you for a new meter. 

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

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)

 This is something the OP never seems to accept. 

Here is a pertinent question.

Does evolution ever require a cause ? or does evolution simply result from miniscule changes that aid in  survival advantages

[howsois]

Does evolution ever require a cause ? 

Actually, I'm looking forward to this problem. It seems that everything is back to its origin. This is worth thinking about. When discussing some problems, is it a mistake to study them? Whose argument is wrong? I don't think so.

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Do you think that stick is pointy enough to be an effective weapon without a sharp peice of stone?

 

Ummmm,   you do realise that the picture you posted is labelled SHAFT SECTION ?????

So no, it's not sharp enough. It's a section of a shaft. The clue is in the title. There has never been any suggestion that these spears had hafted stone tips. There is a tentative suggestion that some of the hand tools had been used in conjunction with wooden handles. But the jury is out on that point, the evidence isn't that strong. But the spears were all wooden. That's not disputed at all. 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Ummmm,   you do realise that the picture you posted is labelled SHAFT SECTION ?????

So no, it's not sharp enough. It's a section of a shaft. The clue is in the title. There has never been any suggestion that these spears had hafted stone tips. There is a tentative suggestion that some of the hand tools had been used in conjunction with wooden handles. But the jury is out on that point, the evidence isn't that strong. But the spears were all wooden. That's not disputed at all. 

I seem to remember you suggesting, a pointy stick has no need of a hafted stone tip, to be effective; I'm not going to investigate 9 pages of bullshit to pick yours out of the mire; but it's there...

[Mordred]

41 minutes ago, howsois said:

Does evolution ever require a cause ? 

Actually, I'm looking forward to this problem. It seems that everything is back to its origin. This is worth thinking about. When discussing some problems, is it a mistake to study them? Whose argument is wrong? I don't think so.

It's more accurate to not think of evolution as being caused by some factor. Rather the adaptations that best suit an environment is the more successful. There are also unsuccessful adaptations that do not suit an environment those get weeded out by survival of the fittest.

The problem is thinking innovation can cause evolution, or the advantages an evolutionary change as being a cause regardless of what that advantage is.

In essence evolution is the result of successful adaptations or mutations.

No advantage gained by bipedalism causes the evolutionary change the advantages are the result of the successful changes.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Mordred

[mistermack]

27 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I seem to remember you suggesting, a pointy stick has no need of a hafted stone tip, to be effective; I'm not going to investigate 9 pages of bullshit to pick yours out of the mire; but it's there...

The Schöningen spears prove that that is the case. You don't need to rely on my posts to find that out. The natural progression in the development of the spear would be stick, then all-wooden spear, then hafted, with either stone or bone on the tip. And that progression could easily take hundreds of thousands, or millions of years. But the weapon needs to have some real merit right from the start, or the process wouldn't even begin. 

It could be that it started out as a defensive weapon, or defensive/offensive between males fighting for dominance, or as a defence against predators. No leopard would enjoy the experience of having a sharp stick rammed down it's throat by a powerful ape. Whatever kind of tip it had. Apes have stronger arms than humans. The stabbing spear would be quite formidable as a defensive weapon.

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, mistermack said:

The Schöningen spears prove that that is the case. You don't need to rely on my posts to find that out. The natural progression in the development of the spear would be stick, then all-wooden spear, then hafted, with either stone or bone on the tip. And that progression could easily take hundreds of thousands, or millions of years. But the weapon needs to have some real merit right from the start, or the process wouldn't even begin. 

It could be that it started out as a defensive weapon, or defensive/offensive between males fighting for dominance, or as a defence against predators. No leopard would enjoy the experience of having a sharp stick rammed down it's throat by a powerful ape. Whatever kind of tip it had. Apes have stronger arms than humans. The stabbing spear would be quite formidable as a defensive weapon.

While it may be a nice example of an evolutionary trend, it's not the reason for it. 

[howsois]

What makes human beings different from other animals is that they are constantly innovating. This is obvious. The known course of human evolution is dominated by human innovation. This is also obvious. The stone tools known to human were not the first tools that influenced human evolution. So it's pretty easy to know what the previous innovations were. Because progressive innovation is necessary.

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, howsois said:

What makes human beings different from other animals is that they are constantly innovating. This is obvious. The known course of human evolution is dominated by human innovation. This is also obvious.

What makes human beings different from other animals? Don't be so arrogant...

It's Intelligence that leads to innovation, much like it does with other animals; is a corvids evolution dependant on the tools it uses, or it's intelligence?

 

37 minutes ago, howsois said:

The stone tools known to human were not the first tools that influenced human evolution.

That's the first sentence you've written that may be true, but then no-one here has disputed that. 

Correlation does not imply causation.

[howsois]

Innovation requires not only brains, but also hands. The brain is for thinking, the hand is for doing. Both are indispensable to innovation.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, howsois said:

What makes human beings different from other animals is that they are constantly innovating

Not really. Animals innovate all of the time, too. They innovate new ways to escape predators. They innovate new ways to find, collect, and store food. They innovate new ways to seek shelter or create protection from weather elements.

You're attempting to force a distinction where none exists. It happens at varying levels and magnitudes, but is hardly unique to humans.

After nearly 10 pages of thread reminding you of this, the fact that you keep repeating false assumptions suggests you're either deeply ignorant or disappointingly obstinate. 

False dichotomy, perhaps?

[howsois]

The article makes it very clear

Many animals have the ability to learn. In addition to genetic survival instinct, other survival skills are obtained through learning. 
Animals don't have flexible hands like humans, can't make and use tools, and their innovative ability is limited.

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, howsois said:

their innovative ability is limited.

Thanks for the quote. Perhaps you noticed that even your own source confirms that animals innovate too, hence the suggestion that the ability to innovate is the key difference between humans and other nonhuman animals is plainly false.

[howsois]

Human beings can innovate constantly. Animal innovation is limited.

[dimreepr]

29 minutes ago, howsois said:

Human beings can innovate constantly. Animal innovation is limited.

You shall not cross the bridge... 

[mistermack]

A hugely important factor in the history of invention is culture. If you take intelligent animals like octopuses, they can innovate and display surprising intelligence in problem solving. But their inventions die with them, and the next generation starts from scratch. 

If your population has a culture, it means that you learn from each other, and beneficial behaviours spread around populations, and pass down the generations and can be built on. We humans are the most extreme example of this. Other animals have cultures of sorts, but nothing like the level that we have taken it to. And of course, language plays a huge part in the process. 

I don't know what the language skills were like at the time that we became bipedal though. Probably basic to non existent, but the learning culture can be pretty strong just from observing and copying.

[dimreepr]

37 minutes ago, mistermack said:

A hugely important factor in the history of invention is culture. If you take intelligent animals like octopuses, they can innovate and display surprising intelligence in problem solving. But their inventions die with them, and the next generation starts from scratch. 

If your population has a culture, it means that you learn from each other, and beneficial behaviours spread around populations, and pass down the generations and can be built on. We humans are the most extreme example of this. Other animals have cultures of sorts, but nothing like the level that we have taken it to. And of course, language plays a huge part in the process. 

I don't know what the language skills were like at the time that we became bipedal though. Probably basic to non existent, but the learning culture can be pretty strong just from observing and copying.

Many animals have culture and even regional accents; every spectrum has extremes, and while it may make them unique it doesn't make them any more special than any other participant.

Besides, how does this support the OP?

 

[mistermack]

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Many animals have culture and even regional accents; every spectrum has extremes, and while it may make them unique it doesn't make them any more special than any other participant.

Besides, how does this support the OP?

I said in my post that other animals have cultures. In our case, it's so extreme that we put men on the moon. You might not call that special, but I would. Our nearest rival species are still at the bashing things with stones level. What more do you want to call us special? We are special in the degree of development of features that are either rudimentary, or non-existent in other animals.

Anyway, I'm not posting here to support the OP. I'm just posting my thoughts, on the discussion.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

I said in my post that other animals have cultures. In our case, it's so extreme that we put men on the moon. You might not call that special, but I would. Our nearest rival species are still at the bashing things with stones level. What more do you want to call us special? We are special in the degree of development of features that are either rudimentary, or non-existent in other animals.

Anyway, I'm not posting here to support the OP. I'm just posting my thoughts, on the discussion.

We've also potentially fucked up our planet (for us to live on) all of which is irrelevant to the topic..

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

We've also potentially fucked up our planet (for us to live on) all of which is irrelevant to the topic..

That also makes us special. I'd like to see dolphins or chimps fuck up the planet. 😏

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

That also makes us special. I'd like to see dolphins or chimps fuck up the planet. 😏

Special needs perhaps. 

[nuDAN]

On 9/2/2019 at 7:41 PM, Ken Fabian said:

Even the development of tool use is not necessarily unique. Rather the cognitive abilities to make more elaborate ones are.

An important point. Otherwise, Humans today might be pulling termites out of a hole, of fishing algae out of a pond, with a stick like their Chimp cousins.