Why did humans straighten up?

[Miggins]

Wasn`t there also some kind of theory involving the change of environment- standing up to see over long grass? surely it`s an advantatage to be taller than your prey.I`ve seen foxes waddling along on their hind legs prior to pouncing on a mouse, cats do it as well.
incidentally, I`ve been riding horses since I was a nipper, and I`ve allways had a problem with endurence riding. The horse endures your idea of how far you can ride it?
Good for you, perhaps not so great for the horse.

 

[AnotherSillyAlias]

incidentally, I`ve been riding horses since I was a nipper, and I`ve allways had a problem with endurence riding. The horse endures your idea of how far you can ride it?
Good for you, perhaps not so great for the horse.

Perhaps what you need to do is have a look at the rules for endurance riding. For a start, a qualified vet, usually a horse specialist, examines the horse regularly, if it doesn't meet a range of strict parameters it stops, right there, right then. The vet's word is final.

The horses I feel sorry for are the ones that are dragged out of a paddock, ridden like hell, usually by someone who has no real idea of what they're doing and then chucked back in the paddock with no care at all.

 

[Beady]

What rules apply?

You really are making this far more complex than it need be. Your proposed "rules" would only be considered reasonable in a forum where there is no real-world restriction on demands. As someone has already mentioned, walking prey to exhaustion was/is one method humans have always used to hunt; we therefore know the general idea is valid, and your insistence on "rules" is therfore pointless. The only rules that have ever been in effect were simple: the one who survives, wins. I suspect there have been winners on both sides, which in no way invalidates the overall claim.

 

[NeilC]

The evidence, as far as I know, shows we come from "ape-like" creatures. If indeed they were a bit like the primates of today then they had hand-like feet in order to climb trees and peel fruit etc. If environmental factors encouraged a move away from trees to the plains then it makes sense that either all 4 feet get toughened and specialised for walking or, as in the case for humanoids, that just one set does whilst we still retain the useful dextrous front feet which become less like feet over time. So we spend more time trying to stay off our softening, sensitive, useful hands and there is a clear advantage to those who develop a posture more suited to bipedal locomotion.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Like any of these sorts of comparisons there are a whole host of qualifiers and exceptions and "ifs" and "buts" that can be applied. So much so that I'm not sure any such comparison is of any value.

I agree. What I meant to point out is that a human who spots a horse on a wide open plain can shoulder a bag full of water and apples, and start walking toawrds the horse. The horse'll bolt, and then stop after running a fairly short distance. The human can just keep walking while the horse keeps trying to get away. Since horses need to eat pretty frequently, and must stop to do so, the horse will eventually have to stop for food and/or drink. The human will not. That can easily make all the difference.

 

[AnotherSillyAlias]

I agree. What I meant to point out is that a human who spots a horse on a wide open plain can shoulder a bag full of water and apples, and start walking toawrds the horse. The horse'll bolt, and then stop after running a fairly short distance. The human can just keep walking while the horse keeps trying to get away. Since horses need to eat pretty frequently, and must stop to do so, the horse will eventually have to stop for food and/or drink. The human will not. That can easily make all the difference.

This is true although the ones they are most likely to catch are the old, the sick and the very young.

Of course the greatest advantage the human has over the horse, or any other animal, is it's intelligence and ability to out think the prey.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

This is true although the ones they are most likely to catch are the old, the sick and the very young.

Of course the greatest advantage the human has over the horse, or any other animal, is it's intelligence and ability to out think the prey.

I was thinking that the scenario above would be used to exhaust a horse you want to capture alive, to ride, but you're absolutely right. If the horse weren't merely opperating under instinct, it could just run so far away, as to be out of sight.

 

[1984]

Why do you walk on all fours for up to an hour?

A nightclub doorman, perhaps? I know their knuckles drag along the ground.

 

[Dancing David]

I guess I'm once again missing out the correct terminology here, but what I mean is:
At some point we started walking upright as opposed to "on all fours", despite the loss of speed and despite the fact that it's apparently more economical to walk on all fours

I heard two theories a while ago:
1.) Because we needed the hands free for the use of tools.
2.) There was some shortage of supplies (food) so supplies needed to be carried longer ways / more at once.

Whilst I find 2.) more beleivable, since primates use their hands, too and still occasionally walk on all fours, I'd love to know what the current state of this debate is.

Thanks a lot,
FR

These are unintended consequences of whatever evolutionary branch was taken, and therefore they may benefit the organism, but not be the direct evolutionary step.

If we examine monkeys vs. apes: Monkeys walk on top of the branches and apes braciate, ie they swing under the branches. This is the first step towards bipedalism, in my very limited opnion.

 

[Dancing David]

I agree. What I meant to point out is that a human who spots a horse on a wide open plain can shoulder a bag full of water and apples, and start walking toawrds the horse. The horse'll bolt, and then stop after running a fairly short distance. The human can just keep walking while the horse keeps trying to get away. Since horses need to eat pretty frequently, and must stop to do so, the horse will eventually have to stop for food and/or drink. The human will not. That can easily make all the difference.

There is an even stranger thing that happens, it sounds woo but is felt to be true, a human can 'run down' most anaimals. Humans are very inefficient movers and the energy loss expended in running by a human is not that much greater than walking.

Other animals, horse and deer for example are short distance sprinters, they can trot for long distances but running uses up too much energy. So humans can 'run down' deer and other animals by chasing the other animal until it collapses from exhaustion. Especialy using a relay team method.

 

[Dancing David]

Humans did not evolve an upright posture.
Australopithecines did.
Or their ancestors did.
Whether we got it from them is open to argument, but likely.
Whether they developed it on the ground, or like gibbons , learned to walk upright on branches while holding onto higher branches with their hands, simply is not known.

Close, but austropits are a branch close to humans, there are very few remains as well, so we don't really have more than a few pieces of the bush.

Apes may have developed brachiation to also just hang from branches as well.

 

[Dancing David]

BTW, taphonomy of kills that show evidence of human involvement by proto humans with tools shows that they were not hunters of large game animals, they were scavengers, harvesting hides, tendons and marrow after the bigger animals had left.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

There is an even stranger thing that happens, it sounds woo but is felt to be true, a human can 'run down' most anaimals. Humans are very inefficient movers and the energy loss expended in running by a human is not that much greater than walking.

Other animals, horse and deer for example are short distance sprinters, they can trot for long distances but running uses up too much energy. So humans can 'run down' deer and other animals by chasing the other animal until it collapses from exhaustion. Especialy using a relay team method.

That's not at all woo, it's physics. Part of the technique palentologists use to determine the lifestyle of of say, dinosaurs, is a comparison of femur length to tibia length. Longer tibias compared to fermurs indicated that the animals is a mechanically apt to move quickly, but inefficent. Longer femur to tibia length indicates lower speed, but more efficieny. Our femurs are longer than our tibias. Ergo, we are slow, but efficent.