What caused the advent of bipedalism?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
On the failure to find God's fingerprints ...
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Well Jay,
who can say WHAT or WHO caused the advent of bipedalism. I do know that I believe in evolution and God and find them congruous to the extreme.
who can say WHAT or WHO caused the advent of bipedalism. I do know that I believe in evolution and God and find them congruous to the extreme.
Apparently crystalonyx.
I believe in evolution so this is my suggestion.
Standing up give you a better view of your surroundings. This will make it easier for you to survive since you can better see dangers and food and it gives you a better reach. You are more likely to pass on your genes. At some point your decedents have become a new species where everybody can stand up. Then some mutation occurs that allow an individual to carefully move while standing up (like a bear can do) thou it's unpractical for any longer distances. Over the generations this evolves to actual walking on two feets commonly seen in apes, thou they still prefer to run on all four. At some point we just prefer to be upright even when running, like us humans, especially since it gives us two free hands to operate (and carry) tools with.
Standing up give you a better view of your surroundings. This will make it easier for you to survive since you can better see dangers and food and it gives you a better reach. You are more likely to pass on your genes. At some point your decedents have become a new species where everybody can stand up. Then some mutation occurs that allow an individual to carefully move while standing up (like a bear can do) thou it's unpractical for any longer distances. Over the generations this evolves to actual walking on two feets commonly seen in apes, thou they still prefer to run on all four. At some point we just prefer to be upright even when running, like us humans, especially since it gives us two free hands to operate (and carry) tools with.
As do I.
And the bear, which has been around considerably longer than hominids, continues to walk on all fours.
The question, however, is not the relative advantages of bipedalism but, rather, how it came to be an option in the first place. To select for a trait it must first exist within the population. So, what caused the advent of bipedalism?
kai
ragamuffin
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
It's an extension of the ability to climb. Our earliest hominid ancestors 'walked' along branches (like many tree dwelling apes do today). In the open woodlands that our lineage specialized in, being able to move from one group of trees to another swiftly and safely was selected for.
Those individuals who walked upright could spot danger as well as being able to carry items and move with ease.
(we are built to run, though few of us ever do anymore.
)
The more interesting question is why didn't the other ground dwelling apes become more bipedal? It may have to do with sexual competition... That is males with larger stronger upper bodies are more fit when it comes to fighting for a mate. Short legs provide better leverage/lower center of gravity.
Knuckle walking may prevent stress on the wrist that flat palm walking would not.
Environment may also play a key role... in the deep forests standing upright doesn't aid in spotting predators as looking over the grass does. Having a shorter stature however allows you to move more swiftly through the bushes.
As for bears, they spend little of their time on two legs. Mostly for observance and threat/conflict.
They have massive forelimbs for digging and as use as primary weapons. (like the apes they have a low center of gravity to aid in shoving contests)
Just a few thoughts.
wa:do
Those individuals who walked upright could spot danger as well as being able to carry items and move with ease.
(we are built to run, though few of us ever do anymore.
)The more interesting question is why didn't the other ground dwelling apes become more bipedal? It may have to do with sexual competition... That is males with larger stronger upper bodies are more fit when it comes to fighting for a mate. Short legs provide better leverage/lower center of gravity.
Knuckle walking may prevent stress on the wrist that flat palm walking would not.
Environment may also play a key role... in the deep forests standing upright doesn't aid in spotting predators as looking over the grass does. Having a shorter stature however allows you to move more swiftly through the bushes.
As for bears, they spend little of their time on two legs. Mostly for observance and threat/conflict.
They have massive forelimbs for digging and as use as primary weapons. (like the apes they have a low center of gravity to aid in shoving contests)
Just a few thoughts.
wa:do
That's what the study of orangutans suggests. Now, yet again, what caused the advent of bipedalism?
Please pollute some other thread.Do you really think they've searched for "God's fingerprints"? I don't think so.
A long line of useful mutations that where found to be useful in the environment that the creature in question where living in. And as it been pointed out, bipedalism are not necessarily that useful in all environments. We also need to keep in mind that sometimes, transitional mutations may be useless in one area but later forms allow for a creature to expand into an formerly unsuitable area. It's like the knuckle walking apes in the dense forest that been mentioned, no need to become bipedal. On the plains bipedalism are better suited but when fully evolved in us humans, we can take tools into our hands and conquer the dense forest.
A simple failure in procedure on the part of celestial CSI.
How fortuitous! I wonder what caused those particular mutations?
Sounds good to me. What test(s) might we run to distinguish between "just lucky" and an act of intervention?
kai
ragamuffin
....or time for me to bow out, too many syllables
Yerda
Well-Known Member
The desire to chase a leather ball.
Is bipedalism more difficult to explain than other traits, or is your point something to do with the difficulty of pinning down causes?
Fluffy
A fool
There is no way to do that. It is impossible.Jay said:
The most we can say is that if there has been intervention then the effects of that intervention look identical to the effects of random chance.
How can we then claim that evolution is more likely/reasonable than a theistic alternative?
Last edited: