What was the evolutionary pressure that made us intelligent - could it be ranged attack?
First, what I'm calling the Geo-Fermi Paradox - why are we the only intelligent animal on Earth?
Sure, it has advantages - but other animals would gain those advantages too. So why didn't they become intelligent (or, at least, more intelligent) too?
Sure, there was climate-change in Africa that rewarded adaptivity - but why didn't all animals in the region become intelligent (or, at least, more intelligent)?
This article has a good argument for bipelalism (due to forests becoming plains). And an interesting argument for stone throwing (and not available to bipeds like ostriches and emus).
Throwing rewards spatial reasoning, providing an evolutionary pressure It's not clear to me that this would lead to intelligence - but maybe it did. (OTOH bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans, and capuchins throw too https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectile_use_by_non-human_organ...).
If we consider other hominids, we don't know exactly, but it seems we outcompeted them. If we consider more distant animals, because we converted the entire planet to provide for us much faster than they could evolve to catch up with us.
However, the pressure has to have been exerted before humans outcompeted other hominids. This might seem too obvious, but you can't have an effect preceding its cause.
We didn't have to be first. Other primates might have picked up the rock before we did, but eventually lost the race. Maybe the fire-cooking, rock-throwing domesticating niche is just that competitive.
So it might be more like "we are the ones that remain", but yeah, either variant is a spin on the old weak anthropic principle, which is never quite satisfying.
And we do seem to have wiped out/outcompeted Neanderthals etc.
> fire-cooking, rock-throwing domesticating niche
Just knowing if that was the evolutionary pressure along the path would be enough for me (even if it could have been another ape or a corvid or whatever - or maybe they are on that path now?)
BTW Matt Ridley has the theory that division of labour (trade enabling specialization) was the gradient.
I've been inclined to think it has something to do with communication and community-forming tendencies. It seems that a number of other species, including Octopuses and African Grey Parrots, have pretty significant intelligence for animals. Yet their greater intelligence than most other animals doesn't seem to get them a really game-changing advantage over them. Human intelligence, or perhaps communication and organization in combination with them, has given us a series of game-changing advantages in a row, so many that our civilization is utterly dominant over any area where we choose to be.
Perhaps arguing semamtics, but Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensishttps://wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal) were "human": could interbreed, and had Lucy etc as common ancestors.
This article glosses over it but I think the answer is cooking. Cooking took pressure off our digestive system which allowed us to stack it up vertically.
I think that's a trong contender for biggest contributer.
Natural food was was less calorie dense back then. I wonder if we reached a point where we could consume the most calories per pound of our own body weight, and never looked back.
This is fascinating. Software can now simulate natural motion, including realistic bipedal walking animations that react to simulated forces while continuing to stay upright. I remember seeing this in Endorphin years ago and I believe these techniques are now used in games. What's interesting to me is that, we still don't exactly know how that works either! Genetic algorithms, deep neural networks, etc. are black boxes in the end.
Doesn't it have to do something with the "average" primate body plan?
I really like highlighting the running aspect, since we truly seem to be record holders in endurance running, which was largely enabled by sweating. And since the primate body plan has upper limbs with significantly more freedom of motion compared to "running on 4" animals like deer, primates have to actively use many muscles to be able to put its weight on them (I am only familiar with the human skeleton in detail, but I assume primates have a similarly free scapula, while horses' are much more restricted, their first legs connect nearly vertically into it, making standing basically energetically free)
So, isn't bipedalism simply the energetically better way of locomotion for the primate body plan (look at other primates, they semi-walk on their lower limbs, only balancing with their hands - but they are not great at running and live mostly on trees so climbing is more important there)?
> [hunter-gatherers] ended up with bodies designed to do two somewhat contradictory things: to be active much of the time, but never to be more active than absolutely necessary.
I've found the most beneficial exercise for me is hours-long walks/rides, well within my comfort zone - much lower than the heart-rate reccommended. Partly because it's enjoyable.
I like the water ape theory. ie we had a period of time in our history where we spent a lot of time in low lying water that encouraged us to stand upright. There's a few things which point in this direction. iirc we're the only primate which can control its breath; good for swimming under water. Our fingers wrinkle when we spend time in water; good for picking things up in water. And we lost our hair; hair may have gotten caught on underwater objects drowning the hairiest amongst of us.
We have fairly poor fat insulation and we are hairless so it’s highly unlikely we have evolved in water.
Fur combined with skin oils is a great insulator as it is a hydrophobic surface in which air bubbles get trapped proving very good insulation.
Our skin is very porous and thin and gets soggy very quickly in water which makes it less grippy and weakens it.
We also have terrible physique for swimming (hence why we need to develop complex swimming techniques instead of just paddling) just to put it into perspective a deer can swim as fast as 15 mph, a polar bear can swim at about 7 mph for 10 hours the fastest human swimmer can swim at around 5mph and that’s for a 100m sprint, we have fairly poor buoyancy and a very weak diving reflex compared to other mammals and like most apes we are actually quite terrified of water naturally.
Our vision is also severely impacted by water, especially salt water and we have a very water ingress unfriendly nose-ear system.
The whole aquatic ape theory doesn’t make any sense it’s almost as crazy as the chimp fucked a pig theory.
Like seriously take pretty much any other non ape mammal and you’ll discover that they are so much better at swimming than humans that they might as well be fish compared to us even those who don’t look like they should be able to swim at all.
Like freaking mice have been observed swimming for 3 days straight.
Take into account that babies swim underwater without any training, and children can see under water in the ocean (I used to be able to). I'd say modern life has made us less water - friendly.
I also like the idea that consuming fish and shellfish contributed to our brain transformation, given omega 3 is highly beneficial for healthy brains.
Mammals swim other news in 10, we are terrible at it, babies have a pretty good buoyancy due to their mass to size ratio and fat percentage they however aren’t good swimmers what so ever and they don’t swim under water without training you can teach infants to swim but it’s not like they do freestyle out of the womb.
Shellfish have pretty much no omega 3 in them, cold water fish do which are hardly easy to catch in shallow waters.
Nuts and seed however are much richer in Omega 3 than most fish.
Again the aquatic ape theory does not stand up to any level of scrutiny pretty much any claim it makes can be disproven or attributed to other much likely factors it is pseudoscience in its purest form.
The truth is that AAH doesn't match the fossil record (or the fact that apes have been observed swimming even in the wild since it was proposed, the fact that in captivity apes develop similar or higher subcutaneous fat deposits to modern humans, and the average ape still has a higher body fat percentage than a human athlete).
Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) circa 3.5Ma was bipedal, Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 Ma was bipedal as well albeit with primitive features for the upper body, Ardipithecus ramidus which is about 4.5 Ma had both habitual tree and bipedal adaptations (e.g. could stand upright and likely walk pretty well but had opposable big toes for grabbing at branches).
The earliest clear signs of modern bipedalism (as in a walking gait similar to that of modern humans) is around 3.7 Ma and it's not a skeleton but rather the Laetoli Footprints in Tanzania.
For the most part we had direct and "in-direct" ancestors for about 5 million years with varying degree of bipedalism, we likely haven't been eating seafood at for more than 200-300,000 based on remains found at various sites.
Lastly Shellfish which would be the easiest food source for the shallow water Aquatic Ape is one of the most common food allergies with 3-4% of the population suffering from it, and it causes Anaphylaxis in almost every case unlike other allergies which vary in severity. If we count in seafood allergy in general which includes finned fish then about 2.5% of the adult population suffers from it.
It's quite unlikely that a common food source that impacted our evolutionary path so greatly would have a fairly deadly allergy tied to it.
On the other hand humans are not allergic to mammalian meat (unless they are bitten by a few species of a tick and develop and Alpha-gal allergy) at all, and only in extremely rare cases are allergic to poultry.
Seems like a stretch. We suck at swimming (compared to bears for speed or distance). The breath thing seems unlikely, polar bears for instance seem quite adept at swimming underwater. Hair doesn't seem an issue either, hair (assuming it's not knotted) doesn't easily catch on things, and hairy bears seem quite adept under water. Sure whales used to be hairy (and has some residual hair today), but that's more the lack of need than any lethal hair+water problem that kills them off before they reproduce.
I've seen numerous speculation on the finger wrinkles, possibly an adaption.... or possibly just happenstance. Sure today's fingers prune significantly, not sure they would do the same if heavily callused by a decade or two of hunter gathering for all your food. In any case it's not unique to humans, macaques have similar and I suspect it's noticed because they bathe. Couldn't find any information on other primates.
Water ape theory doesn't suggest humans have to be great swimmers to survive at waterside areas. There's a lot of stuff to eat where the water is shallow as well as probably a ton of fruit on the trees near the coast. Bi-pedaling would help in spending a lot of time standing in the shallow waters looking down at river bottom. Humans nimble fingers help with finding and dealing with various shellfish that were probably crawling around in the bottom sludge.
The bulk of our hair is on the top of the head - the only place that would be burnt by the sun if you stay all day standing in shallow waters.
The shape of our nose (nostrils directed down) are made convenient to stand vertically without getting water into airways.
What is the picture of a paradise? A beach with a white sand, sun shining, clear blue water, lots of palm trees near the coast. This is because its our natural habitat. Not deep forests, not savannah. It's tropical beach!
If I was to be left alone and naked on an inhabited piece of land I would definitely choose a tropical beach out of all untouched locations on the planet, because it is the most likely place where I would be able to survive.
No we aren’t the best mammals at swimming but, definitely the best primates. And I think the argument is that the theoretical aquatic ape spent much more time in water than the typical bear.
I like the water ape theory in the romantic sense, but it's important to remember that it's pseudo science.
It's fun to think of the ramifications though. Are/can we look for human fossils in the right places? How much of our history is potentially under water and not African caves. Did it help spur fire usage so that we could safely eat fish? Did it influence the out of Africa migration which was mostly coastal (we got to Australia before Europe)?
It probably didn't affect our evolution much but I suspect a lot more of our pre-history was spent at least on the shallow ocean than we have evidence for.
It would be more difficult to use tools if we had to use all members for locomotion. The ones who started walking straight got an advantage for being able to fight with spears and bows.
But the spears and bows did not come along until well after the walking upright. We know that from the fossil and archeological record.
Of course, it's still possible that those who could walk upright could throw stones better I suppose? So the fundamental idea of tool use has merit. But the tools would have been far more primitive than spears and bows. And still, the walking would likely have happened before the stone throwing, so there's still a little uncertainty even with the idea that it helped us with primitive tool use.
I think it's probably more that you could see predators better and get a head start for the tree. But I have no data to back that up, it's just my gut hunch.
That's not totally true. We really have no record of anything except carved stone tools and pottery, because wood degrades. We have no real idea when humans started using wooden tools like spears.
Sure, there must have been a bootstraping effect, where a little better tools promoted 2 leg mobility a little, which promoted yet better tools and so on.
Never been especially convinced by the endurance hunting theory, as dogs are far better at it than we are, with much greater endurance. So why no bipedal Fido?
But quite a lot of birds walk, and a lot more of their dinosarian relatives did. Ostriches and emus favor it, when they are not running. Faster than we can.
Birds (especially large birds) inherited a long line of large, fast-moving, bipedal predator ancestors. We don't really have that; primates evolved ~55Mya, and before that we were mostly rodent-ish animals which depended on being small and hidden to survive rather than running fast or long distances.
There's a lot to be said for parallel/convergent evolution, but it's certainly not hard & fast rule.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
I'm a Christian, but I don't think that passage means human biology is based on God's.
God the Father is clearly not in a physical form throughout the Bible. I believe that's why "graven images" are forbidden in the Ten Commandments, as they'd mislead people into thinking of him as a physical being. God the Father as depicted in the Bible is closer to an omnipresent, omniscient mind that runs the universe as a simulation inside itself and occasionally talks to entities inside the simulation through avatars, dreams, and visions.
Rather, I think "in his own image" there refers to sapience, self-awareness, and creativity - what is called elsewhere in Scripture "the breath of God".
Much of what makes the Incarnation of Christ so meaningful is precisely that God is made man, with hands, feet, head, and heart. He is Emannuel, "God with us," come to debug and repair the system we broke from within, knowing our suffering and giving us the knowledge and strength to help repair it ourselves.
That all loses a lot of its meaning if God the Father is just a big man on a throne in a cloud somewhere (an image that I have never found anywhere in the text and am puzzled as to where it came from). He was always just one of us if that's the case.
So, yeah. Despite apparently sharing your fundamental beliefs about the world, I think you're way off base about why humans walk.
The image of God as a big man in the clouds comes from two sources: Renaissance paintings and The Simpsons. I'm not kidding. I've thought a lot about this.
Another "in his image" interpretation I've heard is that it's something of a mistranslation. That it's more like "in his imagination" or "he imagined/conceived us" than "we look like him." That's the one I've always gone by, but I like your take too.
Surprisingly, you are right about the Renaissance paintings. Orthodox Christian icons almost never depict him. The so-alled Pantokrator icons depict regnant Jesus, the Son.
I found two verses in which a throne and clouds are related to God:
Psalm 97:2 - "Clouds and darkness surround Him;
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne."
Job 26:9 - "He covers the face of His throne,
And spreads His cloud over it."
Of course, I'd think that "throne" is used to evoke the idea of sovereignty rather than a literal throne. There's also the whole of Revelation—I won't try to interpret in a mere comment—but includes plenty of thrones and clouds such as in Revelation 14:14. And you can also find the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7:9-22
Also, have you read The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton? It has some ideas found in your comment regarding the Incarnation and it is overall a fun read.
Thanks for the references. As you say they seem clearly metaphorical, but I guess I can see how they could have contributed to the misconception, especially when American evangelicalism decided the whole book was literal.
I have read several of Chesterton's books, but I don't think I have ever gotten around to The Everlasting Man. Someday.
In the parent's post, Image does not refer to literal physical shape.
I'm not sure if that's what he/she meant or not.
That the God of the Bible doesn't look like a man or woman is clear from the below verse:
"Therefore, watch yourselves closely—since you did not see any form on the day [God] spoke to you...that you may not act corruptly by making for yourselves any carved image having the form of any symbol, the representation of male or female." - Deuteronomy 4:15-16
So, the injunction against creating an image that looked like a man or woman to represent God, would indicate that he does not physically look like a man or a woman.
You should try reading "The Greatest Show on Earth". It lays the overwhelming evidence for evolution out in stunning detail. It's absolutely incredible.
Also, Dawkins manages to stick to the facts and evidence and almost entirely avoid the religion bashing in this book, making it much more approachable for religious folks.
What was the evolutionary pressure that made us intelligent - could it be ranged attack?
First, what I'm calling the Geo-Fermi Paradox - why are we the only intelligent animal on Earth?
Sure, it has advantages - but other animals would gain those advantages too. So why didn't they become intelligent (or, at least, more intelligent) too?
Sure, there was climate-change in Africa that rewarded adaptivity - but why didn't all animals in the region become intelligent (or, at least, more intelligent)?
This article has a good argument for bipelalism (due to forests becoming plains). And an interesting argument for stone throwing (and not available to bipeds like ostriches and emus).
Throwing rewards spatial reasoning, providing an evolutionary pressure It's not clear to me that this would lead to intelligence - but maybe it did. (OTOH bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans, and capuchins throw too https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectile_use_by_non-human_organ...).
If we consider other hominids, we don't know exactly, but it seems we outcompeted them. If we consider more distant animals, because we converted the entire planet to provide for us much faster than they could evolve to catch up with us.
However, the pressure has to have been exerted before humans outcompeted other hominids. This might seem too obvious, but you can't have an effect preceding its cause.
I think that's the "we just happened to be first" argument. Which could be true, but not very satisfying, because no detail.
We didn't have to be first. Other primates might have picked up the rock before we did, but eventually lost the race. Maybe the fire-cooking, rock-throwing domesticating niche is just that competitive.
So it might be more like "we are the ones that remain", but yeah, either variant is a spin on the old weak anthropic principle, which is never quite satisfying.
And we do seem to have wiped out/outcompeted Neanderthals etc.
> fire-cooking, rock-throwing domesticating niche
Just knowing if that was the evolutionary pressure along the path would be enough for me (even if it could have been another ape or a corvid or whatever - or maybe they are on that path now?)
BTW Matt Ridley has the theory that division of labour (trade enabling specialization) was the gradient.
Just because there's no detail, or it's not satisfying, doesn't mean it's less likely.
> why are we the only intelligent animal on Earth?
The process is not stuck in time. If we disappeared, another ape (or some other animal) might get where we are eventually, through some other path.
I've been inclined to think it has something to do with communication and community-forming tendencies. It seems that a number of other species, including Octopuses and African Grey Parrots, have pretty significant intelligence for animals. Yet their greater intelligence than most other animals doesn't seem to get them a really game-changing advantage over them. Human intelligence, or perhaps communication and organization in combination with them, has given us a series of game-changing advantages in a row, so many that our civilization is utterly dominant over any area where we choose to be.
I believe there is some evidence to suggest that we have not always been the sole intelligent species on the planet.
Notably there is some speculation that Neanderthals were of equal or similar intelligence to early humans
Perhaps arguing semamtics, but Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal) were "human": could interbreed, and had Lucy etc as common ancestors.
This article glosses over it but I think the answer is cooking. Cooking took pressure off our digestive system which allowed us to stack it up vertically.
Richard Wrangham wrote a book on this "Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human"
I think that's a trong contender for biggest contributer.
Natural food was was less calorie dense back then. I wonder if we reached a point where we could consume the most calories per pound of our own body weight, and never looked back.
> why didn't all animals in the region become intelligent
Because humans took over that "being intelligent" niche and outcompeted everyone else who tried to capitalize on intelligence.
Speaking in Venture Capitalists language, humans "sucked the oxygen from the room".
> why are we the only intelligent animal on Earth?
Are other animals not intelligent? Are you sure we are intelligent?
I guess that the difference between apes and humans would be minuscule to the outside observer.
if you are interested I have good article for you listing some differences between humans and animals http://staffwww.dcs.shef.ac.uk/people/A.Sharkey/2008-darwin....
You can argue for their intelligence, but they can't argue for yours.
This is fascinating. Software can now simulate natural motion, including realistic bipedal walking animations that react to simulated forces while continuing to stay upright. I remember seeing this in Endorphin years ago and I believe these techniques are now used in games. What's interesting to me is that, we still don't exactly know how that works either! Genetic algorithms, deep neural networks, etc. are black boxes in the end.
Doesn't it have to do something with the "average" primate body plan? I really like highlighting the running aspect, since we truly seem to be record holders in endurance running, which was largely enabled by sweating. And since the primate body plan has upper limbs with significantly more freedom of motion compared to "running on 4" animals like deer, primates have to actively use many muscles to be able to put its weight on them (I am only familiar with the human skeleton in detail, but I assume primates have a similarly free scapula, while horses' are much more restricted, their first legs connect nearly vertically into it, making standing basically energetically free)
So, isn't bipedalism simply the energetically better way of locomotion for the primate body plan (look at other primates, they semi-walk on their lower limbs, only balancing with their hands - but they are not great at running and live mostly on trees so climbing is more important there)?
> [hunter-gatherers] ended up with bodies designed to do two somewhat contradictory things: to be active much of the time, but never to be more active than absolutely necessary.
I've found the most beneficial exercise for me is hours-long walks/rides, well within my comfort zone - much lower than the heart-rate reccommended. Partly because it's enjoyable.
I like the water ape theory. ie we had a period of time in our history where we spent a lot of time in low lying water that encouraged us to stand upright. There's a few things which point in this direction. iirc we're the only primate which can control its breath; good for swimming under water. Our fingers wrinkle when we spend time in water; good for picking things up in water. And we lost our hair; hair may have gotten caught on underwater objects drowning the hairiest amongst of us.
We have fairly poor fat insulation and we are hairless so it’s highly unlikely we have evolved in water.
Fur combined with skin oils is a great insulator as it is a hydrophobic surface in which air bubbles get trapped proving very good insulation.
Our skin is very porous and thin and gets soggy very quickly in water which makes it less grippy and weakens it.
We also have terrible physique for swimming (hence why we need to develop complex swimming techniques instead of just paddling) just to put it into perspective a deer can swim as fast as 15 mph, a polar bear can swim at about 7 mph for 10 hours the fastest human swimmer can swim at around 5mph and that’s for a 100m sprint, we have fairly poor buoyancy and a very weak diving reflex compared to other mammals and like most apes we are actually quite terrified of water naturally.
Our vision is also severely impacted by water, especially salt water and we have a very water ingress unfriendly nose-ear system.
The whole aquatic ape theory doesn’t make any sense it’s almost as crazy as the chimp fucked a pig theory.
Like seriously take pretty much any other non ape mammal and you’ll discover that they are so much better at swimming than humans that they might as well be fish compared to us even those who don’t look like they should be able to swim at all.
Like freaking mice have been observed swimming for 3 days straight.
Take into account that babies swim underwater without any training, and children can see under water in the ocean (I used to be able to). I'd say modern life has made us less water - friendly.
I also like the idea that consuming fish and shellfish contributed to our brain transformation, given omega 3 is highly beneficial for healthy brains.
Mammals swim other news in 10, we are terrible at it, babies have a pretty good buoyancy due to their mass to size ratio and fat percentage they however aren’t good swimmers what so ever and they don’t swim under water without training you can teach infants to swim but it’s not like they do freestyle out of the womb.
Shellfish have pretty much no omega 3 in them, cold water fish do which are hardly easy to catch in shallow waters.
Nuts and seed however are much richer in Omega 3 than most fish.
Again the aquatic ape theory does not stand up to any level of scrutiny pretty much any claim it makes can be disproven or attributed to other much likely factors it is pseudoscience in its purest form.
The truth is that AAH doesn't match the fossil record (or the fact that apes have been observed swimming even in the wild since it was proposed, the fact that in captivity apes develop similar or higher subcutaneous fat deposits to modern humans, and the average ape still has a higher body fat percentage than a human athlete).
Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) circa 3.5Ma was bipedal, Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 Ma was bipedal as well albeit with primitive features for the upper body, Ardipithecus ramidus which is about 4.5 Ma had both habitual tree and bipedal adaptations (e.g. could stand upright and likely walk pretty well but had opposable big toes for grabbing at branches).
The earliest clear signs of modern bipedalism (as in a walking gait similar to that of modern humans) is around 3.7 Ma and it's not a skeleton but rather the Laetoli Footprints in Tanzania.
For the most part we had direct and "in-direct" ancestors for about 5 million years with varying degree of bipedalism, we likely haven't been eating seafood at for more than 200-300,000 based on remains found at various sites.
Lastly Shellfish which would be the easiest food source for the shallow water Aquatic Ape is one of the most common food allergies with 3-4% of the population suffering from it, and it causes Anaphylaxis in almost every case unlike other allergies which vary in severity. If we count in seafood allergy in general which includes finned fish then about 2.5% of the adult population suffers from it.
It's quite unlikely that a common food source that impacted our evolutionary path so greatly would have a fairly deadly allergy tied to it.
On the other hand humans are not allergic to mammalian meat (unless they are bitten by a few species of a tick and develop and Alpha-gal allergy) at all, and only in extremely rare cases are allergic to poultry.
Seems like a stretch. We suck at swimming (compared to bears for speed or distance). The breath thing seems unlikely, polar bears for instance seem quite adept at swimming underwater. Hair doesn't seem an issue either, hair (assuming it's not knotted) doesn't easily catch on things, and hairy bears seem quite adept under water. Sure whales used to be hairy (and has some residual hair today), but that's more the lack of need than any lethal hair+water problem that kills them off before they reproduce.
I've seen numerous speculation on the finger wrinkles, possibly an adaption.... or possibly just happenstance. Sure today's fingers prune significantly, not sure they would do the same if heavily callused by a decade or two of hunter gathering for all your food. In any case it's not unique to humans, macaques have similar and I suspect it's noticed because they bathe. Couldn't find any information on other primates.
[edit for minor spelling/grammar tweaks]
Water ape theory doesn't suggest humans have to be great swimmers to survive at waterside areas. There's a lot of stuff to eat where the water is shallow as well as probably a ton of fruit on the trees near the coast. Bi-pedaling would help in spending a lot of time standing in the shallow waters looking down at river bottom. Humans nimble fingers help with finding and dealing with various shellfish that were probably crawling around in the bottom sludge.
The bulk of our hair is on the top of the head - the only place that would be burnt by the sun if you stay all day standing in shallow waters.
The shape of our nose (nostrils directed down) are made convenient to stand vertically without getting water into airways.
What is the picture of a paradise? A beach with a white sand, sun shining, clear blue water, lots of palm trees near the coast. This is because its our natural habitat. Not deep forests, not savannah. It's tropical beach!
If I was to be left alone and naked on an inhabited piece of land I would definitely choose a tropical beach out of all untouched locations on the planet, because it is the most likely place where I would be able to survive.
No we aren’t the best mammals at swimming but, definitely the best primates. And I think the argument is that the theoretical aquatic ape spent much more time in water than the typical bear.
I like the water ape theory in the romantic sense, but it's important to remember that it's pseudo science.
It's fun to think of the ramifications though. Are/can we look for human fossils in the right places? How much of our history is potentially under water and not African caves. Did it help spur fire usage so that we could safely eat fish? Did it influence the out of Africa migration which was mostly coastal (we got to Australia before Europe)?
It probably didn't affect our evolution much but I suspect a lot more of our pre-history was spent at least on the shallow ocean than we have evidence for.
All mammals have the mammalian diving reflex. I think birds have it too. I suspect it goes all the way back to the first walking fish.
mammalian dive reflex https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_reflex seems common to mammals - is there really an exception for apes?
BTW Apparently out of favour, but I like the aquatic ape theory too. Shellfish are high protein, support brain development; coastal settlements found.
Except we really suck at swimming
That's fine. We were finding food in shallow waters, 1-2 meters deep.
It would be more difficult to use tools if we had to use all members for locomotion. The ones who started walking straight got an advantage for being able to fight with spears and bows.
But the spears and bows did not come along until well after the walking upright. We know that from the fossil and archeological record.
Of course, it's still possible that those who could walk upright could throw stones better I suppose? So the fundamental idea of tool use has merit. But the tools would have been far more primitive than spears and bows. And still, the walking would likely have happened before the stone throwing, so there's still a little uncertainty even with the idea that it helped us with primitive tool use.
I think it's probably more that you could see predators better and get a head start for the tree. But I have no data to back that up, it's just my gut hunch.
That's not totally true. We really have no record of anything except carved stone tools and pottery, because wood degrades. We have no real idea when humans started using wooden tools like spears.
Sure, there must have been a bootstraping effect, where a little better tools promoted 2 leg mobility a little, which promoted yet better tools and so on.
persistence hunt https://youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o
Never been especially convinced by the endurance hunting theory, as dogs are far better at it than we are, with much greater endurance. So why no bipedal Fido?
Because the dog or cat would need vast incremental changes to body plan, while a tree ape does not need too much.
> Most large animals can’t run for more than about nine miles before they drop.
Feels like they are implying something here ... Can't figure out if I'm offended
i genuinely have no idea what you are suggesting. can you elaborate?
it's a joke. I'm an animal who would drop if I ran 9 miles.
Are you large?
Larger than I'd like! Let's say I'm of medium height but sometimes wear size L shirts.
And some animals still use archaic unit systems.
I think it’s because some animals still use archaic legislative systems.
> The young and gracile protohuman famously known as Lucy... was hardly the sort of presence to intimidate a lion or cheetah.
And look at us now
I do. I'm just not telling.
But quite a lot of birds walk, and a lot more of their dinosarian relatives did. Ostriches and emus favor it, when they are not running. Faster than we can.
Orangutans do it too, though not very often.
Birds (especially large birds) inherited a long line of large, fast-moving, bipedal predator ancestors. We don't really have that; primates evolved ~55Mya, and before that we were mostly rodent-ish animals which depended on being small and hidden to survive rather than running fast or long distances.
There's a lot to be said for parallel/convergent evolution, but it's certainly not hard & fast rule.
So do bears, and even dogs & cats can walk. Not well, but acceptably.
Wonder no more.
Genesis 1:26-27 ESV
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
I'm a Christian, but I don't think that passage means human biology is based on God's.
God the Father is clearly not in a physical form throughout the Bible. I believe that's why "graven images" are forbidden in the Ten Commandments, as they'd mislead people into thinking of him as a physical being. God the Father as depicted in the Bible is closer to an omnipresent, omniscient mind that runs the universe as a simulation inside itself and occasionally talks to entities inside the simulation through avatars, dreams, and visions.
Rather, I think "in his own image" there refers to sapience, self-awareness, and creativity - what is called elsewhere in Scripture "the breath of God".
Much of what makes the Incarnation of Christ so meaningful is precisely that God is made man, with hands, feet, head, and heart. He is Emannuel, "God with us," come to debug and repair the system we broke from within, knowing our suffering and giving us the knowledge and strength to help repair it ourselves.
That all loses a lot of its meaning if God the Father is just a big man on a throne in a cloud somewhere (an image that I have never found anywhere in the text and am puzzled as to where it came from). He was always just one of us if that's the case.
So, yeah. Despite apparently sharing your fundamental beliefs about the world, I think you're way off base about why humans walk.
The image of God as a big man in the clouds comes from two sources: Renaissance paintings and The Simpsons. I'm not kidding. I've thought a lot about this.
Another "in his image" interpretation I've heard is that it's something of a mistranslation. That it's more like "in his imagination" or "he imagined/conceived us" than "we look like him." That's the one I've always gone by, but I like your take too.
Surprisingly, you are right about the Renaissance paintings. Orthodox Christian icons almost never depict him. The so-alled Pantokrator icons depict regnant Jesus, the Son.
I found two verses in which a throne and clouds are related to God: Psalm 97:2 - "Clouds and darkness surround Him; Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne." Job 26:9 - "He covers the face of His throne, And spreads His cloud over it." Of course, I'd think that "throne" is used to evoke the idea of sovereignty rather than a literal throne. There's also the whole of Revelation—I won't try to interpret in a mere comment—but includes plenty of thrones and clouds such as in Revelation 14:14. And you can also find the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7:9-22
At the beginning of this post (starting from Begin digression), there's an exploration of anthropomorphic metaphors that might interest you: http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/god-and-time-iv-impassibility...
Also, have you read The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton? It has some ideas found in your comment regarding the Incarnation and it is overall a fun read.
Thanks for the references. As you say they seem clearly metaphorical, but I guess I can see how they could have contributed to the misconception, especially when American evangelicalism decided the whole book was literal.
I have read several of Chesterton's books, but I don't think I have ever gotten around to The Everlasting Man. Someday.
Now no one knows why god can walk.
In the parent's post, Image does not refer to literal physical shape.
I'm not sure if that's what he/she meant or not.
That the God of the Bible doesn't look like a man or woman is clear from the below verse:
"Therefore, watch yourselves closely—since you did not see any form on the day [God] spoke to you...that you may not act corruptly by making for yourselves any carved image having the form of any symbol, the representation of male or female." - Deuteronomy 4:15-16
So, the injunction against creating an image that looked like a man or woman to represent God, would indicate that he does not physically look like a man or a woman.
That's no doubt why it says, "you saw now form"
Well because back when God was a man, he was made in the image of his God, who walked.
or why an omnipresent being would need to.
I don't think the God of the Bible is omnipresent, no?
Reference: https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/god-omnipres...
The mainline Christian denominations disagree with the Jehovah's Witnesses on that point (and many others - [preachy] overview: https://biblereasons.com/christianity-vs-jehovah-witness/).
You should try reading "The Greatest Show on Earth". It lays the overwhelming evidence for evolution out in stunning detail. It's absolutely incredible.
Also, Dawkins manages to stick to the facts and evidence and almost entirely avoid the religion bashing in this book, making it much more approachable for religious folks.
> So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him
That refers to free will (which humans have, but animals do not), not physical shape.
Too hard to chew gum crawling on all fours
It’s cause they learn when they are a small baby, so that they can get around.