Mystery solved. How and why human ancestors became upright.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, dude, tell me how he KNOWS it was a spear and not a spit. Easy question.

Look it up yourself, if it means that much to you. Do your own research.
It amazes me that you seem quite prepared to accept that they had barbecue technology, but hadn't mastered using a spear.
If you ask me which came first, the barbecue or the spear, I would personally have to guess it was the spear, but of course, barbecue evidence is thin.
I'm looking forward to reading your barcecue hypothesis, though.
.

Fail.

[mistermack]

The oldest tools on record are the Oldowan stone tools, beginning with simple choppers, a deliberately broken pebble, with a sharp edge, which date to 2.6mya. But what if stone decayed? We would know nothing of any of this stone technology that stayed unchanged for a million years. I'm saying the same applies to wood.
However, even though stone doesn't decay, we shouldn't assume that the oldest we find is the earliest there was.

Dates and ranges
The oldest currently known Oldowan tools have been found in Gona, Ethiopia and are dated to about 2.6 mya.[4] New discoveries may push that date further back in time.

These tools should not be regarded as evidence of the first use of tools. The use of tools in apes, like chimpanzees[5] and orang-utans[6] can be used to argue in favour of tool-use as an ancestral feature of the hominin family. Tools were therefore in all probability used before the Oldowan.[7] Oldowan stone tools are simply the oldest recognisable tools, presumably manufactured by species in the hominin family.

This is what wikipedia says re Oldowan choppers and wood :

Heavy-duty tools could be used for woodworking, in the function of an axe. Both choppers and large flakes were probably used for this purpose. Once a branch was separated, it could be scraped clean with a scraper, or hollowed with the pointed tools. Such uses are attested by characteristic microscopic alterations of edges used to scrape wood.

I find it frankly unbelievable that woodworking was going on, without the the manufacture of a simple spear. In reality, a spear, along with a digging stick, (or dual-use stick) was probably the ONLY wooden item being made at the time.
I think this clearly dates spear use to 2.6 mya. at least.
So the realistic options are, either we began using spears at some point between 6 and 2.6 mya, and became upright for some unknown reason, OR, we started using spears about 6mya, and that led to bipedalism.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I find it frankly unbelievable that woodworking was going on, without the the manufacture of a simple spear.

Appeal to incredulity.

[Trolldor]

"I think this clearly" does not translate to 'evidence'.

Please, try again. Actually provide substance both that there was fashioned weaponry AND that fashioned weaponry was the key component to forcing our ancestors to adopt a bipedal position - despite all the benefits it provided for security, intimidation and conservation of energy.

[Rob]

The problem with the way you are going about this is the primary reason for criticism. You put forth an idea and then fail to provide any supporting evidence other than stating that there is nothing to disprove your hypothesis. However, there are several other ideas that explain the development of bipedalism, such as Nancy Tanner's idea of nurturing infants being a candidate for the development. These other hypothesis have much more development, supporting evidence and overall scientific support. Your idea could potentially be correct but without development, you should not be taken seriously in an academic stage, a forum or on the side walk preaching your ideas.

For the record the idea that weapons played a part in bipedalism is not new by any stretch of the imagination. There are papers on it. As you so kindly put to Gawdzilla, I will leave you to find those sources.

[mistermack]

The problem with the way you are going about this is the primary reason for criticism

Criticism is the whole idea mate.

You put forth an idea and then fail to provide any supporting evidence other than stating that there is nothing to disprove your hypothesis.

I don't recall saying that. And I don't see any point in padding it out. If it's too contrived, I'm going to be just as cynical as anybody else. If the evidence is thin, it's thin. I know it's thin. That's why it's here, on Rationalia, for peoples amusement.
On evidence, I would just point out that nobody else has any better evidence, for any other hypothesis. It's thin for everyone.

However, there are several other ideas that explain the development of bipedalism, such as Nancy Tanner's idea of nurturing infants being a candidate for the development.

It's an idea. I personally find it extremely contrived, but if you're so strict on the evidence, perhaps you can quote the quality evidence she uses.

These other hypothesis have much more development, supporting evidence and overall scientific support.

See above about padding it out. There is loads of "evidence" I could stretch, if I felt like it. You end up with something like the aquatic ape. And how the fuck does "scientific support" make something more likely?

Your idea could potentially be correct but without development, you should not be taken seriously in an academic stage, a forum or on the side walk preaching your ideas.

See above about padding it out. And you seem to be confusing debating something with preaching. I wrote earlier it wasn't something I would put my life on. It's a SUGGESTION, an hypothesis. When did that become preaching?

For the record the idea that weapons played a part in bipedalism is not new by any stretch of the imagination. There are papers on it. As you so kindly put to Gawdzilla, I will leave you to find those sources.

I've read Raymond Darts stuff. It INVOLVED weapons, but not spears. And the basic hypothesis was about HUNTING. And Gawdzilla was asking me for a technical answer on a study I didn't take part in. I just posted a photo of a spear tip. I can't give him that info, he'll have to look it up.

As far as development goes, I only posted a quick summary. There is more.
I ought to say that I did send out a summary, quite some time ago, to various professors at leading centres for anthropology, including the Natural History Museum, London, and EVERY SINGLE ONE replied, found it an interesting suggestion, and said things like the idea has merit, and should be developed, BUT pointed out it would be difficult to confirm with evidence.
Nothing I didn't already know, but a bit of a contrast to some of the replies on here. But although it was nice, it wouldn't matter what they said, nothing would make this more likely, only evidence.
At the moment, I can only point to evidence that POINTS IN THE SAME DIRECTION, not evidence that this IS WHAT HAPPENED.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"There is a possibility that" is the best you can say.

[mistermack]

"There is a possibility that" is the best you can say.

That's right. I make the case for it. Others can point out inconsistencies, contradictions, problems, ect. and I appreciate their interest.

I already know what the evidence is, and what is not, so perhaps I'm over cantankerous when people say there is no direct evidence. I've been aware of that for several years.
Lacking that, you just look at what matches, what points elsewhere, and make your own mind up.

I am convinced that the use of the spear is HUGELY underrated, as an event in human history. It totally reversed the balance of power between us, and rivals and predators, and potential prey. This is something that only happens to other species over tens or hundreds of millions of years.
And I think that that would hold true, even if sticks and spears didn't cause bipedality.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"There is a possibility that" is the best you can say.

That's right. I make the case for it. Others can point out inconsistencies, contradictions, problems, ect. and I appreciate their interest.

I already know what the evidence is, and what is not, so perhaps I'm over cantankerous when people say there is no direct evidence. I've been aware of that for several years.
Lacking that, you just look at what matches, what points elsewhere, and make your own mind up.

I am convinced that the use of the spear is HUGELY underrated, as an event in human history. It totally reversed the balance of power between us, and rivals and predators, and potential prey. This is something that only happens to other species over tens or hundreds of millions of years.
And I think that that would hold true, even if sticks and spears didn't cause bipedality.
.

The point is you didn't make a case for it, you just stated a possibility and some WAGs.

[mistermack]

The point is you didn't make a case for it, you just stated a possibility and some WAGs.

That's your opinion. As usual, it doesn't add much to anything. I have had intelligent comments on this thread, but you don't seem to bother. Is there a problem?
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The point is you didn't make a case for it, you just stated a possibility and some WAGs.

That's your opinion. As usual, it doesn't add much to anything. I have had intelligent comments on this thread, but you don't seem to bother. Is there a problem?
.

I'm terse and blunt. You can put me on the foe list if that bothers you.

As for your proposal, it was lame.

[mistermack]

I'm terse and blunt. You can put me on the foe list if that bothers you.

As for your proposal, it was lame.

I don't make lists. If I did, I would have to start a sad list, just for you.
There is a subject to be debated. And your best effort is "it was lame".
I could get more informed comment from primary children.
But like I said, I'm convinced by evidence. Write something of value, and I take it all back.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If you don't want to put me on your foe list, QUIT BITCHING WHEN I POINT OUT YOU SAID SOMETHING STUPID.

[mistermack]

If you don't want to put me on your foe list, QUIT BITCHING WHEN I POINT OUT YOU SAID SOMETHING STUPID.

I don't have a list. And I'm not bitching, I'm just pointing out that if you can't make a SPECIFIC criticism, it's just meaningless bullshit.
.

[mistermack]

I've argued this before. The stick transformed humans from four legged ape to large brained human (apes). Carrying a stick made it safe to stay on the ground, and gave an advantage to the more bipedal apes.
And when they started sharpening the sticks, it became a devastating weapon that favoured the most nimble, two footed, quick witted apes.
This evolutionary pressure led to the eventual emergence of modern man.
So nothing will ever match the effect that the stick has had.
.