Mystery solved. How and why human ancestors became upright.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, you have proof that hominids used sharpened sticks? No, you don't. So your house of cards is made up exclusively of jokers.

That's true, but it applies to any hypothesis. If you have direct evidence that proves something, it becomes theory.
Hypothesis applies to ideas that are argued, and only supported by circumstantial evidence.
.

Sigh. If you have a hypothesis that can't be proven it's just words.

[mistermack]

Sigh. If you have a hypothesis that can't be proven it's just words.

Right again. It is just words. That applies to any hypothesis. Of course, the whole origin of species by natural selection was just words, once. Darwin turned out to be right. I might turn out to be wrong.
It's just an idea, there to be criticised, that's fine by me.
I wouldn't bet my life on it, but I don't see any better explanation out there at the moment.
And plenty of very well qualified people have tried, without proof, so I don't accept that there is anything wrong in me offering an hypothesis.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sigh. If you have a hypothesis that can't be proven it's just words.

Right again. It is just words. That applies to any hypothesis. Of course, the whole origin of species by natural selection was just words, once. Darwin turned out to be right. I might turn out to be wrong.
It's just an idea, there to be criticised, that's fine by me.
I wouldn't bet my life on it, but I don't see any better explanation out there at the moment.
And plenty of very well qualified people have tried, without proof, so I don't accept that there is anything wrong in me offering an hypothesis.
.

The point is that some hypotheses have been proven, as you yourself said a few posts back.. Yours CAN'T be proven. So you're refuting yourself.

[GenesForLife]

To qualify as a hypothesis, a postulate designed to explain something must make testable predictions and have a clause of falifiability (usually done by showing that the postulate doesn't hold) , in case a hypothesis isn't falsified AND has evidential support, it is considered scientific fact, suitable for introduction into a theory.

[mistermack]

The point is that some hypotheses have been proven, as you yourself said a few posts back.. Yours CAN'T be proven. So you're refuting yourself.

Not true. Mine can't be proven AT THE MOMENT.
If a new set of footprints turned up tomorrow, with drag marks and imprints where a human ancestor rested a stick he was carrying, it would be pretty good evidence.
Or if a skull of an ardipithecus turned up, with a neat circular hole in it, that would help too. It still wouldn't be proved, but it would much more likely.
Something along those lines is not inconcievable, but pretty unlikely.
This stufff is so rare, the chances are low. But it's not right to say it's impossible to prove. Like all this stuff, it would take a lot of luck.

.

[GenesForLife]

The point is that some hypotheses have been proven, as you yourself said a few posts back.. Yours CAN'T be proven. So you're refuting yourself.

Not true. Mine can't be proven AT THE MOMENT.

In which case it cannot count as a proper explanation for why it was a selectable trait yet.

If a new set of footprints turned up tomorrow, with drag marks and imprints where a human ancestor rested a stick he was carrying, it would be pretty good evidence.
Or if a skull of an ardipithecus turned up, with a neat circular hole in it, that would help too. It still wouldn't be proved, but it would much more likely.

how much more likelier is much more likely? What are the odds of finding such a thing because it was being dragged along as a weapon as opposed to dragged along for some other, non-selective purpose?

Something along those lines is not inconcievable, but pretty unlikely.
This stufff is so rare, the chances are low. But it's not right to say it's impossible to prove. Like all this stuff, it would take a lot of luck.

.

The mystery is hardly solved , then.

[mistermack]

To qualify as a hypothesis, a postulate designed to explain something must make testable predictions and have a clause of falifiability (usually done by showing that the postulate doesn't hold) , in case a hypothesis isn't falsified AND has evidential support, it is considered scientific fact, suitable for introduction into a theory.

I'm only interested in the idea, not what to call it.
Few people in the field of human evolution have a problem with the aquatic ape hypothesis being termed a hypothesis, even though they wholeheartedly disagree with the arguments, and conclusions.
The Savannah hypothesis was widely being referred to as Savannah theory, without any hard evidence.
I'm happy with the word hypothesis, personally. It compares perfectly well to other "hypotheses" in the same field.
.
.

[GenesForLife]

Then I suggest you propose it, formally

You may want to prepare a paper and submit it to the journal Bioscience Hypotheses.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The point is that some hypotheses have been proven, as you yourself said a few posts back.. Yours CAN'T be proven. So you're refuting yourself.

Not true. Mine can't be proven AT THE MOMENT.
If a new set of footprints turned up tomorrow, with drag marks and imprints where a human ancestor rested a stick he was carrying, it would be pretty good evidence.

That humans carried sticks.

Or if a skull of an ardipithecus turned up, with a neat circular hole in it, that would help too.

It's already been proven that humans have holes in their heads. And when you get a "neat circular hole" from a sharpened stick, call me, I wanna take videos.

It still wouldn't be proved, but it would much more likely.
Something along those lines is not inconcievable, but pretty unlikely.
This stufff is so rare, the chances are low. But it's not right to say it's impossible to prove. Like all this stuff, it would take a lot of luck.

.

You fail at imagining proof.

[mistermack]

In which case it cannot count as a proper proven explanation for why it was a selectable trait yet.


how much more likelier is much more likely? What are the odds of finding such a thing because it was being dragged along as a weapon as opposed to dragged along for some other, non-selective purpose?

The mystery is hardly solved , then.

That would be for the world to decide. I would want more myself, but I would find it encouraging, and so would many others, I believe.
The mystery isn't solved, but I do like a punchy title to my threads.
.

[mistermack]

Just a comment about where the current state of our knowledge stands.
Human ancestors became upright six million years ago. They DID eventually move into highly dangerous Savannah environments.
They were 1.5 meters tall, slow runners, with small canine teeth.
Are we to believe that they didn't use even a stick to defend themselves, till 185,000 years ago? ( the date of the Lehringen spears ).
So they survived with little protection for about six million years. If you insist that no evidence means no weapons, that's what you are saying.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The reason humans learned to walk upright was that their mothers nagged them about walking stooped over.


Prove I'm wrong.

[mistermack]

The reason humans learned to walk upright was that their mothers nagged them about walking stooped over.
Prove I'm wrong.

I'm not sure that evolution itself has been proved yet. There is overwhelming evidence. When does overwhelming evidence become proof?
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The reason humans learned to walk upright was that their mothers nagged them about walking stooped over.
Prove I'm wrong.

I'm not sure that evolution itself has been proved yet. There is overwhelming evidence. When does overwhelming evidence become proof?
.

That's why your OP is fucked up, you don't have any idea what evolution is about.

[mistermack]

Then I suggest you propose it, formally

You may want to prepare a paper and submit it to the journal Bioscience Hypotheses.

They're dead. Like our subject matter.
But more recent.
.