Mystery solved. How and why human ancestors became upright.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Which did humans do more, fight or gather food?

It's not so much what you do more of, it's what affects your ability to sire offspring.
Fighting and becoming dominant gives a better chance of that. That's why Chimps and Gorillas have huge canines, and long jaws, they are a fighting weapon, which we lost.
.

Eating has an effect on your ability to sire offspring, mistermack.

[mistermack]

But the evidence shows bipedal walking was the earliest adaptation of humans. No evidence of weapons come 'til much later.

True. But sticks and all-wooden spears would just rot away. The earliest spears on record are about 185,000 years old. But we MUST have had them long before that.
They just don't fossilise like bone, there are too many wood-consuming insects and moulds.
.

[mistermack]

Eating has an effect on your ability to sire offspring, mistermack.

That's true, but being dominant actually means you get first choice of the food, and can keep the others from stealing it from you.
The dominant male is usually the best-fed.
.

[Animavore]

The earliest fossils show that we were walking on two feet before we lost our canines and tree-climbing was something retained in early hominds until the first Homos arrived on the scene. So that sort of casts doubt on the fact that we stopped climbing trees because we couldn't carry weapons up there and that we started carrying weapons because we lost our canines.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Eating has an effect on your ability to sire offspring, mistermack.

That's true, but being dominant actually means you get first choice of the food, and can keep the others from stealing it from you.
The dominant male is usually the best-fed.
.

And how often did the dominant group member become dominant via being upright? You don't know.

[Trolldor]

No, he does not, nor will he ever.
Science is not his strong suit.

If I had direct evidence, I would be posting it somewhere else. It's a hypothesis for discussion.
.

"Mystery Solved" is not the term applied to a hypothesis.

[mistermack]

The earliest fossils show that we were walking on two feet before we lost our canines and tree-climbing was something retained in early hominds until the first Homos arrived on the scene. So that sort of casts doubt on the fact that we stopped climbing trees because we couldn't carry weapons up there and that we started carrying weapons because we lost our canines.

Actually, losing the canines and some sign of bipedalism seem to coincide fairly well in most fossils. It's very blurry, but looking at it over millions of years, it's about the same time.
You might have some species going backwards and forwards, before the bipedalism was irreversible.
I don't think we ever STOPPED climbing trees. We just became worse at it. Slower, less nimble. And more favouring the arms, as the legs became less use.

I think we lost our canines, because if you're fighting with sticks or spears, a male with big canines would no longer intimidate so much, or have such an advantage, and a male with small canines would stand more chance of achieving dominance with a weapon in his hands.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

(S)WAG. (Being kind with the S there.)

[mistermack]

Eating has an effect on your ability to sire offspring, mistermack.

That's true, but being dominant actually means you get first choice of the food, and can keep the others from stealing it from you.
The dominant male is usually the best-fed.
.

And how often did the dominant group member become dominant via being upright? You don't know.

Of course not. I'm only hypothesising.
.

[mistermack]

No, he does not, nor will he ever.
Science is not his strong suit.

If I had direct evidence, I would be posting it somewhere else. It's a hypothesis for discussion.
.

"Mystery Solved" is not the term applied to a hypothesis.

I know. It's dramatic licence.
.

[Trolldor]

I think we lost our canines, because if you're fighting with sticks or spears, a male with big canines would no longer intimidate so much, or have such an advantage, and a male with small canines would stand more chance of achieving dominance with a weapon in his hands.

...wut?

No, just no. Weapons didn't arise till long after we were bipedal, with the exception of perhaps throwing stones.

[mistermack]

I think we lost our canines, because if you're fighting with sticks or spears, a male with big canines would no longer intimidate so much, or have such an advantage, and a male with small canines would stand more chance of achieving dominance with a weapon in his hands.

...wut?

No, just no. Weapons didn't arise till long after we were bipedal, with the exception of perhaps throwing stones.

Interesting hypothesis. Where's your evidence?
.

[Trolldor]

...oh dear gods.

You're speaking of spears, so I presume you mean fashioned weapons.

As a start, the BBC series "walking with" is a great introduction to the basics of human history.

[mistermack]

...oh dear gods.

You're speaking of spears, so I presume you mean fashioned weapons.

As a start, the BBC series "walking with" is a great introduction to the basics of human history.

It's hardly science though. Did you know that chimpanzees have been observed making spears, and killing bushbabies with them? Or beating each other senseless with big sticks? It's hardly something our ancestors COULDN'T have done.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

...oh dear gods.

You're speaking of spears, so I presume you mean fashioned weapons.

As a start, the BBC series "walking with" is a great introduction to the basics of human history.

Walking upright may have allowed the caregiver to have one hand free while looking after an infant while gathering food. The "folks" that did better at gathering food may have had an edge in the survival game.