Evolution, Bipedalism, and Precision Throwing in Hominids

[Primum Sapienti]

http://www.ijlera.com/papers/v9-i6/3.202406681A.pdf
International Journal of Latest Engineering
Research and Applications (IJLERA) ISSN: 2455-7137
Volume – 09, Issue – 06, June 2024, PP – 15-21


Abstract:
The evolution of powerful and precise throwing
developed a means of defense and attack that
enabled hominins to colonize the savanna,
occupy a new ecological niche, and become
hunter-gatherers, essentially becoming humans.
The first achievement occurred when the
bipedalism and hand structure of
Australopithecus allowed for throwing that
was powerful and precise enough to defend
against predators when venturing into open
fields to exploit resources. Subsequently,
the precision grip and more complex motor
skills in H. habilis developed throwing as a
means to compete, at least occasionally, for
carrion with savanna predators, similar to
how Hadza women use wooden digging sticks to
drive off a leopard from its fresh kill.
Finally, H. ergaster specialized in throwing,
acquiring the most favorable anthropometry
for maximum performance, with modifications
in the glenohumeral joint, longer legs,
shorter forearms, and optimal weight and
height, which made it a hunter-gatherer of
the savanna and its Homo descendants
colonizers of all the Earth's emergent lands.


"The powerful one-handed throwing of
relatively light objects reaches its
pinnacle in athletic competitions, where we
see burly men and women throwing javelins,
hammers, discs, or shots to record distances
unmatched by any other animal. This ability
is unique to Homo sapiens, as no other
animal can perform this action with such
power."

[Pandora]

Post by Primum Sapienti
http://www.ijlera.com/papers/v9-i6/3.202406681A.pdf
International Journal of Latest Engineering
Research and Applications (IJLERA) ISSN: 2455-7137
Volume – 09, Issue – 06, June 2024, PP – 15-21
The evolution of powerful and precise throwing
developed a means of defense and attack that
enabled hominins to colonize the savanna,
occupy a new ecological niche, and become
hunter-gatherers, essentially becoming humans.
The first achievement occurred when the
bipedalism and hand structure of
Australopithecus allowed for throwing that
was powerful and precise enough to defend
against predators when venturing into open
fields to exploit resources. Subsequently,
the precision grip and more complex motor
skills in H. habilis developed throwing as a
means to compete, at least occasionally, for
carrion with savanna predators, similar to
how Hadza women use wooden digging sticks to
drive off a leopard from its fresh kill.
Finally, H. ergaster specialized in throwing,
acquiring the most favorable anthropometry
for maximum performance, with modifications
in the glenohumeral joint, longer legs,
shorter forearms, and optimal weight and
height, which made it a hunter-gatherer of
the savanna and its Homo descendants
colonizers of all the Earth's emergent lands.
"The powerful one-handed throwing of
relatively light objects reaches its
pinnacle in athletic competitions, where we
see burly men and women throwing javelins,
hammers, discs, or shots to record distances
unmatched by any other animal. This ability
is unique to Homo sapiens, as no other
animal can perform this action with such
power."

Psst, don't mention the savanna hypothesis.

[JTEM]

Post by Primum Sapienti
The evolution of powerful and precise throwing
developed a means of defense and attack that
enabled hominins to colonize the savanna,
occupy a new ecological niche, and become
hunter-gatherers, essentially becoming humans.

Are we pretending that a savanna environment is what
typifies Homo?

This is literally dogma. One sentence in and we have
a massive circular "Argument" posed in the defense of
Out of Africa purity.

And you wonder why all the intelligent people have
abandoned it?

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

Post by Primum Sapienti
The evolution of powerful and precise throwing
developed a means of defense and attack that
enabled hominins to colonize the savanna,
occupy a new ecological niche, and become
hunter-gatherers, essentially becoming humans.

Are we pretending that a savanna environment is what
typifies Homo?
This is literally dogma. One sentence in and we have
a massive circular "Argument" posed in the defense of
Out of Africa purity.
And you wonder why all the intelligent people have
abandoned it?

I was thinking about African savanna lately. As I am seeing it,
African Savanna (as compared to Euro-Asian steppe, which, of course
formed only after the last glacial period, I presume) could form only
because of being depleted of people. Savanna, simply, is too far inland
from the sources of salt. But, savanna, originally, emerged in Europe,
north Mediterranean, Vallesian crisis (officially 9.75 mya, I just
glanced through Agusti at al. 2013 paper about the subject, but I see
that they found such environment, with Hipparion horses, 11.5 mya, in
Vienna basin). Bipedal apes emerged in the very same environment.

[JTEM]

        I was thinking about African savanna lately. As I am seeing it,
African Savanna (as compared to Euro-Asian steppe, which, of course
formed only after the last glacial period, I presume) could form only
because of being depleted of people. Savanna, simply, is too far inland
from the sources of salt. But, savanna, originally, emerged in Europe,
north Mediterranean, Vallesian crisis (officially 9.75 mya, I just
glanced through Agusti at al. 2013 paper about the subject, but I see
that they found such environment, with Hipparion horses, 11.5 mya, in
Vienna basin). Bipedal apes emerged in the very same environment.

Ridiculous!

The savanna is the least capable of supporting biodiversity.

The population is at it's smallest on the savanna. There's much higher
biodiversity in the forest. Any population that learned to exploit the
sea, and I don't even mean they had to build fishing polls here, could
support an even higher population density/biodiversity than could the
forest.

You can argue something of a reverse selection, where a shift to the
savanna put enormous pressures on a population, because it couldn't
support as many mouths to feed, so any little advantage could
persevere. But if that's half the answer than it's the smaller half,
as it doesn't move our ancestors across the globe or grow them larger
brains...

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         I was thinking about African savanna lately. As I am seeing
it, African Savanna (as compared to Euro-Asian steppe, which, of
course formed only after the last glacial period, I presume) could
form only because of being depleted of people. Savanna, simply, is too
far inland from the sources of salt. But, savanna, originally, emerged
in Europe, north Mediterranean, Vallesian crisis (officially 9.75 mya,
I just glanced through Agusti at al. 2013 paper about the subject, but
I see that they found such environment, with Hipparion horses, 11.5
mya, in Vienna basin). Bipedal apes emerged in the very same environment.

Ridiculous!
The savanna is the least capable of supporting biodiversity.
The population is at it's smallest on the savanna. There's much higher
biodiversity in the forest. Any population that learned to exploit the
sea, and I don't even mean they had to build fishing polls here, could
support an even higher population density/biodiversity than could the
forest.
You can argue something of a reverse selection, where a shift to the
savanna put enormous pressures on a population, because it couldn't
support as many mouths to feed, so any little advantage could
persevere. But if that's half the answer than it's the smaller half,
as it doesn't move our ancestors across the globe or grow them larger
brains...

I don't know what you are talking about, of course jungle has higher
diversity, it isn't the problem in diversity. It is the problem that I
have hard time to find in Euroasia wild animals that we have in savanna.
They are all domesticated. Compare zebras to horses. In Asia even
elephants are domesticated.
See this:
India (subcontinent) - 1,710,000 sq miles, 1.9 million people, GDP per
capita roughly the same as in Africa
Africa (continent) - 11,730,000 sq miles, 1.4 million people, GDP per
capita $ 2,180
Europe (continent) - 3,930,000 sq miles, 0.75 million people, GDP per
capita $ 34,230
I would think about this.

[JTEM]

        I don't know what you are talking about

You're being modest. There's *Lots* of things you don't know,
and you make that clear most every day.

of course jungle has
higher diversity, it isn't the problem in diversity.

Actually, it is. Because the most common result of heavy
"Natural" pressures is extinction. A population has to have
the genetic capacity -- diversity -- to change, adapt. If
it lacks it, which in the vast majority of cases it does,
it goes extinct.

It is the problem
that I have hard time to find in Euroasia wild animals that we have in
savanna.

So?

They are all domesticated.

What happened, and continues to happen today is that domesticated
pigs escape, go feral, and breed with the wild boars. This does
not stop. It's a slow trickle (sometimes a very fast trickle) of
DNA from the domesticated pig over time. It's not an all at once
replacement, or it wasn't, but it was a replacement of sorts.

Compare zebras to horses. In Asia
even elephants are domesticated.

Now you're getting into the arguments of racists. Well the truth
is that African elephants tend to be more aggressive than Eurasian,
harder to tame. I've read it claimed that Mammoths were likely as
aggressive as African elephants, at least the males. Which may
be why they were never domesticated.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

of course jungle has higher diversity, it isn't the problem in diversity.

Actually, it is. Because the most common result of heavy
"Natural" pressures is extinction. A population has to have
the genetic capacity -- diversity -- to change, adapt. If
it lacks it, which in the vast majority of cases it does,
it goes extinct.

Adapt to what? Every animal is adapted to niche. A jaguar will not
adapt to eat grass. There is a niche in nature. See fossa. Animals
speciate. Like, we have tigers in India, and lions in Africa. We also
have mountain lions. Mountain lions adapted to cold places, did this
make lions extinct? I can explain my views on sabre toothed cats (which
went extinct once humans got boats), but you will not believe me.

Post by JTEM

It is the problem that I have hard time to find in Euroasia wild
animals that we have in savanna.

So?

They are all domesticated.

What happened, and continues to happen today is that domesticated
pigs escape, go feral, and breed with the wild boars. This does
not stop. It's a slow trickle (sometimes a very fast trickle) of
DNA from the domesticated pig over time. It's not an all at once
replacement, or it wasn't, but it was a replacement of sorts.

Compare zebras to horses. In Asia even elephants are domesticated.

Now you're getting into the arguments of racists. Well the truth
is that African elephants tend to be more aggressive than Eurasian,
harder to tame. I've read it claimed that Mammoths were likely as
aggressive as African elephants, at least the males. Which may
be why they were never domesticated.

It is not only elephants, it is a lot of animals. The situation in
India and Africa is completely different, it isn't the same. After all,
see tigers and lions. See zebras and horses. You say zebras are more
aggressive than horses. Of course, horses are domesticated.

[JTEM]

        Adapt to what? Every animal is adapted to niche. A jaguar will
not adapt to eat grass.

Common Descent means that the common ancestor to the jaguar and the
goat did adapt to eat one or the other.

The goat eats grass, the jaguar eats meat... what did their LCA eat?

There is a niche in nature.

And the better adapted to that niche, the more vulnerable to changes.

The better matched to a niche, the more likely a population will go
extinct if changes are introduced.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         Adapt to what? Every animal is adapted to niche. A jaguar
will not adapt to eat grass.

Common Descent means that the common ancestor to the jaguar and the
goat did adapt to eat one or the other.
The goat eats grass, the jaguar eats meat... what did their LCA eat?

There is a niche in nature.

And the better adapted to that niche, the more vulnerable to changes.
The better matched to a niche, the more likely a population will go
extinct if changes are introduced.

Of course. But until the change, the better matched to niche will thrive.
The goat eats grass, because there is grass, the jaguar eats meat
because there is meat. Some animal will adapt to eat plastic, because
there is plastic. One day, when grass cease to exist, goats will cease
to exist, but an animal which eats both, grass and meat, will survive.
If there is such an animal. Yet, will it survive, since then we will
only have meat, and the animals which are adapted to eating meat will do
better than an animal which eats both, meat and grass? Thee advantage of
generalist is in some other fields of logic, like they can occupy larger
space, because they can occupy more niches. So, it isn't strange that
big bears are generalists, they do need big areas.
So, things are far more complex than looking at the just one line of
logical progression.
But, when, exactly, grass ceased to exist? In the time of dinosaurs,
per my view, they did lost their food (fern), in the case of mammoths
they did lost their food (herbs). We are adapted to live on Earth, once
the Earth is gone, we will cease to exist. There is nothing wrong with
all this. Generalists thrive less, but they do survive. So, it is a
sorry life, but a surviving one. Big deal. I would rather thrive while I
am alive, generalists die regularly also, they don't live forever. Even
if humans would eventually (of course, they will not) conquer the whole
Universe, I will still die in a few decades, so, who cares. Should I be
a generalist, and live my sorry life, just so that some other member of
my species survive? Well, I will not survive for sure, I will die, just
like every animal dies. Should I live a sorry generalist's life, or
should I thrive and enjoy my life? It will be hard for the members of my
species when the time of extinctions comes, but hey, at least they will
enjoy their lives up till that moment.