Human evolution Mind

Human Evolution: We walk upright in order to kill each other – researcher

Spread the love

The author of a new study claims that humans learned to walk upright primarily to beat each other:

“The results of this study are consistent with the hypothesis that our ancestors adopted bipedal posture so that males would be better at beating and killing each other when competing for females,” says David Carrier, a biology professor who conducted the study. “Standing up on their hind legs allowed our ancestors to fight with the strength of their forelimbs, making punching much more dangerous.”

That also explains, Carrier says, why women find tall men attractive.

Carrier says many scientists are reluctant to consider an idea that paints our ancestors as violent.”Among academics there often is resistance to the reality that humans are a violent species. It’s an intrinsic desire to have us be more peaceful than we are,” he says.

In the age of Evilicious, few others have noted this trend among academics. The study demonstrates that men hit harder in an upright position.

There’s no shortage of theses as to why we walk upright: carrying infants, saving energy, and – most people’s choice: freeing up the hands for many purposes, of peace or war.

The weakness of Carrier’s thesis, not mentioned in the article, is: Primates that do not regularly walk upright kill each other quite easily anyway. The Achilles’ heel of all these theories (so to speak) is that the advantage of upright walking must first be grasped before the practice will be attempted – and persisted in. And the first walkers must have been adults, which means that they did not have the advantage that the infant has, of being rather well-padded and close to the ground. That suggests the mental ability to persist in pursuing an advantage that exists, if it does, only in the imagination.

10 Replies to “Human Evolution: We walk upright in order to kill each other – researcher

  1. 1
    uoflcard says:

    More nonsense. It’s absolutely incredible how thousands of scientists waste their careers on just-so stories that are made up because they must be made up to support a dogmatic theory, the foundation of modern naturalism.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    “Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?” – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPMmC0UAnj0

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    The results of this study are consistent with the hypothesis that our ancestors adopted bipedal posture so that …

    Fill in the blank.

    so that they could better howl at the moon.

    so that they didn’t have to smell each other’s arses.

    so that scientists in the far future would have something to study.

  4. 4
    Ilion says:

    Oh! Those foolish and short-sighted Shamblers, for agreeing to the several-generations-long truce while the Uprighties worked out the kinks in their system.

  5. 5
    Ilion says:

    The results of this study are consistent with the hypothesis that …

    As rational persons understand, self-consistency is simply the first (and easiest) requirement of attaining truth.

    However, Darwinists (and Freudians, and Marxists, and “liberals” and ‘atheists’) are not rational persons, and so they generally stop thinking once they agree with themselves.

  6. 6
    junkdnaforlife says:

    i’m seriously confused again.

    from the article:

    “Standing up on their hind legs allowed our ancestors to fight with the strength of their forelimbs, making punching much more dangerous.”

    Inference drawn from earliest known bi-ped ardi:

    “The reduction in canine teeth, which Lovejoy called “weapons of aggression,” further suggests that Ardipithecus males were not as physically hostile with each other as larger-canined chimpanzees are today.”

    Why did ardi go bi-ped?:

    “Such provisioning by males [bipedalism] would have favored those males who could best walk on two feet, according to the researchers, allowing them free hands for carrying food…

    Or apparently punch each other in the face. Either or

    http://news.discovery.com/arch.....estor.html

  7. 7
    uoflcard says:

    Great catch, junkdnaforlife. A scientific process whose primary mode of progress is imagination and story telling is bound to be littered with contradictions.

    Last night I watched the latest episode of Naked Science on the Science Channel; I’m a little depressed today because that is an hour of my life I will never get back. It was about multiverse theories, interviewing leading “researchers”. Basically what it comes down to is a bunch of people with advanced degrees speculating about and imagining an infinite number of other universes. They typically say that there are an infinite number of other universes, so all possibilities must happen an infinite number of times, including an infinite number of exact copies of our world and every possible alternative, like everything is the same except that I like jazz. They say this because there are a finite number of ways the atoms of a universe can combine, so all combinations must happen an infinite number of times. What they failed to mention is that you must assume naturalism for that to even be applicable. Some of them seem to use the theory to feel like gods, saying that the other versions of themselves are literally everywhere (omnipresent) and some will make the perfect series of decisions to never die (eternal). And any time they fail at something in this world, they can take comfort and know that they were 100% successful in an infinite number of other worlds…Hooray science!

  8. 8
    junkdnaforlife says:

    yup uof. The freak out in the world of physics came once they figured out that the universe had a beginning. Big bang cosmology was repugnant to much of them(physicists) at the time, not because the science was weak, but because of their ideologies. As hawking puts it…”many people did not like the idea of a beginning of time, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.” [brief history of time pg 49.] Much of theoretical physics (multiverses, string theories) are driven by the ideological need to smudge that beginning. These ideological issues that seem to be driving science rather that science driving science was not new to me in the realm of theoretical physics. However, i did not know that this was also the case in biology etc. I always accepted the neo-darwin approach. I did so because i never looked under the hood, pealed back the curtain. I am annoyed because it was sold to me as lock-down all worked out move along now nothing to see here.

    The difference with physics is they are more open about the shortcomings, problems etc. Not the case with the neo-darwin stuff. Hence why most people don’t bother to look under the hood.

  9. 9
    Joseph says:

    So assualt and battery is no longer a crime- it is what we are supposed to be doing.

    Someone needs to alert all defense lawyers.

  10. 10
    Mung says:

    I think we walk upright so we can hug each other.

Leave a Reply