Gaesatae (again)

[Sakkura]

On the contrary, I've seen an impala being chased down this way in a TV documentary. Sure, the animal could outrun its pursuer but he could track it and had the endurance to keep up the pursuit, whereas the impala became exhausted and was trying to find shade. By the end of the chase, the animal collapsed and would have died from heat exhaustion. The kill was as much to put it out of its misery as anything, at which point the hunter paid homage

......Orda

It would just have to run out of range of sight, cross the path of a herd and kapow, no catch that day. And that guy would have wasted loads of energy for naught.
Nope, human hunting strategies were mainly based on cooperation and intelligent strategies. Like, scaring a lot of animals towards some major obstacle like a cliff or canyon.

[antisocialmunky]

It would just have to run out of range of sight, cross the path of a herd and kapow, no catch that day. And that guy would have wasted loads of energy for naught.
Nope, human hunting strategies were mainly based on cooperation and intelligent strategies. Like, scaring a lot of animals towards some major obstacle like a cliff or canyon.

Don't forget ranged projectiles, infact our brains are hard wired to be able to accurately estimate parabolic flight.

[Sakkura]

Don't forget ranged projectiles, infact our brains are hard wired to be able to accurately estimate parabolic flight.

True. Plus ever-evolving weapon technology of course. Then again, some apes and monkeys have been known to toss the odd stone or such on occasion. As soon as the hand evolved, that kind of thing became possible.

[Tellos Athenaios]

But you can't throw anything heavy accurately while running forward.

[Strategos Alexandros]

There was a documentary on the BBC once where an African tribes' test of manhood was to chase and kill an antelope single handed with one spear and it took two days to catch or fail on average.

[Rodion Romanovich]

There was a documentary on the BBC once where an African tribes' test of manhood was to chase and kill an antelope single handed with one spear and it took two days to catch or fail on average.

I heard the innuits are required to **** an icebear and kill a woman before they are considered men.

Sorry for off-topic :spam:

[antisocialmunky]

True. Plus ever-evolving weapon technology of course. Then again, some apes and monkeys have been known to toss the odd stone or such on occasion. As soon as the hand evolved, that kind of thing became possible.

Or poo.

But you can't throw anything heavy accurately while running forward.

That depends, if its a staight line on flat terrain, then you can impart extra energy to the projectile. If the terrain is erratic or running isn't an option, then you can use an extended lever arm (attal attal -sp?) to increase the energy you put into the projectile.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I am fairly sure I didn't write that first comment you quoted, though.

About the second: well to accurately throw something you need to keep your arms relatively stable, which isn't quite possible when running forward.

[Sakkura]

Or poo.

Will take a lot of poo to kill something though. At least in the short term.

[NeoSpartan]

but it will take about a hand full to make you get away

[Hax]

So, back to these penis guys...

[Maeran]

Atlatl- spear thrower

a flea may have 6 legs, but it jumps with 2.

And the efficiency of 2 legs over four shows over long distances too (the center of mass is directly over the supporting limbs, so less effort is involved just to hold it up there). And that means you can travel more widely looking for food than a four legged animal for the same amount of energy. Other animals are faster, other animals travel further, but human beings are amazingly efficient over long distances.

[Foot]

And the efficiency of 2 legs over four shows over long distances too (the center of mass is directly over the supporting limbs, so less effort is involved just to hold it up there). And that means you can travel more widely looking for food than a four legged animal for the same amount of energy. Other animals are faster, other animals travel further, but human beings are amazingly efficient over long distances.

Indeed we are, but we are not the most efficient animals still. However, on foot, we are more efficient than all machines. On a bicycle we are not only more efficient than all machines, but all animals as well. That second part is not entirely true, as some trains at full capacity are more efficient, but seeing as that is an ideal position and no company could maintain a train service if they also achieved full capacity for each journey it is hardly a rebuttal. Of course, we must also be mindful of the food we eat, as whilst in the 1940s we made 2000 food calories for every 1 oil calory spent, in 1970 this ration became 1:1, and today (thanks to how far food travels by trains, planes and automobiles) it is 2000 to 1 the other way.

Foot

[NeoSpartan]

It would just have to run out of range of sight, cross the path of a herd and kapow, no catch that day. And that guy would have wasted loads of energy for naught.
Nope, human hunting strategies were mainly based on cooperation and intelligent strategies. Like, scaring a lot of animals towards some major obstacle like a cliff or canyon.

Exactly! And this was 1st done by Homo erectus/ergaster(sp). Later Homonins (neanderatals, sapiens) use this and other more complex hunting strategies and tactics. All of these activies demand team effort, coordination, communication, tool use, etc... in other words BIG use of the brain.

However, earlier Hominins (habilies) were primariry scavangers feedind on the remains of dead animals AFTER big predators and other big scavangers (hyenas) had their fill. With their simple stone tools they could break bone and eat bone marrow, which is rich in fat, protain and other minerals. Also, they could break off parts and carry them to a safe place to eat. In addition they ate whatever plants and roots they could find, it was pretty much a savanna where the Homo habilies lived so there wasn't much of it. (also, remember no other ape or monkey lives in flat, dry, lands. They all live in da bushes)

Bipedalism isn't really "better" than quadrupedalism (4legs). In terms of speed and exposure of vulnerable areas (soft belly) its not that great. But bi-pedalsim has its advantages. The most notable is that is allows a LOT LESS energy to be used, and is an easier way for the body to cool off. This allowed early homonins and australopithecus to live in an ever expanding savanna environment. And, for homo habilis, it allowed for the body to have spare energy and a cooling mechanism to house an expanding brain. As well as trekking large distances in a high temperature environment (in case u fellars forgot the brain is the most active of all organs, using 20+% of all energy needed by the body, while only weight a mere 2-3lbs. This high energy use also means that it also produces a LOT of heat, and is very sensitive to temperature increases). Another interesting advantage of OUR bidepalism and cooling system is that we can run for very LONG distances without overheating. We can run for so long that we can actually "hit the wall" meaning we exaust our energy storage and just collapse.

For us, and our homonin and late australopithecus ancestors bi-depalism is not really an effective way of "running away" from a large predator, nor is it good at "chasing" predators. Instead we relied (and still do) on team effort and THINKING to survive. And that is why evolution selected for a larger brain and NOT for better running legs (like an Ostrich).


p.s yes I like bio and anthropology too