Comments on: Why Early Humans Started Walking: Food and Sex

By: Ben Eshbach

Ben Eshbach — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:58:27 +0000

edc2 – Ha!

By: edc2

edc2 — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 16:18:58 +0000

8 comments in and we get someone trying to segregate.

By: tripleX

tripleX — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 08:36:57 +0000

I keep wondering, if their babies were as helpless as newborn human babies are today, wouldn’t the females need one or two hands to hold them while crossing the field or climbing a tree?
Maybe early humans lived in quite safe environments because our babies are so helpless, we move slow, can’t really smell, and have small teeth. We lived so comfortable we even lost our need of fur. Maybe we kept each-other warm by laying together? Maybe we had sex all day (like Bonobos) because both males and females didn’t know when the females were fertile. If only ‘alpha males’ would reproduce, as happens with most animals, the human race today would exist of large, strong, muscular men and big, fertile women. It’s not at all like that, so maybe early humans didn’t care much who spread his or her genes (or legs) as long as they were comfortable, and had sex anyway.
Because we were such social animals we started communicating, with gestures and facial expressions, later with speech and imagination. So today I can imagine what happened with women like Ardi en Lucy.
I’m not a scientist, I just love to think about what could have happened.

By: ted

ted — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:43:50 +0000

You don’t need to walk to get sex. That’s what the Internet is for.

By: wit of a twit

wit of a twit — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:58:06 +0000

What gets me is the idea of rape. If the bigger stronger males wanted sex they could take it. this hypothesis implies female likely had more control than chimp females.

@ swss
what if you consider that the Savannah habitat required our ancestors to walk greater distances while carring the “engagement food.”

By: Lord'n'Savyor

Lord'n'Savyor — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:38:48 +0000

GODDIDIT!

By: JimRL

JimRL — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:50:33 +0000

7 comments in and no mention from some religious freak that evolution is a con and that we’re being tested, haha.

By: brett maxwell

brett maxwell — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:53:32 +0000

mmm, two of my favorite things

By: edc2

edc2 — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:44:58 +0000

thats why I walk, too.

By: zavatone

zavatone — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:38:49 +0000

Works for me, but somehow, I’d expect beer to be involved as well.

By: swss

swss — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 03:41:20 +0000

Sorry, I don’t agree with this theory – the question isn’t why we walk on two legs – it’s why we walk on two legs all the time. Chimps can walk on two legs for sustained periods – certainly long enough to carry food with their front appendages – but they are generally on four. A chimp on its back legs can outrun a fast human – the advantage of being bipedal has got to be better than this. Food and sex are the grand pooh-bahs of social and genetic evolution – I’m just not buying it (or at least this particular explanation of it) in this case

By: SenorMysterioso

SenorMysterioso — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:48:25 +0000

265,000 years later and we’re still the same

By: FishBottleT

FishBottleT — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:08:12 +0000

I think that the need for energy and the need for reproduction are the basis for all humans.

By: ByrdBrain

ByrdBrain — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:24:42 +0000

Only reason why a lot of us modern humans walk, as well.