Link
The theory goes that as the grasslands spread our ancestors were forced out of the forests and into the savannahs and evolution took hold, favoring a more upright posture because we could see further and so on. Being upright wasn’t really an advantage in the forests because the lousy trees blocked line of sight. The two developed at more or less the same time. Makes sense.
Well, according some new research by one Dr Feakins of USC, the grasslands were there in one form or another long before our ancestors ever started walking upright.
EDIT
Shortened title to prevent annoyance
Yeah, I read about it a while back. I am beginning to lose track of all the theories on the origins of bipedalism.
hmmm, verry interesting.
More like kicking one theory in the butt.
I’ll be curious to see how this pans out.
Oh come on, George. There are only about a dozen distinct theories and dozens of variations on each of those. Why the trouble keeping them straight?
Chris Stringer writes about that theory in his new book but doesn’t use it as the singular cause of bipedalism. Personally, I see a number of causes relating to standing upright, as in being able to run to the prey carcass making us more efficient food gatherers. And running from predators.
Cap’t Jack
There is also a theory (supported my some evidence–they all are to a certain degree) that we, apes, went from walking on all four to becoming bipedal, to switching back to walking on all four, after which some apes (us) went back to bipedalism. Crazy stuff!
I see it as more evidence that there is no plan or design “out there” for life.
Everything is just a load of weird s*** that happens. 
Yes, “shit happens” is the formula of the theory of everything. Maybe God does play dice after all.
The theory goes that as the grasslands spread our ancestors were forced out of the forests and into the savannahs and evolution took hold, favoring a more upright posture because we could see further and so on. Being upright wasn’t really an advantage in the forests because the lousy trees blocked line of sight. The two developed at more or less the same time. Makes sense.The problem with her theory is that she failed to take into account that a bipedal species had already been found in the forestlands. It was Ardipithicus Ramidus. The remains date to 4.4 million years BCE although some paleoanthroplogists speculate that the area was mixed grassland and forest. And just when something makes sense. Science, go figure! http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/ardipithecus-ramidus Cap't Jack
And, you know, theropod dinosaurs (and some others) were jogging about on two legs way, way before that even.
And, you know, theropod dinosaurs (and some others) were jogging about on two legs way, way before that even.Yeah, but they had those stubby little forelegs,making push ups impossible so they all died out due to heart disease by eating too much red meat! Cap't Jack
I thought God killed them all and buried them all before making us as a test of our faith.
Who do you think gave the Raptors those useless limbs? He works in mysterious ways!
Cap’t Jack
The raptors had useful ones. You’re thinking of the Tyrannosaurids. Especially tarbosaurus. He couldn’t even clap. The loser.
EDIT
Fix
"
My bad. I should have written "T Rex. Where’s my Jurassic Park video when I need a reference?
Cap’t Jack
Funny thing, you’re not really that wrong (depending on who you ask). There are growing questions about whether or not the dromaeosauridae (raptors) used their arms for holding on while they used their bitching claws for disemboweling their prey as was once thought. There’s a theory that at least the smaller varieties used them to climb trees and whatnot. But my personal favorite is the theory out now that they may have eaten like many modern birds of prey: chase down their prey, jump on it and pin it down with the sickle claws while they eat it alive. The arms (which would have been covered in feathers) would have been used in conjunction with the tail to maintain their balance. In a lot of ways, it’s even more horrible than jumping on and disemboweling their food.
Good catch
The theory goes that as the grasslands spread our ancestors were forced out of the forests and into the savannahs and evolution took hold, favoring a more upright posture because we could see further and so on. Being upright wasn’t really an advantage in the forests because the lousy trees blocked line of sight. The two developed at more or less the same time. Makes sense.The problem with her theory is that she failed to take into account that a bipedal species had already been found in the forestlands. It was Ardipithicus Ramidus. The remains date to 4.4 million years BCE although some paleoanthroplogists speculate that the area was mixed grassland and forest. And just when something makes sense. Science, go figure! http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/ardipithecus-ramidus Cap't Jack
That’s what I like about science; throw out a hypothesis based on the evidence at hand then along comes new evidence to knock it off it’s pedestal. This is a fascinating subject that so far leads back over 6 million years and counting! Oh to be 30 again.
Cap’t Jack
That's what I like about science; throw out a hypothesis based on the evidence at hand then along comes new evidence to knock it off it's pedestal.I just read an interesting book called The Half-Life of Facts, where the author Samuel Arbesman explains why and how our knowledge changes all the time. What's most striking, is that you can actually apply a formula to how fast what we know changes.
I just read a review of the book George and am putting it on my reading list. It seems to dovetail into the idea that the “facts” change when new information is uncovered. No planet status for Pluto! And my armillary sphere is now innacurate. But it does make a good conversation piece. Does the book include neuroscience or how facts are altered by new evidence only?
Cap’t Jack