Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

alien_clown_ninja t1_j9hc2xj wrote

Reply to comment by PJHFortyTwo in What are more accepted hypotheses that similarly explain the aspects of hominid evolution that the "pseudoscientific" aquatic ape theory does? by KEVLAR60442

The endurance hunting hypothesis is on the same pseudo-science grounds as the aquatic ape hypothesis. Humans evolved in rocky terrain, where it would have been very difficult to track animals. And there is concrete evidence against it too. In the one place where animal remains with evidence of being eaten have been discovered alongside early humans, the bones were mostly adult and fit animals in their prime, not young or old which would be the easiest to catch by endurance hunting.

More likely is that early humans were ambush hunters, waiting in the foliage for an unlucky animal to walk by. It's possible that there were groups of humans that used endurance hunting, possibly for sport rather than survival (this is what the only groups of people who practice it today do).

31

Ausoge t1_j9hgy53 wrote

However we do have several adaptations that are very well-suited to the endurance hunter lifestyle - the ability to sweat (quite rare in animals in general), hairlessness (which allows passive heat radiation as well as more effective sweat evaporation), a large surface-area-to-volume ratio (again, good for surface cooling), an upright stance allowing us to see greater distances than most prey animals, and bipedal locomation, which is not very fast but is extremely energy-efficient. We also have spectacularly well-adjusted physiology for the throwing of projectiles, which somewhat compensates for our lack of speed. Our combined torso and shoulder mobility is unparalleled in the animal kingdom.

21

ToastyTheDragon t1_j9hj129 wrote

The high surface area to volume ratio surprises me. Do we have any data on, say, averages across different species to compare to?

3

cookerg t1_j9ie7o8 wrote

So how did we get that endurance and running gait? However it evolved, humans are capable of covering longer distances in a day than most mammals, and do it voluntarily. And sled dogs might only be capable of keeping up, or beating us, because we selected them for it

12

Kevin_Uxbridge t1_j9iuy46 wrote

Probably lots of moving about the landscape. Land tenure is something we know precious little about for our ancestors but it's reasonable to assume that covering ground can be advantageous generally.

Also, the image of early hominids running pell-mell after game presupposes some things about the world they lived in. Running down prey would, for instance, likely catch the attention of the local predator guild, who might be just as likely to steal your now-weary prey and kill you too. On the face of it, human cursorial hunting sounds ludicrously dangerous in most circumstances. The endurance hunting guys have no real answer to this.

6

F0sh t1_j9jev6b wrote

> Also, the image of early hominids running pell-mell after game

Is not the image of endurance hunting. It's running at a steady, sustainable pace - a jog, really - that is not sustainable for the prey animal, which eventually cannot run more.

9

[deleted] t1_j9iz4vs wrote

[removed]

−4

drolldignitary t1_j9ja6l0 wrote

Alpha male?

If you are lying in wait where you know an animal is being driven, why would you decide to chase it to exhaustion in a days-long relay race around its herd, when you could jump out and kill it? So instead of one person wasting days running after a deer, it's...a dozen people wasting days running after one deer?

A days long, pointless, relay race in a big circle around its herd??

And what, the herd does nothing but sit around, and the animal never gets back to them the whole time?

Alpha male???

4

beyelzu t1_j9jgqji wrote

> And sled dogs might only be capable of keeping up, or beating us, because we selected them for it

And they do it in the freezing cold, most of our endurance advantage is from not overheating after all.

2