Does humans climbing support the theory of evolution?

Important note to start with: im a neither for, or against christianity or the belief in God(s), im not for, or against the creation story (not against any organized religions). I am ALSO neither for, or against science and the theory of evolution, the big bang, etc. I can only speak for my experience, im not ultimately concerned with "what was" or "what will be". I love thinking about it though...

My questions: does humans climbing support OR prove the theory of evolution?

Im told by science that we come from apes (I think its apes, at least the primate family) and apes climb, they climb alot and they are such good climbers i cannot comprehend how they do what they do. Humans also can climb really well. Im blown away with what humans are capable of. I LOVE watching humans climb! its fucking cool (to me)!

So does climbing, at least support the theory of evolution if not prove it? why or why not?

The Stoned Master wrote:Im told by science that we come from apes (I think its apes, at least the primate family)

I don't think that you understand the theory of evolution, the theory of evolution doesn't say that we come from apes, it says that both humans and apes (and other primates) evolved from a common ancestor. The fact that both humans and apes can climb well doesn't prove or disprove evolution.

The Stoned Master wrote: My questions: does humans climbing support OR prove the theory of evolution?

You just got an F for one of those words.

Okay, I'll bite. I don't think anyone said it better than the Scottish climber Tom Patey in his 1969 article "Apes or Ballerinas".

"Man with all his noble qualities... still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin." (Darwin). If everyone made a point of remembering this, we might be spared a lot of mountain philosophy and psychoanalysis... Climbers are the only genuine primordial humanoids, heirs to a family tradition inherited from hairy arboreal ancestors.

I slept through most of my bio classes, but I have a lot of experience arguing natural selection with a religious family. Basically, I see it like this: climbing standards have risen dramatically in the last 60 years, however this is due to advances in technology and training. Not genetic mutation. For climbing to reflect natural selection, you would need to have couples with a genetic predisposition towards gymnastic ability mating for thousands of years, at which point you would see those genes become more pronounced and the climbing standard increasing. Otherwise, it's got nothing to do with Darwin's theory on the origin of the species.

How hard Neanderthals would have crushed gnar is betond my imagining.

Notwithstanding terrible wording and grammar for a hypothesis, climbing in itself wouldn't be a unique phenotypic trait. The evolutionary path is already supported moving from water to land through the development of legs. Further differentiation between quad & bipedal compared to climbing would be more attributable to homoplasy than that of a trait unique to inter-class evolution. Certain species within classes can & can't climb; even some invertebrates & aves can climb to a certain extent. We are nowhere near superior in climbing ability to other classes, or even within our own class. Further, it's debatable that we really are evidence as being higher in the evolutionary line. So I would offer climbing ability is just not uniquely testable between classes to support evolution other than what has been shown in leg development to move from water to land.

Well, it is certainly easier to climb a rock than it is to breathe under water.

That somebody would feel the need to say they are neither "for nor against science" in order to avoid offending people is a sad, sad thing.

Being "for science" shouldn't be controversial.

As to the actual question at hand, squirrels and spiders are also damned good climbers -- probably better than apes even. In other words, I don't think the fact that both humans and apes can climb stuff is especially telling. Probably more helpful/telling is the fact that we look a lot like apes.

Pretty sure no other primates climb rocks other than generic scrambling, but insects and lizards sure do. Therefore, we evolved from insects or lizards. But only climbers. No one else.

Mike Lane wrote:Pretty sure no other primates climb rocks other than generic scrambling, but insects and lizards sure do. Therefore, we evolved from insects or lizards. But only climbers. No one else.

I seem to remember stories in Henry Barber's book about queuing up with baboons on pretty hard climbs in Africa. I don't think I still have a copy of the book, will check if I get a chance this weekend.

Mark E Dixon wrote: I seem to remember stories in Henry Barber's book about queuing up with baboons on pretty hard climbs in Africa. I don't think I still have a copy of the book, will check if I get a chance this weekend.

IS that the one where they hangdog up and put bananas at the tops of the climbs in order to get the beta?

Tony B wrote: IS that the one where they hangdog up and put bananas at the tops of the climbs in order to get the beta?

Should have taken some bananas over to the Breach too, I guess.

HardCores: yeah badly worded, but the sentence stands with SVO regulatory compliance. Subject=humans climbing, Verb=support/prove (transitive), Object =theory.

But evolution has not helped my send rate!

Steve

My landlord, a studying massage therapist, showed me a section in one of his textbooks about how humans are actually losing a critical ligament or tendon in the forearm that is huge for climbing. He said 10% of the population has lost this, I don't remember details but I promise I'm not bullsh*tting. Hopefully someone else will look it up and post details, but I would read this as evolving away from climbing.

put your pinky and thumb together and pull away from your elbow. if a tendon raises up in your wrist you're not one of the mutants.

the TAIL was our biggest loss! ...tendon schmendon....

Erick Valler wrote:My landlord, a studying massage therapist, showed me a section in one of his textbooks about how humans are actually losing a critical ligament or tendon in the forearm that is huge for climbing. He said 10% of the population has lost this, I don't remember details but I promise I'm not bullsh*tting. Hopefully someone else will look it up and post details, but I would read this as evolving away from climbing.

You're thinking of the palmaris longus muscle. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palma…

The Blueprint Part Dank wrote:For climbing to reflect natural selection, you would need to have couples with a genetic predisposition towards gymnastic ability mating for thousands of years, at which point you would see those genes become more pronounced and the climbing standard increasing.

Not necessarily. If nearly everyone climbed (ugh...) and moreover everyone free soloed exclusively, then I think very quickly you'd weed the non-climbers out of the gene pool.

craghead wrote:the TAIL was our biggest loss! ...tendon schmendon....

we still have one, albeit more vestigial