Mountain Project Logo

Does humans climbing support the theory of evolution?

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion · · Colorado · Joined Oct 2012 · Points: 35
Buff Johnson wrote: we still have one, albeit more vestigial
Tails
Daniel Winder · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2009 · Points: 101
michaelp wrote:squirrels and spiders are also damned good climbers
True. I watched a squirrel down free-solo an 11b, head first. Was probably an onsight too. It didn't even faze her when she got off route either.

I'd really like to put a harness on a chimpanzee and teach it to sport climb. Then I could live vicariously through my monkey. Backwardz evolution?

Buff Johnson wrote:Further differentiation between quad & bipedal compared to climbing would be more attributable to homoplasy than that of a trait unique to inter-class evolution.
LOL
Alex Washburne · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2010 · Points: 65

No. Evolution explains how the distribution of heritable traits in a population changes as heritable traits granting greater fitness become more abundant. Climbing per se has not been shown to be a heritable trait, and as such its changes in frequency/abundance in the human population are not due to evolution by natural/sexual/artificial selection.

Also, the "chimps climb, humans like to climb, fish don't climb therefore humans and chimps shared a common ancestor more recent than humans/fish or chimps/fish" argument would not hold much water on its own as shown by counterexample: "bats have wings, birds have wings, mice don't have wings, therefore..." (see Wikipedia article on convergent evolution).

That said, I do find a deep satisfaction in climbing. Not sure why...

JesseT · · Portland, OR · Joined May 2011 · Points: 100

Well, the vast majority of primates (both extant and extinct) are (were) arboreal.

The first primates sprung up around 60 million years ago.

The ancestors of humans began to leave the trees around 7 million years ago.

This means that the vast majority of our primate ancestors were arboreal and, by extension, climbers.

In more recent history, one clade of primates, the hominins, have become terrestrial. The ability to climb has not been as necessary for their (our) survival as, say, the ability to walk and manipulate objects (tools) with their (our) hands. So our hands have become more adept at precise motion at the expense of raw strength. However, in evolution, traits that are not detrimental tend to stick around vestigially (though they do tend to deteriorate over time). The ability to climb has remained an at least somewhat useful trait for homonins, though. It gives the opportunity to get a good vantage point, and lots of fruit likes to hang out in trees. The advantage that these things give would have slowed the rate at which this ability was lost.

I think that's why it feels so good to climb. We're tapping into something ancient, something primordial, something that 50-someodd million years etched into our blueprint that couldn't be erased in 7 million years of walking. It's the innate sense that this is what we were designed to do. It's like uncovering a lost ancient city in our own neural framework.

So: Evidence? Well, it certainly fits. Proof? Absolutely not. In science a theory can only be disproven. You can't prove a theory correct. Be careful with throwing around the "p" word.

On a side note, I don't seem to have the palmaris longus muscle/tendon. Looks like I have a new item to place at the top of the list of excuses for why I don't crush. I find that excuses with Latin names always sound more convincing.

Brian · · North Kingstown, RI · Joined Sep 2001 · Points: 804

I have a plus two-inch ape index and I crave bananas. Isn’t this solid evidence that climbers came down out of the trees later than most people?

Garret Nuzzo Jones · · Salt Lake City, UT · Joined Feb 2012 · Points: 1,436
Brian wrote:I have a plus two-inch ape index and I crave bananas. Isn’t this solid evidence that climbers came down out of the trees later than most people?
Climbers never came down. They're still up there.
Mark E Dixon · · Possunt, nec posse videntur · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 974
JesseT wrote: On a side note, I don't seem to have the palmaris longus muscle/tendon. Looks like I have a new item to place at the top of the list of excuses for why I don't crush. I find that excuses with Latin names always sound more convincing.
Maybe you should get on the transplant list?

Joe Fitschen (early California climber) wrote an essay for the book 'Climbing - Philosophy for Everyone: Because It's There' in which he argued that we like to climb because we come from primordial climbing species. The book makes an entertaining read, including an essay defending chipping and another describing climbing as a 'gift culture.'
JesseT · · Portland, OR · Joined May 2011 · Points: 100
Brian wrote:I have a plus two-inch ape index and I crave bananas. Isn’t this solid evidence that climbers came down out of the trees later than most people?
Speak for yourself. I'm posting this from up in a tree.
Keith Earley · · Portland, OR · Joined Jan 2011 · Points: 25

Though climbing isn't a heritable trait, it is thought that brain chemistry is. I think the current theory is that in a small group of humans, some would be motivated to do low-risk activities such as picking berries, while other "adrenaline junkies" would get a dopamine reward from climbing a tree to get food or hunting an animal. This increases fitness for the community.

dr. morbius · · ituri rainforest · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 10

We could always make climbing evolution conformant by placing lots of predators at the base of every crag, and reproductive opportunities at each summit.

todd w · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2008 · Points: 0
JesseT wrote:The ability to climb has not been as necessary for their (our) survival as, say, the ability to walk and manipulate objects (tools) with their (our) hands.
Interestingly, these abilities may have originated from the same place in our ancestors' brains.

Example: Our ability to use synonyms (i.e., replace one word for another), or to use a tool in a new way, may come from our ancestors' need to view a tree branch as a "hand hold" no matter which orientation it has in a 3-dimensional plane.

In other words, seeing "hand holds" in different ways (up, down, big, small, etc.) may have given rise to our ability to see words, tools, and everything else in different ways, too.

Heard that in a lecture once from a visiting researcher.
William Sonoma · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2012 · Points: 3,550

wow! i did not know anyone had responded. some very cool info was shared.

what i mean by "for or against" (this was my attempt at not offending anyone, trying to maximize the participation, not closing anyone out) science is that just because a scientist says so doesnt make it so. example radical masectomys (removal of breast, breast tissue, removal of cancer) were THE way for so long. science wasnt willing to change to the less invasive "simple" masectomy BECAUSE the scientists (aka doctors) said it was the way to go. it turns out they were wrong and many females dies/suffered because of the doctors FIRM BELIEF in their science.

i dont just take a scientists word blindly, i also dont just take the preachers word for it either. i seek to find the truth via my own experience.

my thinking is that if humans share an absurd amount of DNA with apes + we can clearly climb well (like apes) does that not support the theory of evolution? or is it coincidence?

i dont think has been explored enough.

i appreciate the input, smart ass or not.

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "Does humans climbing support the theory of evol…"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.