The reason we exist!

[iconoclast95!]

Ok, so this is an explanation for why apes evolved into humans.

Before I post this, does anyone want to know?

 

[SignalCobra]

Sure, I’m curious. Always up for a good explanation.

 

[iconoclast95!]

I have attached 2 papers that I am in the process of getting published. Each paper is 90% complete.

 

[Hadoblado]

Nice. Interesting stuff even if I'm generally skeptical of this area. Are you working for an academic institution?

Man we are getting spoiled by new contributors atm.

Are you looking for criticism or just to share the ideas with curious minds?

 

[iconoclast95!]

Nice. Interesting stuff even if I'm generally skeptical of this area. Are you working for an academic institution?

Man we are getting spoiled by new contributors atm.

Are you looking for criticism or just to share the ideas with curious minds?

Critisism would be great!

 

[Hadoblado]

Alright. My background is in mostly psychology with a bit of neuroscience. I'm currently completing my masters of teaching. My tendencies are strongly toward the empirical, which is important when in fields for which evidence is often overstated.

Every time someone writes "links to" without further elaboration, I'm put on high alert for either that claim being weak, or the author not understanding the mechanisms behind the claim they're making. If they say "may link" or something to that effect, I dismiss it completely. "Associated with" is also on this list.

It really depends who your audience are, but I'm not the only one that thinks like this (I got railed for this when writing my thesis on motor inhibition by multiple people).

So in The Antigravity Primate. I read your intro slowly and it was really engaging. You walk me through an area I don't know anything about and you build an engaging foundation. When it gets to the face section however, you make a lot of link claims and this loses me. On the face of it, I just don't believe the claim that contracting a muscle or having a headache results in meaningful cognitive benefits. When I look at the sources these studies were 40 years ago which is ancient history for anything psychology adjacent. I would need to see strong studies to evidence these pretty wild claims.

I'd also be looking for alternatives to your hypothesis. Off the top of my head, bipedalism adjusts our field of view, allowing us to much better overcome obfuscation in our environment. Our planning now involves the environment that is not immediate, while stil requiring us to be part of that environment (unlike birds, for which the solution to all obstacles is to fly over them).

Anyway, that's my two cents. I'm often a bit ruthless when judging other's work, so take this with a grain of salt. I'd be interested on hearing more from you in the future.

 

[iconoclast95!]

Thank you very much for your observations and advice. My writing style is unrefined at present, but will improve. I will slso look for more recent studies.

I guess, just because a claim is proved in a study, it doesnt make that claim persuasive. I lost sight of that fact.

 

[dr froyd]

i do want to know but im afraid there's zero chance im opening docx files

 

[kuoka]

docx files can execute malware on any windows machine so I understand the precaution

Here is the AI summary of "The Antigravity Primate"

Spoiler

"The Antigravity Muscle System and The Kinetic Chain Theory of Human Evolution":

The document proposes a novel theory connecting bipedalism (walking on two legs) to the evolution of human cognitive abilities through the activation of antigravity muscles and increased dopamine production. It argues that the shift to upright locomotion in early humans triggered a series of physiological and neurochemical changes that contributed to brain expansion and enhanced intelligence over time.

Key Points:​

1. Bipedalism and Antigravity Muscles:
   • Walking upright generates stronger impact forces with each step compared to quadrupedal movement. These forces send shock waves through the body, stretching soft tissues in the face, jaw, and body.
   • The body responds by activating a "kinetic chain" of antigravity muscles—such as the frontalis (brow), orbicularis oculi (eyelids), zygomatic major (smile), temporalis, masseter (jaw), and postural muscles like the quadriceps and gluteus maximus—to stabilize against gravity and prevent overstretching.
2. Muscle Activation and Cognitive Benefits:
   • The activation of facial muscles (e.g., frontalis and zygomatic major) is linked to increased alertness, cognitive performance, and dopamine release. For example, smiling or lifting the brow enhances executive function and positive emotions.
   • Jaw muscle activity (e.g., temporalis and masseter), similar to chewing, also correlates with improved cognition and dopamine levels.
   • Postural antigravity muscles support balance and stability, contributing to dopamine increases when shifting from lying to standing.
3. Dopamine and Brain Evolution:
   • Dopamine, a neurotransmitter tied to motivation, reward, motor control, and intelligence, rises with antigravity muscle activity. The document suggests this boost provided a cognitive advantage to bipedal primates.
   • Over generations, higher dopamine levels (which are heritable) may have driven brain expansion, as bipedalism preceded significant brain size increases by about three million years (e.g., from Australopithecus to Homo erectus).
4. Evolutionary Timeline:
   • Evidence from fossils like Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis, 3.2 million years ago) and the Laetoli footprints (3.7 million years ago) shows bipedalism emerged long before large brains. Homo erectus, with a brain size similar to modern humans, marks a key step in cognitive evolution.
5. Additional Effects:
   • Walking boosts creative thinking (especially divergent thinking), an effect that persists post-activity.
   • In infants, learning to walk reshapes brain connectivity, linking motor skills to neural development.
6. Trade-offs of Bipedalism:
   • While bipedalism offered cognitive advantages, it also introduced challenges like back pain, joint issues, and childbirth complications due to upright posture and a narrow pelvis.

Conclusion:​

The theory suggests that bipedalism activated antigravity muscles, increasing dopamine levels and fostering cognitive evolution. This neurochemical feedback loop may have been a key driver of human intelligence, distinguishing us from other primates. The document calls for further research to test this hypothesis, offering a fresh perspective beyond traditional focuses on brain size and tool use.


This summary captures the document’s core argument and supporting evidence, linking physical adaptations to evolutionary advancements in human cognition.

Summary of Automimicry

Spoiler

Overview​

The paper investigates the fascinating link between the "cuteness" traits of human infants and evolutionary adaptations observed in mammals living at higher latitudes. It proposes that human infants temporarily exhibit features resembling those of cold-adapted mammals, suggesting a form of biological mimicry called automimicry. These traits, tied to neoteny (the retention of juvenile characteristics into adulthood), may be influenced by ecological pressures at higher latitudes, potentially shaping human evolution.

Key Concepts​

• Cuteness: Defined by Konrad Lorenz’s kindchenschema (baby schema), it includes traits like large heads, big eyes, small noses, and short limbs, which elicit caregiving responses.
• Neoteny: An evolutionary process where juvenile traits persist into adulthood, possibly driven by environmental factors.
• Ecological Pressures: Latitude-related conditions (e.g., cold temperatures, low light) drive specific adaptations in mammals.
• Automimicry: A type of self-mimicry where infants resemble high-latitude-adapted adults, potentially as an evolutionary strategy.

Core Argument​

Human infants display traits such as:

• Disproportionately large heads and eyes
• Small noses
• Short limbs
• Increased fat storage
• Reduced pigmentation
• Infertility at birth

These align with adaptations seen in mammals at higher latitudes, such as:

• Larger skulls and eyes (for low-light environments)
• Smaller noses (to warm and humidify cold air)
• Shorter limbs (to conserve heat)
• More subcutaneous fat (for insulation)
• Lighter skin (to maximize vitamin D synthesis in low sunlight)

The paper suggests that this resemblance is not coincidental but reflects automimicry, where infants mimic traits advantageous in cold climates during their vulnerable early years. Over time, ecological pressures at higher latitudes may favor neotenous traits, influencing human evolution.

Supporting Evidence​

1. Comparative Table: Table 1 in the document lists infant traits alongside high-latitude adaptations, supported by studies (e.g., Pearce & Dunbar, 2012, on larger visual systems; Zaidi et al., 2017, on nose shape).
2. Biological Mimicry: Examples include theropod dinosaurs (juveniles with feathers resembling birds, their descendants) and the axolotl (a neotenous salamander influenced by habitat stability and latitude).
3. Health Conditions: Disorders like Williams Syndrome and Down Syndrome show neotenous traits, hinting at an evolutionary tendency.
4. Ancient Humans: Neanderthals and other high-latitude hominids exhibited compact bodies and shorter limbs, mirroring infant proportions.

Discussion Points​

• Intelligence and Trade-offs: Human evolution prioritized brain development, possibly at physical costs. Bipedalism and migration to higher latitudes intensified this trend.
• Sexual Selection: Traits resembling cuteness (e.g., large eyes, round faces) may have become attractive, guiding mate choice and migration toward colder regions.
• Beauty and Adaptation: Cuteness might link aesthetics, environment, and cognition, reinforcing evolutionary cycles.

Conclusion​

The paper concludes that the cuteness of human infants reflects a temporary mimicry of high-latitude adaptations, driven by ecological pressures. This neotenizing effect could influence mammalian physiology and human perceptions of beauty, impacting sexual selection and species development. The author suggests future research into bipedalism’s role in neotenization.

Implications​

This hypothesis connects developmental biology, ecology, and evolution, offering a novel perspective on how environmental factors shape physical and behavioral traits. It underscores the interplay between vulnerability, adaptation, and attractiveness in human evolutionary history.