Why are monkeys so superior to humans in terms of strength and athleticism - to the point that your everyday primate can outperform world class athletes?
At what point during our evolution did it make sense to abandon such traits?
Yeah, monkeys and other primates are totally ruling the world with their big muscles
>>8095366
BLACKED
>>8095356
>monkeys so superior to humans in terms of strength
Wait, is this like the thing with ants?
"If an ant was as big as a human, they could lift a car!"
Cause that shit is pure bullshit.
An ant scaled to human size would collapse under it's own weight.
Fuck ants.
>>8095388
Nah, monkeys are strong. Pretty sure it's something like the strongest human is an average monkey.
Gorillas are very strong, obviously.
They have a heap of muscle mass compared to us.
>At what point during our evolution did it make sense to abandon such traits?
we didn't abandon them, we never had them. Australopithecines are all fairly small and there's nothing to suggest they were particularly strong. humans went a way which focused on intelligence and endurance while other apes required strength to greater extent and intelligence to a lesser extent.
>>8095400
>heap of muscle mass compared to us.
Ok then.
I'm still down on ants.
>>8095416
then how did the original australopithecines survive?
>>8095400
it's more like a monkey is stronger than a non lifter.
anyone who lifts in the 1/2/3/4 range is stronger than a chimp
this discussion has been done to death on /fit/ that's how I know
>>8095356
Because at some point in our evolutionary history, brains became more important to survival than brawn.
Which you are kinda seeing among the primates more apt to build nations. It takes a lotta brain power to socially organize that shit, thus the primates that form social networks from multiple tribes into nations (such as baboons), do tend to be smaller and weaker than say, the great apes, who only work with single extended family units.
Or luck of the draw... Or some combination of the above.
Why did we lose near all our body hair though - what's up with that shit?
>>8095446
glad someone clarified this, I thought it was strange that the little monkeys could be as strong as those gorilla men in lifting contests
>>8095445
I don't know what you're asking. Most were at least partially tree dwelling at probably lived off fruits and vegetables, though i think you're asking a different question.
>>8095462
So essentially was it impossible to develop both brains and brawn?
>>8095446
>>8095464
chimp strength is more or less exaggerated compared to humans, but they're still stronger. Their type of strength differs so we might not be that much weaker in one area but in another they could completely blow us the fuck out. tops athletes could probably beat them in squats but no one would compete in OHP or curls.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2009/02/how_strong_is_a_chimpanzee.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDxg0pJAX4
>>8095476
From what you said I assumed they still had ape-like intelligence and human-like physique. I suppose tree dwelling would kindof solve it but you have to be pretty strong to jump from tree to tree.
Also, assuming our main survival trait for millennia has been intelligence why is that mongoloid athletes drown in pussy and the nerds are pretty much ignored by girls until they have money?
>>8095494
Once he stands up, does the Sumo's weight really help?
>>8095498
I think the problem is you're misunderstanding evolution as a process that makes species strictly better, it's not. It makes them more specialized for survival in their environment. they had the physique and intelligence they needed to survive as tree-dwelling animals i.e. strong grip strength and moderate intelligence. Humans also had the intelligence and physique for their environment i.e. large buttocks, upright stances, high endurance, and high intelligence. It's unlikely either would do well in the other's environment because they're specialized for their own, though humans are a special case because their intelligence and use of tools allows them to survive where their physique shouldn't.
>assuming our main survival trait for millennia has been intelligence
if you exclude diseases, we haven't had much pressure by natural selection for a while now. Even when it was, it wouldn't be right to say intelligence was the main survival trait. Intelligence allowed us to make tools which in turned allowed us to take down prey we normally wouldn't be able to but obviously physique is still an important factor. Guess which trait is more easily noticeable.
>>8095554
I guess my question is why we don't retain positive traits like muscle mass and body hair just because another trait becomes the main arbiter of passing on genes.
>>8095546
does he stop having mass that the orangutan must move once he stands up?
>>8095498
>Also, assuming our main survival trait for millennia has been intelligence why is that mongoloid athletes drown in pussy and the nerds are pretty much ignored by girls until they have money?
this is more of a social thing. in america, no cricket player would get laid no matter how good at cricket they were
>>8095494
>implying sumo wrestlers are fit
"she wore me out"
well, chimps/rangos are certainly stronger than untrained/obese people.
>>8095356
We gained brain mass instead of muscle mass. Is this not fucking obvious with like 3 seconds of thought?
>>8095388
In terms of total earth displaced in a year who is more powerful - humans or ants?
>>8095604
in terms of total semen displaced in a year who is more powerful - your asshole or your mouth?
>>8095575
because there's no such thing as a positive trait, not in the general sense. It's either useful for your current situation or it's not. If you have a larger than necessary muscle mass, than mutations that result in decreased muscle mass will not be selected against. If you release body heat through sweating then less body hair will be specifically selected against. So previously positive traits can become either neutral or detrimental. When they do so, they will either slowly lose their genetic integrity if neutral or will be rapidly selected against if detrimental.
>>8095356
Have you seen the energy amassed in those muscles?
The molecules that body has absorbed?
The will to use it?
The suffering a chimp has done in the wild?
>>8095356
>strength and athleticism
But it's only strength and upper body. Monkeys are way less flexible which means they apparently can't throw for shit. They are way worse runners, they are less dexterous. It's not just about muh lift stuff.
>>8095356
A. Those plates are obviously fake
B. humans mostly evolved for long distance running
>>8095356
less to the muscles, more to the brain.
this happened when humanoids started consuming meat which basically packs more nutrition and allows for a bigger brain.
>>8095356
It's our diet. Humans started doing agriculture 60'000 years ago. This caused the diet to contain more carbohydrtes as compared to the traditional meaty diet containing fat and protein. As a result we are weak and brittle.
We also need to remineralize our teeth with fluorides so that they don't rot.
>>8096194
>less to the muscle, more to the brain
>consuming meat
underage detected.
First of all, theres no "less" going to the muscles, just more nutrients that will get to the brain and the muscles. Its more to both.
Also, humans or "humanoids" have been eating meat since before they were humans. So I think you mean "cooked meat" because when you cook meat it brings out more of the nutrients.
I take it you skimmed the book "Cooked" by Michael Pollen and then got a C on your final for first year english
>>8096194
literally what
>>8096206
oh you're on.
I haven't skimmed through your shit book, I actually educate myself.
Meat eating started 2.5 million years ago in prehumans. Cooking became relevant 0.5 million years later. Meat was better because sliced and pounded meat actually requires less time and less effort to masticate and digest than grains.
But hey, you couldn't know that because you're not informed AND a moron.
>First of all, theres no "less" going to the muscles, just more nutrients that will get to the brain and the muscles. Its more to both.
it's about proportion.
now fuck back off to wherever you crawled out from.
>>8096194
Consuming meat made brains larger, yes.
However, consuming grains afterwards made our bodies weaker.
Our hunter-getherer homosapiens ancestors would outperform modern athletes.
>>8095356
Monkeys need to be agile to casually move around in tress, humans are grounded and usually way too heavy to move around in tropical trees with speed.
Apes are stronger than us since apes developed specialized longer more muscular forelimbs to improve their brachiation, and have denser muscle fibers than us.
>>8095356
Look at the wrists. That chimp is not lifting that fake weights, he is hanging on the bar.
> sci/
> psysical strength is an important evolutionary trait
wut
>>8095356
well op about the same time we started building tools, so evolution favored fine motor skills rather than gross motor skills, its the difference to make spears and bows to just using rocks and sticks.
You know the term "retard strength"?
Well it applies to monkeys and gorillas. They have a lot of strength because it suits them, but they give up having the ability to naturally be good at performing complex, controlled actions with their bodies. I mean, we started with handmade tools, but look how far it has carried us.
Monkeys and non-human apes have more slow-twitch muscles and a different architecture of muscles in their arms that gives them better leverage for certain actions.
They excel at slowly-applied muscle loads, but can't throw things as well as humans. You'll never see a monkey throw as fast as a human pitcher.
>>8096365
In nature it is.
Either you have evasive defense mechanism, or you're strong enough other animals won't fuck with you.
>>8096586
This guy has it.
Their muscles are not stronger, precisely.
They have different joint articulations and attachment points for muscles.
This gives them greater leverage (moment arc) but also stiffens their bodies, meaning they are much less agile. Compare a chimp swinging around vs an olympic gymnast.
We traded focused strength for agility and dexterity.
Watch a chimp's hands. They look crippled when trying anything dextrous.
>>8096726
A more intuitive example might be to compare the flexibility of a dog or puppy to a cat.
>>8095445
No one can say exactly how, but just like every organism that survives and passes its genes on they were well suited for their environment. Wether they knew to hide from bigger predators or survived sheerly by having a large population we can't say for certain and I'm no expert obviously but yeah.
>>8095494
It looks like he jumps in at the end.
>>8096726
>Compare a chimp swinging around vs an olympic gymnast.
i'd like to see an olympic gymnast teasing lions or tigers
>>8096726
Expanding on this, it's all about muscle insertions. The farther a muscle is inserted towards the joint, the more force it will produce but it will be limited in mobility and vice versa. Chimps and other animals tend to have muscle insertions much farther away from the joints while us humans tend to have them relatively close. If you ever look at a cats anatomy it'll surprise you how far away the insertions are.
