As evidenced by the oft repeated anecdote that a chimpanzee could easily beat up a large man, it’s pretty obvious that primates are far stronger than we humans are. At what point in our evolutionary development did we lose the strength that animals seem to have? Which is our most recent ancestor that would have possessed “monkey strength”?
I’ve heard from a friend who is usually right, thanks to prodigious intelligence and solid memory, that most mammals essentially have another, lesser stage of puberty which huamsn do not go through. This increases bone and muscle mass relative to the animal’s overall size. We see some remnant of this in older people - joint pain caused by arthritis. The joints grow a bit.
In humans, the resources are devoted to growing the brain. I have no cite for this, but note that the brain continues to develop even late in puberty; I believe animal species do not do this. In short, we chose another path and reaped the benefits. I suspect our ancestors found they could get along without the extra meat on them, and that it probably was a net loss. In the event of famine, a leaner, lighter, more intelligent human was more likely to live through than a larger, less intellgent one. And even at the same intellelect, huger was a bigger foe than fighting animals.
However, another reason is that humans use their arms for control and legs for movement. Chimps reverse the scale: look at their legs compared to arm size. Humans are meant to use their entire body as a weapon, pushng with leg strength combined with arm strength combined with a weapon of some sort. Chimps just use their larger, stronger arms.
We’ve discussed this before. Our muscles are generally more suited to endurance than short bursts of strength.
Many animals are stronger or faster than us, but few (if any) can outrun us in the long haul. Humans can reportedly run down any animal. The animal can easily run away from a human in the beginning of a hunt, but two days later, the animal just lays down from exhaustion.
Can we perhaps see some actual, serious cites for this?
I thought Pak protectors were fictional.
Our most recent relative with “monkey strength” would be the neanderthal. This isn’t a direct answer to the OP since the neanderthal isn’t a direct ancestor of ours, but it is significant since neanderthals and homo sapiens did co-exist for many thousands of years. It’s also not quite clear why we survived and neanderthals died out, but one of the theories is that we out-competed them for resources.
If you look at a neanderthal’s skull, their brain was bigger than ours too. But, if you look at their tools and jewelry and such, homo sapiens produced tools and jewelry that were just slightly more complex. Proof that bigger isn’t necessarily better, I suppose.
I guess the theory is that we were smarter, they were stronger. We won.
I’m sure that’s what will turn out to be the root of that assertion.
Why must any of our ancestors have monkey strength? (Neanderthals certainly did not. They were no more monkey-like than Homo sapiens. Perhaps somewhat more solidly built, but that’s not the same thing.)
Humans are not descended from the other great apes. We’re all descended from earlier, smaller common ancestors. Homo and its progenitor genera developed in one direction, emphasizing brains and endurance and generalization, and the great apes developed in a different direction.
Asking when we lost our monkey strength is looking at the situation through the wrong set of glasses.
That’s why Popeye had the deformed arms! He was really saying “I yam what I yam!”
Mammals generally have two brain growth rates-- fetal brain growth (rapid) and post-birth brain growth (slower). Humans are an exception in that we continue the fetal brain growth rate for about a year after birth. The human brain reaches its adult size sometime between age 6 and 14 (it varies quite a bit between individuals).
However, just before puberty, there is a “brain spurt” where new gray matter is added, but much of that new matter is culled away in the next few years, and it is thought that the culling process is dependent on the experience that person has during adolescence.
Keep in mind that forming the interconnections between the neurons is at least as important as gaining raw size in the brain. We go through periods of increased connections, and elimination of unused connections. For example, our brain gets hardwired for language pronunciation around or during puberity, after which point it is virtually impossible to learn to speak a new language without an accent.
That is not the way evolution works.
Humans are not “meant” to use their entire bodies as weapons. I don’t know where you got that nonsense from.
As for the OP, humans are adapted for endurance, not raw strength. Although a chimp can out-wrestle us, we can easily out-pace them over a long enough distance.
Although you are basically correct, we are descended from a “great ape”, although not an extant one. The most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps would certainly be classified as a “great ape”, and probably looked quite a bit like a modern chimp. Our own early ancestors from 3-4M years ago looked pretty much like chimps with an upright posture.
Something else to consider, many animals also equate “conflict” from another species as “predator” meaning this is a fight or flight adrenalin dump situation. Human being truly fighting for their lives can display some pretty impressive strength for short periods of time, probably more than enough to subdue a chimp.
Alot of our problem is, we operate under the assumption that we are not fighting for our survival vs a chimp these days. If attacked by a chimp would you think to bite it hard enough to rip a chunk out? Rip his eyes out? A good solid kick to a chimp that cracked a rib would most likely result in the chimp retreating, we on the other hand are probably still in the fight, albeit less efffective, but still up and willing.
Animals also very rarely fight to the death unless it is predatory. The animal world is a far less forgiving place, chimps born in the wild are from that place. Prehistoric man probably fought more like that when his survival might depend on fighting with a wild animal not just because said human was looking for a meal.
Don’t ask me, I didn’t make the claim. I’m just reporting it.
:rolleyes: How dare I speak in poetic metaphor.
Go pick up a stick and throw it with just arm strength. Now try using your legs to push yourself at the same time; put your whole body in it. Humans did that for eons upon eons. IN fact, some scientists believe that throwing things was a major factor in evolution, as it takes considerable brainpower to accurately throw and hit a target. I know of no other species which can throw 90 mph fastballs. Yes, that’s the upper peak of human acheivement. But we can hit that peak. And it takes the entire body working together.
Probably not. Chimps are, in an absolute sense, stronger than humans by a factor of at least 3 and possibly as high as 6. In addition, they have long canine teeth that can do a lot of damage. Now, there is a variation in strength among humans, and it is possible that a trained fighter might subdue a chimp, but you average Joe against your average “Cheeta” doesn’t stand a chance.
That post was wrong beyond the metaphor.
Our upper bodies evolved to much the way they are long before there is any evidenced that we threw spears. It is more likely that that ability is a lucky consequence of our upright posture and bipedal gate, not something that was originally selected for.
You know, this is GQ at the SDMB. In the past, there were certain higher expectations about the quality of the information posted here. If one reported a claim, one was expected to be able to back it up. Especially if it was extra-ordinary.
The particulars of the common ancestor have been hotly debated for years. However, I think your time frame is far too conservative.
The article goes on to describe the ancestor in great detail. Both the article and the picture depict an ape rather than a great ape and one that does indeed look monkeyish, and has several distinctly monkey-like features. This does not mean that we lost those features, just that evolution emphasized certain traits over others. In fact, the article makes clear that some traits, like climbing and hanging abilities, evolved several times because of their usefulness.
Nevertheless, there is no possibility that we are descended from great apes. The divergence point is far too early for that.
You misinterpreted that article. That fossil would be the last common ancestor of all the great apes, not just humans and chimps. The human/chimp line is thought to have split no longer ago than 6M years, and possibly less.
To be even more nitpicky, we are descended from extant great apes. Both my mother and my father are still alive, and they’re both great apes.
Of course, the chimp is going to have the same adrenalin surge when fighting for its life against a human. Chimps are a lot stronger than humans, so you’ve got a situation where a berserk human is fighting a berserk chimp, and the chimp is going to rip off your nuts and eat them for breakfast.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/national/main678061.shtml
You just can’t outwrestle a chimp unless it’s a juvenile.