Mcdougall doesn't present persistence hunting as a solved, sorted thing - he presents it as an explanation for the various adaptations humans have that other primates do not. That said, he presents it with extensive evidence and then goes on a persistence hunt (he fails). The evidence presented is far more compelling than the overview here - humans are the only animals that have diaphragms perpendicular to their direction of travel, for example, which means humans are the only animals whose respiration is independent of gait. Humans are also the only erect hunter which, combined with black, curly hair, makes humans the predators least susceptible to solar heat. More than that, this article presents persistence hunting as something that nobody has ever observed when in fact it's readily observable. Its evidence that there's no possible way persistence hunting ever existed is spurious at best - a pit full of healthy animal bones simply means that the humans who filled it preferred healthy animals (as most predators who can pick and choose will). Persistence hunting actually fits this evidence better than ambush hunting - if the humans were lying in wait for whatever came around, wouldn't there be a stochastic blend of prey? However, a healthy prey specimen will go fastest, go the furthest, and achieve exhaustion faster as more energy is expended on flight. Better muscles, greater exhaustion. Finally, the argument is that humans evolved as persistence hunters two million years ago. The counterargument that horses are better at persistence is only to be expected: horses are the result of five thousand years of selective breeding which is why "horse" is everything from a Shetland Pony to a Clydesdale. Horses two million years ago weren't exactly destriers. I will freely admit that the long-limbed long-distance gods of Born to Run do not match my experience. As the guy at my local running shop put it, "humans may well have evolved to run down cheetahs but you and me, friend? We are ambushers of mastodons." But from an evolutionary standpoint, I am not shaped to ambush mastodons... I'm just a shitty persistence predator, as if the original intent and my modern adaptations have been at war for millions of years.
As the Aquatic ape (my other favorite theory), the Endurance hunter theory is sexy because it give one simple logical explanation for a lot of various traits. I guess Humans are addicted to simplification The arguments for the persistent hunter, is one of accumulation based on a presupposition: We have hair, it protect from the sun while we run. We sweat, it help cooling for the run. We are bipedal, it's for running. We experience a runner's high with endorphin kicking in after 5 miles.. comon, of course we evolved to be persistent hunter Long Running need a lot of carbs. Even if you catch the prey, you get protein and some fat, but you cant replenish those carbs. And if you don't catch it, like it apparently happen a lot with the Tarahumara people (on a side note, the one and only primitive tribe using the persistent running technique) you're exhausted, with nothing to show for your effort, far from home, and you'll likely become the prey of the nasties around. Not very smart Tarahumara live on a high carb diet75-80% of their diet are carbs.. not many protein( yeah they are bad at hunting prey). Such diet is only possible with agriculture Basically we need agriculture to persistent hunt, which defeat the purpose The one argument again persistent hunter is the diet.
None of these arguments are compelling. The argument in your Wiki link is that humans were too stupid to track prey out of sight, a supposition based pretty much on egocentrism. Further, all of these arguments are on the basis of one human or multiple humans running in a straight line behind one prey animal that, as soon as it finds cover, magically wins. I'm no anthropologist. But the arguments put forth by your links so far don't take an anthropologist to question. Look - humans sweat. Sweating is much more effective under airflow. No other animals sweat the way humans do. You can point to the function that adaptation serves extremely well - movement in extreme heat - and make an argument that we evolved for movement in extreme heat. And while you can argue that maybe sweating isn't for that, without a compelling counter-argument you're just being contrary. Same with human hair. If not heat then what? Especially when you consider how much human perspiration occurs at the scalp. The use of fire is between 1.5 and 0.5m years ago. That right there makes roots bioavailable. It also supports a radical shrinkage of our digestive tracts, a massive expansion of our cerebral function and a consequential enhancement of language and socialization. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to the evolution of humans as we know ourselves as a consequence of carbs, starches and proteins due to cooking, and the influence of carbs, starches and proteins building human social behavior. Most of the arguments against these theories are not "that's disproven because" but "well isn't that convenient." Yes. Yes it is. The whole of the savanna is covered in plants designed to survive fires by regrowing from their starchy roots. It could even be suggested that once you start boiling grass roots for food, you suddenly have the reserves to take up distance running.Long Running need a lot of carbs. Even if you catch the prey, you get protein and some fat, but you cant replenish those carbs.
I don't doubt that human sweat. It seems a logical fallacy, and tell more about the theorist (those bloody hunter apologist) than the Hominid, to assume that sweat ability (and feet, gait, hairlessness, etc) came from persistence hunting (it could be anything, or a lot of various adaptation) Where sweat came from? From Dancing Do you want to start the Persistent dancer theory with me ? I need some well researched facts to write "Born to dance" To woo their mate, homo Erectus (like a lot of animal) had to dance for hours. Sweating help to court the mate longer, so is having arched foot, and gait, and a nice toupee. And so, only the most persistent dancer could procreate Do I have proof? Lot of tribe nowadays still dance for hours to woo potential mate. And it's not only in Africa
Still not compelling. Dancing happens largely at night when the need to dissipate heat has been minimized. You're being dismissively facetious. My argument remains that the case for persistence running is more compelling than the case against persistence running. Neither you nor the article have tipped the scales.it could be anything, or a lot of various adaptation
It doesn't defeat the purpose, really. Depending on what they're growing or gathering, supplementing with 10% antelope could be a huge benefit.Basically we need agriculture to persistent hunt, which defeat the purpose
I was trying to be lighthearted. The point is : Without agriculture no massive carbs source. Without carbs, long distance running is a loosing proposition (you cant replenish the carbs needed even when catching the prey). Agriculture is 10k years old Persistent hunting is supposed to be the factor leading to homo... basically from Erectus 2 millions years ago, to sapiens , 1 millions years ago. Once a Sapiens, with sweat, hairlessness, plantar stuff, gait, and all, you're already the result of millennia of selection gained through persistent hunting (allegedly). But you are right , actually (while using agriculture) the Tarahumara can complement their diet with some antelope by running after them. It was not an option for Erectus (who had not access to such carbs source)
Forgive me if I'm unable to let a lighthearted thing go... You are overestimating the carbs needed to run or underestimating the carbs available from gathering. We're not talking about olympic sprinting regimen, but trotting just fast enough to keep an animal from panting in the shade long enough to cool off. Its also possible to run with super low number of carbs, even if it feels like hell until you're used to it.