Re: Human brain on an evolutionary sprint!

From: Jim McGinn (jimmcginn_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/23/05 

Date: 23 Jan 2005 00:29:47 -0800

Val Lentz wrote:

<snip>

> > We're all using the same evidence. One piece of
> > evidence that you PA groupies prefer to dismiss is
> > the correlation is group size and language that is
> > indicated in observation of extant hominids.
>
> We wouldn't have the group sizes we do without language.

How do you know that exactly the opposite isn't the case. Maybe we
wouldn't have language if we didn't have large group size.

<snip>

> > How many times over the years does it have to be
> > pointed out to you PA groupies that absence of
> > evidence does not indicate evidence of absence.
> > The truth, plain and simple, is that you have no
> > evidence that disputes our supposition of large
> > group size in the earliest years of hominid
> > evolution.
>
> We have evidence. That you choose to ignore it is your problem.

Direct evidence?

<snip>

> > Well, you're welcome to your opinion. But just
> > don't pretend that your opinion is based on
> > anything but absence of evidence and/or the
> > misguided notion that vagueness is a scientific
> > virtue.
>
> I happen to follow what little evidence there is. If there is no
evidence,
> then I don't make assumptions on which to make a case.

What evidence did you employ to rule out large groups? I thought it
was common knowledge that no such evidence exists.

> You have something
> that is based on nothing, which makes it nothing.

But you can't dispute it. Right?

<snip>

> > I agree. The evidence indicates that hominid
> > fossils are found clustered. IOW, the evidence
> > is very supportive of mine and Paul's supposition.
>
> Clustered? 2 individuals within a 200 ky time period, in the same
area a 1
> km. apart

Obviously I'm referring to the evidence found at other A'pith sites.

> is clustered? That is not supportive of large group sizes.
>
> > > First, modern population densities of humans are incongruous.
> > However,
> > > primitive hunting gathering societies, which can be equated with
> > > pre-agricultural societies are a better representive. Perhaps
not
> > the best
> > > representive, but it is the best we've got to work with.
> >
> > Explain to us the rationale that allowed you to
> > factor out modern societies which indicate very
> > very large group size. (I predict Val will
> > pretend not to notice this question.)
>
> You aren't very good at predicting anything. Agriculture allowed
larger
> groups to form. Unless you can prove that agriculture developed
millions of
> years ago, you can't support larger groups.

No. There are many garden-like locations (and more and larger ones in
the wetter late miocene) that could support large populations spread
over thousands of square acres of a town/city sized patch of forest.
And if they successfully maintained exclusion of competing species the
density would be higher still. But agriculture is not necessary.

>
> > > Establishing a
> > > specific area is better represented with these groups as well.
But
> > the
> > > animals that we are trying to establish group size on, is almost
as
> > equally
> > > distant from chimps as they are from humans, so if we also take
them
> > into
> > > consideration as well as the modern human counterparts then we
would
> > > establish an even more solid base to determine the paleo-animal
group
> > size.
> > > Now here's where the really tough part comes: establishing fossil
> > density.
> > > Unfortunately, that is exceptionally low.
> >
> > No, it indicates clustering. Hominid fossils tend
> > to be found in close proximity to one another.
>
> Dealt with above.
>
> > > If you want all the math factors
> > > invoved here, I do have them, though I'm so rusty that I'd
probably
> > make a
> > > dog's dinner out of explaining it here, so will it suffice to say
> > that no
> > > matter what animals we deal with, up until the erectines, they
show
> > > *extremely* low population densities?
> >
> > Not true.
>
> The math holds up.

Math? What about the almost complete lack of data.

>
> > > But I can't just leave it at that. In my cultural studies, I
studied
> > > several primitive societies. One thing that was impressed on me,
was
> > that,
> > > in a general way, even though specific groups or villages were of
a
> > specific
> > > size 100-250 people (though some were smaller) they were always
in
> > contact
> > > with 10 or 15 - up to 20 or 30 - other villages that ranged from
5 to
> > 15
> > > miles apart from one another. Some of these other villages were
> > enemy
> > > villages, some were relative villages. Different societies had
> > different
> > > rules governing marriages between villages, and fighting between
> > villages,
> > > and who and why one or another of the villages may be an ally,
all of
> > which
> > > could change over the years. Speaking the same language was a
> > cohesion
> > > between these villages, making them into something we can call a
> > tribe.
> > > Peoples from other villages that belonged to another language
group
> > or
> > > tribe, were almost always considered to be an enemy. So tribes
can
> > be very
> > > large, even though the individual groups or villages are not.
And
> > tribes
> > > can cover a vast area, while individual groups or villages did
not.
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > > From the paleo-data we can only determine that we are dealing
with
> > small (up
> > > to 250 individuals) groups. We can not determine the wider
> > population.
> >
> > Right. And remember Val, absence of evidence is not evidence of
> > absence.
> >
> > > We
> > > do not see tribe-like behavior between groups of chimps, though
there
> > is
> > > evidence of some brief interactions, and females that move
between
> > the
> > > groups, but nothing like what we see in primitive societies.
> > Individual
> > > chimp groups also have a larger territory than most primitive
> > villages,
> > > though tribes cover immense territories.
> > >
> > > If language developed at the extreme early stages that are
proposed
> > by Jim,
> > > then the evidence that can be gleaned from that time shows that
the
> > language
> > > could only have developed in a smaller group,
> >
> > Once again, Val, you reveal that you don't think
> > like a scientist. Above you stated, "We can not
> > determine the wider population." From this you,
> > somehow, came to the conclusion that, " . . .
> > language could only have developed in a smaller
> > group." This indicates that your scientific
> > methodologies are not fully scientific but are,
> > in part, mystical. Again, absence of evidence is
> > not evidence of absence.
>
> We can not determine wider population, however, we can infer it from
the
> data of the paleo-population that has been determined.

What, "paleo-population that has been determined?" What are you
talking about?

The wider
> population, such as in a tribe, would have been made up of smaller
groups,
> similar to the primitive societies, similar to the chimps. You
misuse that
> absence of evidence line quite a bit. There is a lot of evidence out
there
> if you don't choose to ignore it.

Do you have direct evidence of hominid population size during the late
miocene? Yes or no?

>
> > > though as those groups grew
> > > and split, they would have taken their language with them, and
> > communication
> > > could have continued between them, keeping them in a cohesive
state.
> > This
> > > cohesiveness or co-operation between the groups, or tribe, could
> > then be
> > > considered a factor in their survival...
> > >
> > > Is that a little more explict for you?
> >
> > Yes, you just made more explicit that absence of
> > logic that underlies your conclusion.
> >
> > Jim
>
> And you've made it explicit that you choose to ignore what evidence
there
> is, to establish nothing.
Feel free to introduce me to this evidence at any time.

Jim

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Human brain on an evolutionary sprint!
    ... We're all using the same evidence. ... > problem in the assumption that in order for language to develop they ... evidence does not indicate evidence of absence. ... Some of these other villages were ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A Few Things Which Matt and Inabon Probably Wish Did Not Exist....
    ... you're the one who deals only with physical evidence. ... 458 Manchester from the 2nd century BCE is the oldest ... hebrew alphabet is in fact the Aramaic alphabet so an amateur conclusion from ... Hebrew was ever a spoken language. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: German population in Europe after fall of Roman Empire.
    ... complete foreign culture (including language) become practised by ... You say evidence of it does exist - ... >> Linguistics are a poor indicator as it relies VERY heavily on totally ... Instead, Old Norse ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: "Its uncertain whether intelligence has any long term
    ... There is ample evidence that "intelligence" has had considerable ... > with other animals run up against a critical problem - we are capable ... > of things that other animals are not (language being the obvious ... Natural selection propels some species along a ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Human brain on an evolutionary sprint!
    ... > We're all using the same evidence. ... We wouldn't have the group sizes we do without language. ... > evidence does not indicate evidence of absence. ... Some of these other villages were ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)