Re: Human brain on an evolutionary sprint!

From: Paul Crowley (slkwuoiutiuytciuyik_at_slkjlskjoioue.com)
Date: 01/26/05 

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:22:53 -0000

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106768083.745179.128540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> But there is a lot of evidence that indicates
> woodland, especially lacustrine (lake-side,
> stream-side) woodland. And this evidence seems
> to be confirmed by A'pith fossil evidence that
> seems to indicate that they maintained some
> degree of climbing adaptations.

I don't buy that. Their ancestors had
such adaptations and, other things
being equal, they would have retained
them for as long as they could. (Tree-
climbing is always useful.) But other
things were not equal, and the need
for effective progress on land would
have been too much of a conflict.

> (It's not like this is all that surpising,
> afterall we are talking about a descendent of
> tree dwelling apes.)

Those adaptations went at some
point. They probably went during
the big switch-over to bipedalism.
Any other time is unparsimonious.

> > It is very likely that early paleo-populations
> > generally had _much_more_serious_
> > problems with predators than do modern
> > ones, especially those not in Africa. The
> > only remotely likely answer that I can see is
> > very large groups in dense occupation of
> > particularly safe (and fertile) sites, with the
> > whole group working together to fend off
> > attacks.
>
> I assume you mean attacks from predators only.

Basically yes. But whenever predators
ceased to be a serious problem, wars
would start. They'd have much the
same effect, from an evolutionary point
of view -- in the way they'd favour the
largest, most cohesive groups with tbe
better capacity for languages.

> > (That is, they could do little about
> > nocturnal attacks, as such. They'd have to
> > patrol a large area by day, killing or driving
> > away any large predator located.)
>
> > With such a system, we have the basis for
> > hominid language and society and for the
> > social and _physical_ features to evolve
> > (i.e. the large brain, etc.)
> >
> > Without such a system, we have nothing.
>
> Well, I wouldn't call it a system. Or, at least,
> not yet. So far it's more of a conjecture. I
> think there are a lot of objections that have to
> be considered. For example Val mentioned one
> that involved resource availability. I don't
> think this is something that should be dismissed.

We can use chimp density as a guide.
Band territories can be as small as 5 sq km
(according to Val). If that's a standard
band of around 30 adults, then we can
have very large hominid bands -- of say
1000 adults in an area of 170 sq km; i.e.
a circle with a radius of 4.6 miles.
Of course, that's only a calculation and
possibly a theoretical maximum.
But getting rid of baboons, and/or using
digging sticks to exploit roots would
expand the extent of resources.

> Especially in the context of the highly
> competitive ecology of late miocene east Africa.
> What Val's saying has to be taken very, very
> seriously. It's hard to imagine groups of early
> hominids forming into large groups

Those groups that could do it were
successful, and prospered. Those
that couldn't died out. It would not
take too long for the right 'instincts'
or behaviour to evolve.

> and maintaining
> their unity when faced with constant competition
> from food the numerous food competitor species
> that existed back then.

That would help rather than hinder
But what competitor species?

> More specifically, how can large hominid groups
> have persisted at their, what you describe as,
> ". . . particularly safe (and fertile) sites,"
> when faced with constant competition from the
> relatively aggressive food competitors of late
> miocene Africa?

What species? We are talking here
about chimp food plus baboon food.

> "They'd have to patrol a
> large area by day, killing or driving away any
> large predators." I'm wondering to what degree
> the behavior you indicate here might have also been
> wielded to maintain a front against encroaching,
> infiltrating large food competitor species.

What species? I can't conceive of any.
The patrolling I envisage is against
predators.

> The idea being, of course, that if they can
> maintain some degree of exclusive access to the
> resources in the area then this might better
> explain how large groups could persist and thrive
> in the face of constant competition from food
> competitors.

They'd have to keep out chimps, but
I don't think that would be a major
problem, once a large hominid group
got established.

Paul.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Crowleys Unaswered Questions
    ... All evolutionary hypotheses involve competition. ... >> predators and competition from food competitor species ... about chimps here. ... dry season and only if the community as a whole was ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: OT: There I was, watching PBS . . .
    ... pests) also have started some informal competition in agility. ... She has couple of cat breeder friends who do this. ... small spoons with canned food are used most of the ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: Human brain on an evolutionary sprint!
    ... of constant competition from many other species the ... competition it's inconcievable that large groups could ... >> relatively aggressive food competitors of late ... choices overlap those of chimps and that might ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Food Network sinks to a new low
    ... A program where the professional wrestler of food ... Why doesn't the Food Network focus on the cook who made the dish, ... So to have him hosting a competition would really max ...
    (rec.food.cooking)
  • Re: KCBS vent
    ... some cook teams. ... never cook what they like to eat for a competition, and the food that ... everyone I cooked with was cooking the very best BBQ they knew how cook. ... Competition culture ...
    (alt.food.barbecue)