Re: Human brain on an evolutionary sprint!

From: Paul Crowley (slkwuoiutiuytciuyik_at_slkjlskjoioue.com)
Date: 01/29/05 

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:59:32 -0000

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106979063.877033.189140@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> > Apes don't 'constantly rove.
>
> Dont' be ridiculous. Of course they do. Most
> importantly, the relative continuousness of treed
> habitat in their rainforests means that when
> presented with economic pressure the option of moving
> on (migrating) is always available.

Just not true. The one option they have,
(in the great bulk of circumstances) is to
die out. Of course, if their neighbours
die off first, they can move into their
territory, but that's usually about it.

[..]
> > IF early hominids did not have that
> > strange system (and it's highly unlikely
> > that they were so restricted) they would
> > have moved around more. They may
> > well have been LESS proficient at this
> > moving around. But so what? Their
> > system enabled large armed groups,
> > which might have had to travel 20 miles
> > a day on their patrols.
>
> Patrolling 20 miles a day? Are you somehow not grasping
> the fact that we are talking about apes here. It's not
> like they were capable of that high a degree of
> cooperation/coordination.

There is no need for any 'thinking' or
'planning'. Current chimps DO show high
degrees of cooperation/coordination, but
their mating systems obstruct large groups
from coming into existence. Monogamy,
and male relatedness, over many generations
would enable much larger groups. A 'hate'
of predators (as seen in nearly every prey
species) and a need to keep their territory
free of them would have driven the frequent
patrols.

> > > In hominids the adoptions of
> > > bipedalism involves a compromise with other
> > > behaviors (freeing of the hands) and therefore can
> > > most likely be associated with a reduction of the
> > > proficiency of that behavior a that time.
> >
> > Certainly. But it does NOT follow that
> > they moved about less.
>
> Uh, yes it does.

Explain your 'logic'.

> I can imagine these early, ape-like hominids
> residing at and laying claim to city-sized,
> town-sized patches of garden-forest (as we'd
> find in a monsoon forest habitat).

I would not see them operating in larger
than the usual standard human group
size -- except when in serious danger from
a predator or a hostile tribe. Then they'd
cooperate, and do so with great
effectiveness.

> And I can
> see these groups of apes becoming big as these
> geographic realities (of a the monsoon forest
> habitat) force them to begin to deal with each
> other. I cannot, however, imagine what you are
> suggesting (or maybe you haven't explained in
> well) that they could maintain a mobile
> lifestyle,

I am not suggesting a mobile lifestyle
(whatever that may mean).

> What's that the groups can be as big (let's
> say they scale up to 500 or more), and they
> could cooperate/coordinate the defense of their
> garden-forest sites (what you describe as ". . .
> particularly safe [and fertile] sites, . . .")
> I mean, the pieces of your puzzle just don't
> quite fit together. IMO, if we theorize large
> group size then we are relegated to also
> assuming a situated, communal existence. (And,
> as was discussed with respect to Val's
> objections, if we theorize large group size then
> we also have to theorize [as I explicated] that
> they had the ability to prevent trespassing food
> competitors from depleting the food resources
> therein or else we have a hard time concieving
> how large groups could be sustained.

IF chimps NOW had the appropriate social
structures (e.g. monogamy) and faced an
external threat, where they saw the need for
cooperation, then they could easily have
groups of 500 or so adults -- without changing
the manner in which they use their resources.
The groups would operate over areas with
a radius of about 3.5 miles, instead of in
ones with a radius of less than a mile.

> > Saying so, does not make it true. In
> > no other taxa would anyone propose
> > that a substantial change occurred
> > AFTER the new species (or taxon)
> > established its new niche.
>
> In no other taxa do we have evidence of the kind
> and degree of continuous change that we see in
> hominids (It's because of the intraspecies
> capitalistic aspects of hominid community/society).
>
> Yes it is true that hominid/human evolution breaks
> a lot of "rules".

Remember parsimony? Insofar as there is
any breaking of any rules, you must keep it
to the minimum. The notion that a tree-living
animal would 'leave the trees' and become
bipedal, and then a few million years later,
lose crucial tree-climbing adaptations, is a
severe and quite unnecessary clash with
parsimony.

> > Why? Chimps have wars. Why should
> > there be a gap while the behaviour was
> > lost and then recovered?
>
> Saying chimp have wars is a nonsense statement.
> Chimps do not conduct wars. Wars are peculiar
> to hominids.

They have wars to the full capacity their
social structure allows -- that is, they live
in small groups. There is no other difference.

> > > You're getting way ahead of the game. You really
> > > haven't described the selective (and practical)
> > > reasons why group's would maintain cohesion.
> >
> > Err . . . They were slow. They used
> > weapons, and threw stones. They
> > could only keep nocturnal predators
> > away by a system of harassment during
> > the day. All that needed large numbers.
> > Those groups that could form and
> > maintain large numbers prospered.
> > Those that couldn't died out.
>
> How did they die. Why did they die. I mean, I agree,
> but you aren't supplying any details.

What details? In groups that were not
large enough, they succumbed to predators
-- which got their young too often -- (and to
the competitive pressures from baboon-like
primates).

Paul.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... of large predators on the ability of early hominids to colonize and/or ... even just survive in open habitat. ... This means that all through the stone age hominids were ... I cited it and it got flamed without counter evidence. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Apiths Represent a Dramatic Shift in Lifestyle
    ... > like chimps, would see no need to go ... > habitat in which you see the hominids. ... >> predatory sieges and ensuing feeding frenzies. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: savanna nonsense (Re: Scientists Find Prehistoric Dwarf Skeleton
    ... > The African savanna is not treeless, not even where it merges into ... hominids emerged. ... chimpanzees' habitat extends from rain to ... travel from one location to the next. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... of large predators on the ability of early hominids to colonize and/or ... even just survive in open habitat. ... This means that all through the stone age hominids were ... I cited it and it got flamed without counter evidence. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Apiths Represent a Dramatic Shift in Lifestyle
    ... > hominids/humans are very different from chimps we are, therefore, ... habitat in which you see the hominids. ... > The weapons you indicate are useless against predators. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)