Re: Jason's Dilemma


rmacfarl wrote:
> JAE wrote:
>
> Some times it's better to fight fire with fire...
>
> > jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx (Jim McGinn) wrote in message news:<ac6a5059.0301311400.36c4d793@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>...
> >
> > Ross,
> >
> > Can you dispute the following?
>
> The question is, can you support it?
> Questions:
> 1. What is your evidence (references) that a move away from a
> rainforest environment occurred in the LCA,


(They didn't move, the climate changed.)

I wouldn't have thought you'd dispute this. It's considered
a standard assumption. Do you have any evidence (references)
that a "move" away from a rainforest environment did not occurred
in the LCA?



> thereby promoting the shift to niche independence?


The shift to niche independence, in my estimation, happened
considerably later with the emergence of homo. It happened
after they had gained a considerable degree of ecological
dominance. (The situational factors that enabled them to
gain ecological dominance are indicated in the communal
selective aspects of my scenario.)


> 2. On what evidence (references) do you base your assumption of "The
> onset of a climate characterized by seasonal dessication (a distinct
> and severe dry season)", and "Patchiness of their [the LCAs'] treed
> habitat"?


I've provided my support of this in other posts. Why did you
not read them and respond to them at that time? If you want
to dispute either of these suppositions then please respond to
these posts directly. You should have no trouble finding these
posts in Google groups. (If you need help finding these posts
let me know. Try going to the advanced search function of Google
Groups. It's excellent!)


> 3. When did this occur,


As I explained previously, about 8 to 10 mya.


> and specifically which known fossils


All of them.


> would you
> cite as being the Last Common Ancestor in question?


We probably will never actually see a fossil of the LCA.


> In identifying the above fossil as the LCA, which
> scientific references, particularly those of a taphonomic
> nature, did you refer to?


Stop playing games, Ross. You know perfectly well that
we don't have an LCA fossil.

The significant thing here is that you have no dispute
with my interpretation of the evidence. Nor can you
dispute my claim that my interpretation better explains
the evidence than any other hypothesis.



> 4. Define the phrase "Communal territorialism"


See below.


> , and explain how it is materially different from the
> territorial behaviour of chimpanzees, baboons or other
> relevant mammals.


Good question. The answer is that the territorialism in my
scenario is more human. Let me explain. If you were to be
drafted into the Australian army to fight a war you'd find
yourself fighting alongside many who you did not know up until
then. You might even find yourself, for example, fighting
alongside somebody from a different country. The same kind of
thing is indicated in my hypothesis. As I've explained, the
members of the communities in my hypothesis do not necessarily
like each other or even know each other, or not necessarily
very well. Each troop or band (extended family unit) has
property in the context of an extensive community site. (See
Note below). For the most part these bands got along, or at
least were able to put up with each other. And, as explained
in my scenario, these intercompeting/intercooperativ­e bands
fought alongside each other to achieve communal territorialistic
ends. So, this is your answer. Hominids have the ability or
instinct to recognize their neighbors or compatriots as sharing
common interests that can be achieved through communal
territorialsm. (The selective rational for the emergence of
these adaptations is indicated in my hypothesis in its
entirety.) Chimpanzees, baboons or other relevant mammals
don't have this behavior/ability/instinct.

(Note: The number of troops or bands within a community was,
IMO, largely determined by the size of the community site. In
especially large sites there might be upwards of 100 troops.
And the areal extent of a community site may have often been
upwards of 100 square miles. Who knows.)



> 5. Define the phrase "group selection".


Natural selection at the group level.


> a. In particular, explain how its dynamics are consistent with
> "Selfish Gene" theory (a la Richard Dawkins).


You would first have to explain how selfish gene theory
(actually calling it a "theory" is a misnomer) is consistent
with reality. This has never been done. In fact it's plainly
demonstrable that whether or not genes really are "selfish"
pivots off what one means with the word selfish. In the
absolute sense of what it means to be selfish, genes, clearly
and indisputably, are NOT selfish. For example, at this very
moment there are genes within cells on your body that are
directing the death of the cells in which they are contained
(fingernails for example). As a result, the genes within these
cells will soon be reduced to inert matter. Is this selfish?
In the absolute sense of what it means to be selfish the answer
is, clearly, no.

Dawkins, to his credit, never presented selfish gene "theory"
as a formal proof. Selfish gene "theory" is little more than
a clever analogy meant to provide a conceptual focus for his
explanation of natural selection to an audience that generally
believes in creationism.


One must never forget that Dawkin's audience is the common man,
not scholars.



> b. Alternatively, explain why Selfish Gene Theory does not apply to
> humans,


It is applicable to all species, including humans, AFAICS.


> why it did not apply to the LCA,


It did.


> and when it stopped applying.


It didn't.

The problem here is that you, mistakenly IMO, see selfish
gene as a theory and I, rightly, see it as nothing but
a literary device.


For more on my opinion of selfish gene do the following:
1) Go to Google Groups: http://groups.google.com
2) Cut the following and paste it into the search box:
mcginn "selfish gene" group:sci.bio.evolution
3) Click on the "google search" button.
(Note: I've included one of these posts at the end of
this post.)



> 6. Explain and justify the following statements: "HUMAN
> evolution is a group selective process.


This is explained in the entirety of my hypothesis.


> From the perspective of comparative biology, this
> couldn't be more obvious. Anybody that tells you
> differently is whacked.


You're not disputing it. As such, I'll let the arguments
I made previously stand on their own.


> You can safely dismiss *any*
> scenarios that don't explicate a group selective process."


Let's face the facts Ross, you can't present any selective
scenario that explains the rather obvious social adaptations
that are evident in humans. Be honest with yourself.


> 7. Your post gives a definition of "the mentality of 3 to 5 year
> olds", which the "earliest hominids" were said to
> have. What evidence can you cite that this was a valid reconstruction
> of their behaviour? Specifically:


Observation of extant chimps.


> a. How did you reconstruct the behaviour of the earliest hominids?
> Please cite references as appropriate.


Mostly from reading Goodall's work on extant chimps.


> b. What analyses of 3 to 5 year old human behaviour did you reference
> to draw the above analogy?


Any and all.


> 8. How do you reconcile your conclusion that "life experience
> was mostly unnecessary" for early hominids, with the observation
> that extant hominid and pongid apes exhibit long
> "childhoods" in which they require considerable learning
> and parental support?


Well, I think you're missing the context of this statement.
So, I will allow you to reread the relevant section and restate
the question if you are still perplexed on this point.


> 9. "From a locomotory standpoint bipedalism was a compromise.
> The shift to a more communal and stationary lifestyle de-emphasised
> locomotion."

> What evidence did you rely on to conclude that this lifestyle shift
> had taken place?



Well, all the evidence I've seen supports this supposition
and/or fails to dispute it. Don't you agree? If you disagree
then please be specific about what evidence you think disputes
this contention.


> 10. Justify your assertion that "Bipedalism is, primarily, a
> throwing adaptation


My whole hypothesis serves as this justification. Can you dispute it?


> 11. "If they did evolve along the lines that I describe, we'd expect
> those that were most successful to be capable of maintaining larger
> and larger pieces of territory. And this, IMO, would predict a trend
> of throwing longer distances in that this would be the most efficient
> way to keep potential trespassing species at bay."

> Given that all comparable primates' territories are far larger than
> the distance that the longest distance any human, or by implication,
> hominid LCA, could throw, how can you justify reaching the conclusion
> that a better throwing arm would imply the ability to maintain a
> larger territory.



I think you're misreading me. I never suggested a direct
coorelation between throwing distance and size of territory.
So I can't answer your question. My point was only that
throwing longer distances would be associated with the ability
to maintain (prevent inmigration of other species into) larger
patches of treed territory, the selective benefits of which
are obviated in my hypothesis.


> 12. "Previous to 10mya there was little or no migration but
> there has been a lot since then."

> Please cite references to support this assertion.



See the post included in my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis that
was written by a paleontologist named Yousuf Khan. Can you
dispute Yousuf's assertion?


> 13. "The patchiness of the remaining forested habitat which
> divided our ancestors up into "communities" between which gene flow
> (interbreeding) was greatly reduced..."

> How do you reconcile this statement with the apparently contradictory
> assumption that the successful communities among the LCAs were able to
> expand their territories, and would then by implication tend top
> overlap those groups which you now assert they have become
> geographically isolated from?



I don't think these assumptions (conclusions) are contradictory.
Note the distinction between communities in general and
"successful communities." Then, if you still think you see a
contradiction, rephrase the question accordingly.


> 14. "So, the selective realities of our ancestors shifted from
> those of the chimpanzee lifestyle-focussed only on being
> successful individuals and members of successful breeding groups
> (bands, extended family units)--to those of the A'pith
> lifestyle--focussed on being successful individuals and members of
> successful breeding groups AND on being members of communities that
> successfully effect the preservation of resources at their community
> sites in the face of the onslaught of multi-species inmigration to
> their community sites."

> Please provide supporting data to show that australopithecines in fact
> did become members of these communities.



Show me data that indicates that they didn't become members of
these communities. (If you do find any such data I will withdraw my
claims and send you a check for $10 thousand american dollars.)

Regards,


Jim

.