Absence of Canines in Apiths
- From: "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:15:33 GMT
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
> The absence of canines in Apiths is explicable
> in only one way -- they replaced them with
> weapons which did much the same --
> i.e. penetrated flesh. But only a ground-sleeping
> species would acquire and keep spears of that
> nature.
You make the shift to tools/weapons ridiculously simplistic. If it was this
simple we'd expect to see it more often in the animal world. I can envision
the LCA picking up and throwing rocks and waving sticks, but this would have
only been effective in a symbolic manner, kind of a collective show of
force. And, as I explain in my hypothesis, the only way this would have
been adaptive would be in the context of the resource preservation
territorialism, part of a strategy to survive the dry season of the late
miocene monsoon forest habitat. This explains how the behavior would have
started to evolve. And the group selective aspects of the same scenario
explains how they would have eventually begun to evolve the cooperative and
intelectual abilities that would, millions of years later, have enabled them
to achieve such things as pointy sticks etc.
You seem blissfully unaware of the conceptual difficulties associated with
the chimp-like LCA using pointed sticks to attack predators. They were
literally millions of years away from having such capabilities. Who was
sharpeining these sticks for them? And who was teaching them to use them
effectively against bear-sized hyena and sabertoothed cats?
> >> A group of hominids with pointed sticks (i.e.
> >> spears) would defeat a leopard . . or even a lion.
> >> Some rocks would also be handy.
> >
> > Only in the context of large, cooperative groups, like the communities
of my
> > hypothesis, would any of this be effective.
>
> I agree with large cooperative groups --
> probably most often only sometimes coming
> together to hunt down an intruding predator,
> but then reverting to their regular internecine
> fighting.
You've provided no explanation of the SELECTIVE origin of large cooperative
groups. You just tack it on and hope nobody notices that you just tacked it
on. The same is true for your, "regular internecine fighting." You just
tack it on. There's nothing about your island isolation scenario that would
predict this.
Also, without a group selective scenario you have no basis for the emergence
of communicativeness, culture, and intellect. And without this you don't
even have the basis for your pointy stick scenario.
> >> > They couldn't do this quadrupedally? Chimps currently fight each
other
> >> > without weapons. Not much incentive for such a tremendous shift in
> >> > morphology. This is hardly better than AAT logic.
> >
> >> The first hominids fought with weapons.
> >> That was why they could not be quadrupedal.
> >
> > In my hypothesis I explain why weapons first became adaptive. You just
> > leave it to the readers imagination.
>
> No, I don't. When individuals had to carry around
> a club at all times -- and be able to wield it with
> effect on occasion -- the selective pressure in
> favour of bipedalism was intense. Those who
> could do it better than others lived, the rest
> died. Clubs were the first weapons. But for
> tackling predators, they'd have switched to
> spears.
Hominids employ weapons because the have the intelligence and collective
knowledge necessary to employ them effectively (And much of this
effectiveness is dependent on large groups). You somehow, in your
desperation, have allowed yourself to assume that chimps could achieve this.
This is nothing but desperation inspired wishful thinking.
> > The problem is that the reader is
> > going to start to wonder that if it is as easy as you suggest why don't
a
> > lot of other species start using weapons.
>
> It's not easy. The adjustments were huge. Which
> other species have the capacity for bipedalism?
> How many others can retain their weapons at
> all times. Chimps can't. When you have to climb
> a tree -- or if you want to run fast -- you have to
> drop your club.
I agree. The adjustments are huge. And in my scenario it takes millons of
years of group selective oriented communal territorialism to get an animal
that can even begin to achieve what you have the LCA achieving out of the
gate. And the only explanation you provide is one that requires us to tack
on a bunch of behaviors the selective benefits of which are not apparent in
your scenario.
> >> Carrying weapons is not compatible with
> >> tree-living. So tree-living has to end first.
> >> That is only possible in the absence of
> >> predators.
> >
> > You've provided no reason for them to begin carrying weapons.
>
> No especial reason is necessary. Chimps
> use them occasionally now. But their tree-
> living way of life does not allow their use to
> become habitual. They can't retain clubs in
> their possession.
Apith lived in trees.
> > This is not left to chance in my scenario.
>
> You create some far-fetched fantasy -- while
> ignoring ever practical difficulty that would
> have arisen.
Such as?
> > There is absolutely nothing in your scenario that would begin to select
for
> > the kind of communalism and communal territorialism that is in my
scenario
> > and that is reflected in the behaviors of extant humans. It is just
tacked
> > on.
>
> There is no need for anything special.
> Hominid communities, surrounded by
> predator-occupied territory, and tending
> towards war whenever not under pressure,
> will almost inevitably evolve towards greater
> complexity. Those best at it, will win out
> over those not so good.
Now it seems like you are assuming my scenario. But you've left out a lot
of details. You haven't indicated a dry season. Without it war is not
adaptive. With a dry season you have another problem, competition from food
competitors. Remember now, these early hominids were not the ecologically
dominant creatures that us humans are now. If they didn't have some means o
f dealing with food competitors (which were much more numerous back then
than they are now) then the depletion of resources during the dry season
would result in famine. Under conditions of famine their cooperative war
activity would break down into an every-apith-for-himself scenario. The end
result would be easy pickings for the predators.
> >> What is 'contrived'. Don't islands like Zanzibar exist?
> >> Haven't such islands been a very common
> >> throughout geological history?
> >
> > Islands are not the engine of speciation that you suggest. Islands
don't
> > create new niches on the mainland.
>
> They facilitate the gradual adaptation to, and
> exploitation of, such mainland niches.
What makes you think this?
> At least
> I have a (fairly) clear account of this niche -- with
> a focus on coastal sites, off-shore where possible,
> but often based on peninsulas. You are still lost
> in the nonsense of the ancient savanna model --
> with its mainland niche from the start -- curiously
> entirely empty for the last million years or so --
> and with its ridiculous intermediate stage of
> bipedal tree-sleeping hominids, all of whom
> conveniently go extinct as soon as your theory
> no longer needs them to be around.
Extraneous nonsense. If you can't explain the emergence of a hominid niche
on mainland then you don't have a hypothesis.
> >> > This couldn't be achieve quadrupedally?
> >
> >> No. The ability to use weapons and tools
> >> (and even carry rocks over distance) is not
> >> compatible with quadrupedalism.
> >
> > But you've provided no reason for them to begin using weapons and tools.
>
> No reason is needed. Chimps (and other
> species) show the capacity now. But, being
> tree-living, they can never develop it.
> [..]
The communal tertritorialism of my scenario provides a smooth upramp to
sophisticated tool usage. You can't make the same claim. You put pointy
sticks in the hands of chimps and pit them against social hunters like
bear-sized hyena and sabertoothed cats. This is blatant nonsense. This is
not even remotely plausible.
> > It's not possible for me to agree with Jason since he seems to
> > not know what he thinks or why he thinks it.
>
> That's his job. He's paid to be stupid. If he
> had anything between his ears, he'd never
> have got it -- nor wanted it. If (somehow)
> he ever got an idea, he'd be drummed out
> of the 'profession'. It hates ideas, and has
> created an ethos that destroys all possibility
> of any member having them.
You're exactly right on this point.
> It's bit like
> professional Astronomy around 1630, or
> Geology in the 1960s -- locked into systems
> that are going nowhere, and which must
> treat all ideas as dangerous and heretical.
Yes, exactly the same thing. But it's important not to dismiss this as an
aberration. This is the way social institutions are SUPPOSED to work.
Ironic isn't it? The pope didn't put Gallileo under house arrest for
reasons that are arbitrary. He did it because his ideas had the ability to
undermine the belief systems that were the glue maintained a societies
integrity. And a society's integrity is essential to the survival of itself
and its members in the context of the militaristic realties of human
existence. The same is true presently.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- From: Richard Dawkins
- Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- Prev by Date: Re: forward: Ancient tools at High Desert site go back 135,000 years
- Next by Date: Re: Lucy partial knuckle-walker (Re: Obligate Bimanualism
- Previous by thread: Sorry to intrude--Idiot Cross-posting Tolll Alert--Dorky Dawkins
- Next by thread: Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
