Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- From: "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 15:49:01 -0000
"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:VrKif.27715$tV6.5648@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "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.
Which other species have the capacity to
regularly use weapons and tools with some
intelligence, and to work in groups?
>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.
The notion of an animal with the intelligence
of the LCA engaging in purely "symbolic"
behaviour is close to nonsense. A 'show of
force' does not work, unless there is the capacity
for real force. Animals are not stupid and will
rapidly see through pretence which cannot be
backed up with the real thing.
> 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.
Resources are always in short supply.
There will always be conflict over them in
nature. There is no need for your special
new climate, nor any aspect of your
hypothesis.
> You seem blissfully unaware of the conceptual difficulties
> associated with the chimp-like LCA using pointed sticks to
> attack predators.
Not so. The chimp-like early hominids would
have no need for 'conceptual' capacities to use
sticks -- pointed or otherwise. When threatened
by a predator, a group of hominids grab whatever
they can find. Those that pick up long sticks
will do better than those with clubs. They will
survive better. The others will probably notice
that, and imitate them -- but even without that,
the instinctive response of 'see predator -- pick
up long stick' will soon become established --
by natural selection.
Likewise pointed sticks would do better than
blunt ones, and -- even in the absence of any
imitation or 'reasoning' -- an instinct to 'find
pointed sticks' would soon get going. And
then later, another instinct to make their sticks
pointed by rubbing them on boulders (or
whatever) would evolve.
I don't, in fact, think much in the way of 'instinct'
was involved. Chimps show a level of capacity
for 'culture', which is more than enough. BUT
I am saying that, in its absence, instinct would
kick in. Using sticks, and then pointed sticks
to deal with predators, is no big deal.
> 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?
Larger predators were hardly faced directly
(but even they cannot risk injury, and could
have been reluctant to face armed bipeds).
The hominids would have watched them
carefully and killed their cubs, eventually
driving them out of the local neighbourhood.
Again, no planning or foresight is needed
-- just a detestation of predators, and the
ability to keep up an aggressive policy.
> You've provided no explanation of the SELECTIVE origin of large
> cooperative groups.
I have set it out in detail. Chimps work in groups.
Once the hominids were living on the ground,
and using weapons, larger groups did better in
conflicts (and in grabbing resources, like water-
holes). They worked best with 'more cooperative
practices', such as monogamy.
> You just tack it on and hope nobody notices
> that you just tacked it on.
Ridiculous.
> 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.
Chimps do it. The LCA would have done it.
It just carried over. It is nothing special in
any respect.
> Also, without a group selective scenario you have no basis
> for the emergence of communicativeness, culture, and
> intellect.
Nonsense.
> And without this you don't even have the basis for your pointy
> stick scenario.
More nonsense. Only a minimal level of
"communicativeness, culture, and intellect"
are needed for that, and the level seen in
chimps is more than adequate.
> 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.
I have explicitly stated that chimps could NOT
achieve this. They sleep in trees, they are
quadrupedal, so they could not retain, from one
day to the next, any tools or weapons they might
acquire. In fact, they probably rarely retain any
tool or weapon for more than a hour or so.
Nevertheless, they are not far off the capacity
of the first hominids. If they began to sleep on
the ground (every night), and were under pressure
to retain weapons, an ability to retain them semi-
permanently would evolve within a small number
of generations. One 'clever' chimp would do it,
and therefore have a far superior survival
capacity. He would have many more offspring
than the others.
>> 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.
The initial morphological changes are huge. An
animal has to switch from one mode of locomotion
to another. That's a gigantic change. And all
manner of other changes have to come in at the
same time. Every significant aspect of infant-rearing
must change. Infants must become altricial, and be
able to lie in 'ground nests' by themselves. In
consequence they must put on huge amounts of
fat, as insulation against night cold. And so on and
on. But there is only one way in which this could
work -- at the fastest possible speed, in a tiny
population, under intense selective pressure.
For some strange reason, you fail to grasp this
-- probably because you are unthinkingly
following the 'ideas' (i.e. the blank
uncomprehending stare) of standard PA.
> 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.
It's not 'out of the gate'. The switch to bipedalism
could only have happened under highly 'protected'
circumstances (i.e. no predators). But once it had
taken place, then there was time for a long slow
re-adaptation to cope with mainland predators, but
now in a wholly new way.
> 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.
In my scenario, selection is manifest at every stage.
In yours it's absent. You give no reason for bipedalism.
You have ridiculous tree-sleeping hominids, somehow
learning how to retain tools and weapons -- up in their
trees. Like standard PA, you then have (and can give)
no reason for the 'descent from the trees'. According
to you (and standard PA) it happened at some vague
time, for no particular reason, and involved nothing.
>> >> 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.
Of course I have. Chimps have a reason today.
Ten club-wielding chimps would be far more
dangerous than ten weaponless chimps. But
there is no way that can happen while they sleep
in trees.
>> You create some far-fetched fantasy -- while
>> ignoring ever practical difficulty that would
>> have arisen.
>
> Such as?
How did the Apiths retain their weapons when
sleeping in trees? How does a bipedal mother-
-with-a-bipedal-infant, manage to sleep in a tree?
How does the mother-infant dyad actually climb
a tree? How can such a species compete with
chimps? If it ever got started, why did it go
extinct?
>> 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.
There is no particular need for a dry season.
(Even if there almost certainly was one, since
their absence is exceptional.)
> Without it war is not adaptive.
Nonsense. Chimps demonstrate it now.
So do many other species.
> With a dry season you have another problem,
> competition from food competitors.
There is ALWAYS competition for food.
Read Malthus sometime.
> Remember now, these early hominids were not the
> ecologically dominant creatures that us humans are
> now.
They were necessarily locally dominant. They had
to be able to keep predators away from their 'home
bases'. Once again, you have picked up crap from
standard PA. Hominids could not have raised their
offspring without local dominance. Their infants
and young are far too vulnerable. (Standard PA
'thinks' the way it does, because it assumes that
all early hominids were adult males. That seems
to be your 'thinking' as well.)
> If they didn't have some means of dealing with
> food competitors (which were much more numerous
> back then than they are now)
Their 'food competitors' were essentially other
closely related primates (like chimps, and
baboons) -- which ate the same food -- mostly
that growing in trees.
> 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.
This is ignorant nonsense. Famines certainly
occurred often enough. But no more than for
other species or populations at any other time.
>> 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.
No. They're questions you can't answer.
> If you can't explain the emergence of a hominid niche on
> mainland then you don't have a hypothesis.
The 'niche' did not emerge. It was found, and
then developed by the hominids -- much as
they have been doing ever since.
>> > 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.
There is no need for any special scenario to
provide a "smooth upramp to sophisticated
tool usage". They just work better -- but
they take a lot of time to evolve.
> You put pointy sticks in the hands of chimps and pit them
> against social hunters like bear-sized hyena and sabertoothed cats.
Large predators are rarely (never?) social hunters.
And there are plenty of chimps around today
who are capable of discovering that pointy sticks
work better for some things than do blunt ones.
Read any chimp specialist on their intelligence
(such as Frank de Waal).
> This is blatant nonsense. This is not even remotely plausible.
I don't know where you get your 'information'
from -- but it is completely wrong.
Paul.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- From: Jim McGinn
- Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- From: quercophile
- Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- Prev by Date: Re: Neanderthals, sex and modern humans Topic #3
- Next by Date: Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- Previous by thread: Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- Next by thread: Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
