Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- From: "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:43:25 GMT
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:JYEjf.2874$j7.70606@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:VrKif.27715$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?
This is *my* point. Humans are the only species. The behavior is rare.
>
> >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.
It's perfectly reasonable. Chimps do it all the time.
> 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.
Prey species (food competitor species) are quite easily scared off. Again,
this is behavior we can presently witness in chimps who are, to a lesser
degree, group territorialists.
>
> > 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.
Pure nonsense.
> There will always be conflict over them in
> nature. There is no need for your special
> new climate, nor any aspect of your
> hypothesis.
The circumstances of my hypothesis are the only set of circumstances in
which all of the necessary factors come into play.
>
> > 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.
Pie in the sky. (Like I said above, Paul, if it was this simple then we'd
see this behavior in a lot of other species. The reason we don't is because
the climatic situational factors that occurred at the beginning of the late
Miocene (as explicated in my hypothesis) are extremely rare.
> 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.
This is nonsense. Why don't chimps do this presently?
> 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.
The others will be running to find a tree to climb. Chimps are, literally,
millions of years away from being capable of such cooperative behavior.
>
> 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.
Chimps are, literally, millions of years away from being capable of such
fore thought.
>
> 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.
Again, why don't we see this behavior in chimps currently?
>
> > 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.
The problem here, Paul, is that you are largely illiterate about evolution.
>
> > 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).
The communalism of my hypothesis describes these circumstances. It also
describes the selective benefit of bipedalism, unlike your scenario. And it
does it without the extraneous notion that predator free island appeared in
the late miocene, a time in which sea levels were extremely stable.
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 haven't read my scenario. I do give reasons.
> You have ridiculous tree-sleeping hominids, somehow
> learning how to retain tools and weapons -- up in their
> trees.
Yep. (
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.
You obviously misread him.
>
> > 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.
Your scenario is highly contrived and plainy refuted by simple observation.
.
- References:
- Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- From: Paul Crowley
- Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- Prev by Date: Re: Early farmers malnourished?
- 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
|
