Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths


"quercophile" <ed.byron.adams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133457131.000370.81240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> > Communal selection explains it. Not warfare. Chimp vs. chimp warefare
is
> > completely impossible for a species that has yet to achieve ecological
> > dominance. It is only after Apith achieved ecological dominance that
apith
> > vs. apith wars are possible.
>
>
> Jane Goodall observed one troop of chimps systematically killing all
> the male and older female members of an adjacent trioop, taking over a
> large chunk of their territory, (They were unable to patrol it all and
> lost some to other adjacent chimp troops.) and co-opting the fecund
> females. Maybe you don't want to call it warfare but it looks like it
> to me.
>
> Perhaps the evolutionary advantage of increasing territory and mating
> opportunities is difficult to perceive.

Why don't you do a categorical comparison between the type of conflict
indicated here and the type of conflict indicated in my hypothesis and then
tell me which of these better predicts the type of conflict that we
currently witness in our own species. Are Goodall's observations indicative
of the extremely large groups indicated in my hypothesis and that are
indicated in modern humans? How about weapons? Tell me about the weapons
in Goodall's observations. How about weapons in my hypothesis? How about
length of conflict. Human wars go on for years. The war behavior in my
hypothesis goes on constantly, even during the wet season. Is this the same
in Goodall's observations? In my hypothesis there is clear geographic
boundaries and mobilization of the community to effect a line of demarcation
(left flank, right flank, etc.), taking advantage of any natural
fortifications that may exist. (I entitled this the ecological GATERKEEPER
hypothesis for a reason.) Is this more or less similar to what we see in
present day hominid vs. hominid war than Goodall's observations? (be
honest.)

Maybe the biggest problem of all for your premise is the observation that if
Goodall's behaviors are representative (and I believe they are) of standard
chimp behavior then why didn't they become human? AFAIC, Goodall's
observations are indicative of the preadpative behaviors necessary for my
hypothesis, but that's about it.

Another problem is that the group selective aspects of Goodall's
observations are very weak. There's not a lot keeping any member of either
troop from just running away and avoiding the conflict altogether. In my
scenario the groups selective aspects are inescapable because of the
geographic factors discussed therin (patchiness of remaining forest habitat
surrounded by predators). In fact if you read Goodall's work very carefully
you'll see all kinds of evidence that group integrity is temporary and
lacking in distinctness. This is not the case in my scenario.

Another thing lacking in Goodall's observations (I could go on and on) in
comparison to my scenario is any kind of selective benefit for economic
consciousness. Humans are conscious of the economic factors (abundance,
scarcity) in their surrounding and work cooperatively with others to improve
these conditions. My scenario describes why this tendency would have been
adaptive. Goodall's observations don't.

There is no doubt in my mind that if you consider the evidence rationally
and impassionately you will come to the same conclusion that I have.

Jim


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Random evolution"
    ... which we can measure evolution. ... By this measure it would be hard to argue that natural selection was the ... You have probably heard that the human and chimp genomes are roughly 98.5% ... are due to natural selection and how many are due to drift (i.e. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "Random evolution"
    ... which we can measure evolution. ... By this measure it would be hard to argue that natural selection was the ... You have probably heard that the human and chimp genomes are roughly 98.5% ... are due to natural selection and how many are due to drift (i.e. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Blog: The Scars of Evolution.
    ... differences from the chimp genome. ... would produce a phenotypic incompatibility between chimp and human ... whereas beneficial selection is a function of the degree of benefit. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Christians, sci-fi and Doctor Who
    ... It only shows your utter ignorance of the theory/ process of evolution. ... Mammals are incredibly complex, yet you expect a couple of hundred years ... A chimp can no more be made human than my ciggie can be made into a potato. ... that is far from natural selection. ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin
    ... >> basing your scenario of Chimp the Thrower? ... Explain how this scenario worked in a rainy forest, ... Also you can explain how it could possibly work on savanna ... observation deck at the Jane Goodall Chimpanzee Sanctuary - Near Nanyuki, ...
    (sci.anthropology)