Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths


"nickname" <alas_my_loves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133476269.716940.141790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The absence of canines in apiths and Homo resulted from lack of need,
> both in inter-specific predation and intra-specific competition.

There's another problem for Paul's hypothesis. His model not only doesn't
have a reduction in intra-specific competition it has an increase. In his
model the large numbers of the LCA got isolated on predator free islands and
(for reasons he doesn't explain, boredom maybe) they began warring with each
other using pointy sticks (or is it clubs? whatever). Why canines would not
also be useful in addition to pointy sticks is never explained.

There are other aspects of changes in tooth morphology that are, I contend,
problematic for Paul's scenario. A'pith tooth morphology indicates a shift
to harder, drier foodstuffs: seeds, nuts, grains etc. There is nothing
specific to Paul's predator free island scenario that predicts this. (In
contrast, my hypothesis does predict this.) I suppose Paul could add this
to his scenariou, but then he has problems with parsimony (and/or Occam's
razor).

And then there's the microwear data that indicates seasonal scarcity. The
following was cut and pasted from an article that discussed advances in
examining microwear data: http://live.psu.edu/story/12922
The researchers believe that this indicates that the species frequently ate
the same types of foods, but that in times of scarcity or seasonal changes,
P. robustus changed its diet to include foods that differed from those of A.
africanus. "The difference in their evolution in terms of diet is not
driven by their preferences, but by scarcity," Ungar said. "It gives you a
whole new way of thinking about dietary adaptation." Is there anything in
Paul's model that indicates seasonal scarcity? There is in mine. In fact
in my model seasonal scarcity is a fundamental assumption. In Paul's model
it can only be tacked on. Not a good thing

> Can anyone think of a situation which could bring this about?

Well, yes, of course. My own hypothesis.

> I think it was a new form of inter-specific defense and intra-specific
dominance,
> which I call Direct Facial Splashing. I've been musing on its
> effectiveness against nasties like lions, tigers and bears, (Crocs are
> an entirely different matter) with Mario in AAT. He says its "weak",

I'm surprised. I'd have thought it was right up Mario's alley.

> which I agree with, but it does introduce a different view. Would
> leopards attack prey if prey spewed water (or sand) into their eyes
> constantly? Seems that if apiths made spears to attack leopards, they
> would have been pretty sophisticated, considering the size of their
> brain. And wouldn't they have needed to have spears BEFORE they lost
> their fangs? That put's the invention almost back to the miocene, no?

You first have to have consciousness before you have inventiveness. My
scenario describes the origins of both social consciouness (communal
selection) and environmental consciousness (territorialism). But it would
take millions of years until we evolved an animal capable of inventiveness.
Paul doesn't seem to grasp what a huge leap of reason he is asserting with
respect to his pointy stick behaviors.

Jim


.