Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- From: "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 18:13:45 -0000
"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:yvRjf.29138$tV6.18871@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "nickname" <alas_my_loves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > 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.
Not so. We have no idea about the level of
'warfare' within the LCA. The best assumption
is that it was something similar to that in their
living descendents (homo and modern chimps)
-- i.e. nearly constant and pretty savage.
> In his model the large numbers of the LCA
The numbers isolated on this island were hardly
large -- not much more than enough for a viable
population (to survive over ~ 100-200 Kyr).
> got isolated on
> predator free islands and (for reasons he doesn't explain,
> boredom maybe) they began warring with each other
The warred with each other, 'cos it was in their
nature -- as it seems to be with modern chimps
and modern homo, and in many other species.
Those good at it had more offspring. Those
who were bad at it, died.
> using pointy sticks (or is it clubs? whatever).
Clubs would have been the main weapon,
forcing bipedalism over a relatively small
number of generations.
> Why canines would not also be useful in addition to pointy
> sticks is never explained.
I have often explained it -- although anyone with
the beginnings of an understanding of evolution
would not need an explanation. Large canines
COST. Any expensive feature will rapidly
disappear when selection in its favour ceases to
to be strong. Teeth of any size are expensive.
Look at the reduction in the size in human teeth
over the last 25 Kyr. Huge canines are hugely
expensive.
I don't expect you to understand this point
(or if you do, you won't remember it) since it's
basic to any evolutionary thinking. Standard
PA types have no idea what I am talking about
here, so I'm sure you won't too.
As soon as the first hominids were habitually
using clubs, they could survive without large
canines -- so their large canines atrophied.
> 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.
Nope. This nonsensical standard PA stuff has
forgotten all about roots. Once early hominids
got the hang of digging sticks, they began to
imitate baboons in exploiting roots, which meant
that sand and tiny bits of gravel got into their
diet. In consequence, their teeth had to get much
harder. (I've explained this here many times.)
There was also probably interaction with their
weapons technology, in that chimps have razor-
sharp teeth -- a feature which is almost certainly
incompatible with hardness. As soon as clubs
became the principal weapons of early hominids,
they no longer needed that sharpness, and
could acquire hard teeth.
> There is nothing specific to Paul's predator free island scenario
> that predicts this.
It all derives from bipedalism, and the ability to
carry and use tools and weapons -- in this case,
digging sticks (and clubs).
> (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).
One of your problems is that you believe that
standard PA types have some faint clue as to
what they are talking about. This crap you
have here (presumably some nonsense about
'drier' foods) comes from their brain-dead minds.
There were NO 'drier foods' available to early
hominids which the LCA did not already exploit.
> And then there's the microwear data that indicates seasonal
> scarcity.
No, it doesn't. They're called 'fanciful politically-
correct interpretations'.
> 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.
And a wrong one. No doubt there was
seasonal scarcity. It is a universal aspect of
human, hominid, and hominoid life. But it
was hardly any different for early hominids
than for the LCA and other species.
> You first have to have consciousness before you have
> inventiveness.
No, you don't -- or, at least, no more than
is seen in chimps and orangs. Individuals
in those species can be highly inventive.
> 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.
Once the animal is living on the ground, and
sleeping on the ground, it becomes possible
to acquire and keep tools and weapons. The
fact that you can hit others with a lump of
wood, and not get hurt yourself is "well-
known" among chimps today. But, since they
are quadrupeds, and climb trees constantly,
they cannot keep to hand lumps of wood of
about the right size. Once they were sleeping
on the ground, they could do that. So they
did it. Minimal 'inventiveness' was required.
Paul.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- From: Jim McGinn
- Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- References:
- Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- From: nickname
- Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- From: Jim McGinn
- Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- Prev by Date: Re: Fat Cat!! Lorenzo watch out!!
- 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
|
