Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths


"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Lb0kf.2924$j7.70933@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:yvRjf.29138$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

Well then despite the vagueness of your response (or because of it) my point
still stands. And now look who's being argumentative.

(Paul, you're deluding yourself if you think you didn't just lose the
argument.)

> (homo and modern chimps)
> -- i.e. nearly constant and pretty savage.

Not in my model. In my model the communalism brings about long periods of
relative peace at most locations, just like present day human society. Sure
there's constant conflict against inmigrating food competitors and
occasionally, maybe every ten years, there is the threat of predatory
siege/massacre. But for the most part they have periods of constant
civility.


>
> > 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.

Pure nonsense. Chimps aren't any more likely to be embattled than any other
species. It's pure nonsense to suggest they'd just begin warring with each
other.

>
> > using pointy sticks (or is it clubs? whatever).
>
> Clubs would have been the main weapon,
> forcing bipedalism over a relatively small
> number of generations.

Face the facts, Paul, your scenario is extremely contrived.

>
> > 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.

It's just a tooth! Where're you getting this BS.

>
> 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.

Yes, and what else do you consider basic.
1) evolution must be simple (therefore group selection doesn't happen).
2) geographic isolation is the engine of speciation
3) (And there was another that I can't remember.

Paul, you need to stop making up your own rules independently and start
being scientific.

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.

Why if they were in what you state is constant conflict. This contrasts the
civility of my scenario sharply.

>
> > 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.

Yep. (This is not even debatable.)

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.

It's only when they start pretending to be evolutionary theorists that they
get into trouble. You're pretending to dimiss some pretty basic stuff here,
Paul. This conversation is getting way too ridiculous even for this NG.

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.

Uh, read what I wrote.

>
> > And then there's the microwear data that indicates seasonal
> > scarcity.
>
> No, it doesn't. They're called 'fanciful politically-
> correct interpretations'.

Okay, then how do you explain the evidence? Did superior beings come out of
the sky and plant the evidence just to throw us off?

>
> > 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.

The point, you idiot, is that it was nonexistent prior to the LCA

But it
> was hardly any different for early hominids
> than for the LCA and other species.

Obviously. (Now you're revealing what a complete idiot you are.) Many
species at the beginning of the late miocene in East Africa had to develop
strategies to deal with seasonal scarcity. In fact this is what the factor
that most distinguishes the emergence of all of the species associated with
the Ethiopian fauna, you ignoramus. Most of the species adapted by way of
increasing their migratory adaptations. We also see the emergence of a lot
of social strategies. And I suspect that if we looked we'd also find the
emergence of a lot of hibernatory strategies.

It's surreal how I'm only starting to fully understand how completely
ignorant you are of the fossil evidence.

>
> > You first have to have consciousness before you have
> > inventiveness.
>
> No, you don't

Yes you do. (Not debatable.)

-- 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,

This is your little pipe dream.

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.

This is hardly better than AAT speculation.

Jim


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... We know that canines got much ... > pointy stick scenario. ... longer necessary once the species acquired ... absence of predators, allowing a descent from ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... > Which other species have the capacity to ... Chimps do it all the time. ... The chimp-like early hominids would ... >> isolation scenario that would predict this. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Apith were communal, agricultural
    ... The notion that hominids ... Human attributes are the result of communal/group selection. ... External threats are common to all species so this is a meaningless ... of a selective scenario. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... >> The absence of canines in apiths and Homo resulted from lack of need, ... Teeth of any size are expensive. ... As soon as the first hominids were habitually ... became the principal weapons of early hominids, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: New Model for the Origin of Bipedality
    ... It was obvious to Darwin. ... obligation to conceal aspects of the evidence that indicate that early ... hominids are much more like extant hominids with respect to being ... Canines aren't necessary in a communal setting. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)