Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:aQokf.29192$Zv5.9605@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> >> I know evasiveness when I see it. I see enough of it. If you were
> >> being honest you would have at least acknowledged that your scenario
> >> DOES NOT claim a reduction in intraspecific conflict.
> >
> > It certainly does not. Why should it?
>
> Look at the subject line of this thread.

So what? We know that canines got much
smaller. That means that the species replaced
them with something else. They were
certainly not in a position to change the
behaviour of the predators they had to
contend with. And, since they survived,
they were hardly less aggressive generally
-- nor towards each other (whenever they
had energy to spare).

> <snip>
>
> >> You knew what I was getting at. Or you should have.
> >
> > It seems (as far as I can gather) that you think
> > a politically-correct scenario is a good thing,
> > AND that we all think (or should think) that it is
> > a good thing -- and therefore more scientifically
> > probable.
>
> Strange comment since I'm the one saying hominids have been conducting war
> for 8 million years and not just 8 thousand and anthropologists would have
> us believe.

I don't get it. If they were fighting wars,
what were they using in place of their
large canines?

> <snip>
>
> >> It makes it more likely to reflect human realities. When was the last
> >> time you had to wrestle one of your neighbors for a meal?
> >
> > You can bet that if there was no police force,
> > etc., etc., I and you and everyone else would
> > have to do it every day
>
> I agree. And which of our respective scenarios better predicts the
> emergence of a species that has a police force?

No one should expect an evolutionary
scenario to predict police forces, nor
representative government, nor space
travel -- or not until it has first managed
to explain bipedalism, naked skin, sub-
cutaneous fat, and other obvious
physical features.

> >> > they have a working police force in Early-
> >> > Hominid-Land? Laws? Courts? Legitimate
> >> > Government? Democracy? Respect for Law
> >> > and Order?
> >>
> >> Does your scenario predict any of this? Mine does.
> >
> > Then it is both wrong and crap. All we want
> > from any evolutionary scenario is to get as
> > far as, say, australian aborigines.
>
> My model is intended to predict the origins of all hominids, including
> aborigines. The whole framework of your approach to these issues is
> archaic. It's reflective of nineteenth century mentality. Aborigines are
> *not* indicative of ancient hominids. They are very sophisticated in their
> ability to survive in sparse habitat, more like eskimoes in their lifestyle.
> The term aborigine is reflective of nineteenth century view that some people
> are indicative of early man. It's just bad science.

Fair enough. I fully accept that. However,
human societies do vary in the complexity
of their social structure. Some today can
only work with millions (or perhaps billions)
whereas others have long survived with a
few hundred. Most early hominid societies
(before, say, about 4 mya) probably got by
with no more than a few thousand; many
possibly managed with no more than a
couple of hundred (IF PNG is a reliable
guide). Such societies would not have
needed a police force, etc. That's all an
evolutionary theory (or scenario) needs
to explain.

> >> And it doesn't
> >> involve islands that suddenly emerge. And I don't have to disregard
> >> microwear data (this is inexcusable, btw).
> >
> > Microwear bull*** you mean. Those guys
> > see what they expect to see, and only publish
> > what their readership wants to read.
>
> Intentional ignorance.

How much reliable information do you think
can be got from studies of microwear?


> >> Goodall's observations
> >> are an invaluable source of preadaptive behaviors. Take Goodall's
> >> observations and overlay them on the dry-season influenced, late
> >> miocene, habitat;
> >
> > That would have made no difference. Climate
> > changes all the time (we can see it happening).
> > So vegetation changes and species re-locate.
> > End of story.
>
> Your an idiot. There's a big difference between changes in weather and
> changes in climate.

Nope. Evolution only works through individuals.
And they experience 'weather' rather than
'climate change'. They prosper or move, or die,
or breed more or less successfully, depending
on the 'weather'. One thing they don't do is
physically adapt to it. We can see huge
regions of the globe which have experienced
climate change (e.g. the Sahara). How many
species can you name that came into
existence as a result of any such change?


Paul.


.

Quantcast