Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ot8lf.32169$Zv5.25593@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > As I have explained dozens of times
> > the loss of large canines came from the fact that
> > their cost exceeded they benefits they yielded
> > (which is close to tautological). They were no
> > longer necessary once the species acquired
> > weapons -- essentially clubs (spears came later).
>
> That's not an explanation. It's a conjecture.

It is both. Neither of us were there.
(Or, at least, I don't claim to have been.)
So we are guessing. We can only propose
hypotheses, or set out scenarios which
account for the facts. Mine does.
Yours doesn't.

> >> No change in environment/climate.
> >
> > The major change in the 'environment' was the
> > absence of predators, allowing a descent from
> > the trees, and therefore the ability to retain
> > weapons (and tools) by their side at all times,
> > especially during the night.
>
> They were chimps. They had canines. Why would they suddenly
> start using clubs?

Yet again -- (a) chimps use them NOW
(b) they are very useful; you can hit
something (or someone) very hard,
yet suffer no injury, nor feel no pain;
(c) ten 'chimps' with clubs would be
much more dangerous over a much
longer period than ten unarmed chimps;
(d) chimps cannot use them habitually
now, because they sleep in trees, and
will lose them every time they return to
their trees.

> >> (or does this happen
> >> originally on your magically appearing predator free island in which
> >> case they'd have first started poking other bunches of chimps with
> >> these pointy sticks). They used these pointy sticks so often that they
> >> started becoming bipedal. This is your scenario, right?
> >
> > No. Clubs were their weapons of choice.
>
> Why, because Paul says so.

Clubs were clearly the first weapons for
(proto-)hominids to use, and they began
to use them at some at some point.

> > (a) The behaviour of their predators (large cats,
> > hyenas, etc.,) did not change;
>
> In my model it changes.

That's a good argument against your model.

> You have no basis for assuming a behavior change
> for the original chimps in your scenario. It happens
> just because.

As I have told you dozens (hundreds?) of
times, once they were isolated on a predator-
free island, they were able to change their
behaviour, and would have changed their
behaviour. It is ONLY the constant presence
of predators that keeps a large ape sleeping
in trees, and forces them to remain close to
such trees at almost all times.

> This is
> not the way evolutionary hypotheses are supposed to be.

You have some nutty view of "the way
evolutionary hypotheses are supposed to be".
Sorry, but that's entirely your own problem.

> > (b) Chimps can be highly aggressive towards
> > smaller predators like leopards, but the hominids
> > needed to be much more aggressive, and towards
> > larger ones like lions and hyenas. They were
> > sleeping on the ground and could not afford to
> > allow any to come close to their sleeping places.
> > Chimps rarely stray far from trees, and usually
> > fled back to them at the sight of larger predators.
> > Hominids did not flee. They usually had no
> > refuge to flee to, and they lacked all speed.
> > They were always armed, and most encounters
> > took place when a group of hominids had tracked
> > down a predator, and were going for it with stones
> > and long pointed sticks.
>
> Speculative nonsense.

Speculative -- of course. But you tell us how
YOU think hominids learnt how to sleep on the
ground; and how they coped with predators at
that point. They stopped sleeping in trees at
some point. OK, I know that the usual recourse
of standard PA types (such as yourself) is not
to think about this issue AT ALL -- it's much
too hard. It's so much easier simply to shut
your brain down. I'm sure that you would not
dream of breaking this pattern.

> > (c) That _increased_ aggression (with the use
> > of weapons) carried over into their intra-specific
> > conflicts. They certainly weren't any less
> > aggressive towards bands of 'foreigners' than
> > chimps are (or were).
>
> Speculative nonsense.

Speculative -- of course. But you tell us how
YOU think hominids learnt how to sleep on
the ground; and how they coped with
predators at that point.


Paul.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bipedal adaptation
    ... sleeping in trees. ... And that's why hominids never needed ... tool usage does not cause selection of human intelligence/consciousness. ... is a reduced ability to defend against predators. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Apith Predatory Realities: not like those of extant chimps (Repost from 08/2003)
    ... predators -- in that they will not suffer ... You need to let the evidence be your ... Don't all hypotheses assume hominids survived? ... that era would have been able to climb high in trees to ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... Your model has NO PREDATORS. ... to be "Chimps don't use clubs". ... hominids would not have ... Neither species needs any special ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... Your model has NO PREDATORS. ... > to be "Chimps don't use clubs". ... > hominids would not have ... Neither species needs any special ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... You seem to think that you can just assert that they assumed new behaviors. ... >>> the trees, and therefore the ability to retain ... > Yet again -- chimps use them NOW ... that the predators that emerged in the monsoon climate dominated east Africa ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)