Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bRVjf.29165$tV6.26076@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> Give it up, Jason. <snip>

> *** begin cut and paste ***
>
> http://live.psu.edu/story/12922
>
> Australopithecus africanus, which lived between 3.3 million and 2.3 million
> years ago, and Paranthropus robustus, which lived between 2 million and 1.5
> million years ago
>
> pits and scratches found on the teeth offer a visual history of the type of
> food
> consumed by the tooth's owner. Pits indicate a diet of hard, brittle foods,
> like nuts and seeds,

How about small pebbles accidentally left in the
food? (As when a root is dug from the ground.)

> while scratches imply a diet of tough foods, like
> leaves and possibly meat.

How about grains of sand? (As when a root is
dug from the ground.)

> *** end cut and paste ***
>
> I think the following comment was especially pertinent:
> "The difference in their evolution in terms of diet is not
> driven by their preferences, but by scarcity." What do
> you think he meant by that comment?

It seems that he is right up there with you
in his understanding of evolutionary
processes.

> What do you think of my criticism of Tim White's interpretations/conclusions
> that I expressed a couple of months ago?
>
> *** begin cut and paste ***

> > Tim White: <snip> We've also
> > learned that the idea that the last common ancestor of
> > hominids was like a chimpanzee is just wrong. The more
> > closely we approach that last commonancestor with real
> > fossils, we're learning that its browridge is shaped
> > differently from any chimpanzee's, and its canine teeth
> > are much smaller. Chimpanzee incisor teeth are very
> > broad, and they use them for eating fruits. We don't see
> > that in any of the oldest hominids. This is saying that
> > chimpanzees evolved that specialization after the split
> > with our ancestors.
>
> I think Tim is being mislead by the evidence.

He's mislead because he ignores it.
The evidence White forgets lies in the
distribution of chimpanzees all over
tropical Africa. They occupy a forest
niche, and there is not a single reason
why they, or their niche should have
changed since the split from gorillas.
Further, it is clear -- simply from numbers
and distribution -- that gorillas are the
more specialised of the two taxa, and
that the common ancestor (of chimps
and gorillas) would much more likely
have been chimp-like.

While all this is based on assumptions
that things have not changed in the
tropical African forests, that is the
parsimonious assumption. Good
evidence of substantial changes (in the
range of vegetation, or in the presence
of competing species) might change the
picture, but there is no doubt as to
nature of the model which should stand
until evidence to the contrary emerges.

> > This is saying that
> > chimpanzees evolved that specialization after the split
> > with our ancestors.

This is a profoundly ignorant statement.
Specialization from what into what?
Eating more fruit? The man has not
the faintest idea what he is talking
about.

Guess that's what comes from being a PA.


Paul.





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quotes from Upright, by Craig Stanford
    ... this stuff yet, partly because we don't have enough fossil evidence, ... Would he say this about woodlice? ... I began my current study of chimpanzees without any ... special interest in their walking upright; ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... and its canine teeth ... This is saying that ... >>> chimpanzees evolved that specialization after the split ... >> I think Tim is being mislead by the evidence. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Savanna nonsense
    ... >> human infant is much more likely to survive a near drowning incident, ... > tell the difference between evidence and his own imagination. ... are fatter than chimpanzees ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... only acceptance as useful by others in the same ... ancestor between human beings and chimpanzees. ... the most recent "common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans." ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... chimpanzees, and a slightly earlier one with gorillas, and an earlier ... extremely early common ancestor with modern bacteria. ... The other, nonhuman, apes have no more of a tail than humans do. ... The earlier common ancestor of all apes and Old World monkeys [and ...
    (talk.origins)