Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths


"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote

>> > How about small pebbles accidentally left in the
>> > food? (As when a root is dug from the ground.)
>>
>> I'm sure they allowed for that.
>
> I'm quire sure that they didn't. How come
> you are so trusting of PA types? Surely
> you don't think that they have the faintest
> idea of what they are doing?

I think you're overreacting. In my experiences the physical aspects of
anthropology are very rigorous. There is no evolutionary biology associated
with such, it's just straight physics. More like CSI (you know, Crime Scene
Investigation, on TV etc.) and less like Margaret Meade.

>
>> Admit it, Paul, if this evidence was supportive of your model
>> you wouldn't be trying to dismiss it on a technicality.
>
> This is not a 'technicality'. Such 'scientists'
> only look for what they expect to see. The
> idea that they should consider complicating
> possibilities ('outside the parameters of their
> study') does not occur to them. Of course,
> the fact that such complications would make
> the whole study much more difficult and
> much less appealing to the 'scientific' journals,
> has some relevance.

I really don't see it this way at all. And I think it disingenuous of you
to attempt to dismiss this data/conclusion without making an honest attempt
to address it. (Not that this would be easy since you wouldn't have access
to the raw data.) In the least you can read the paper and attempt to
address it's content directly.

>
>> > > > 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.
>>
>> No, I think he's just largely or completely ignorant about ecological
>> factors.
> [..]
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> One thing that does complicate things is when tectonic factors open
>> pathways for species to invade.
>
> That does not begin to be a factor in
> anything concerning apes. In fact, I'm
> sure it's not a factor in anything at all.

I agree. And if it was then they'd be the invaders, as are most African
species, and not the invaded. And so it would have little effect.

>
> It's only significance is that it is easy
> to see on maps, and it's a straw at which
> a hopeless PA person can grab at when
> they have no other idea -- which is, as
> you know, their normal state.
>
>> > > > This is saying that
>> > > > chimpanzees evolved that specialization after the split
>> > > > with our ancestors.
>> >
>> > This is a profoundly ignorant statement.
>>
>> Unfortunately I have to agree with you. It's atrotious. And this is
>> state of the art in the discipline. You don't get a bigger name in the
>> field than Tim White. (Although, in actuality, he is nothing but a
>> glorified rock hound.)
>>
>> At one time I would have (and almost always did) skim over these kind
>> of statements thinking, 'they couldn't actually be saying what it seems
>> like they are saying. But there it is in black and white. It has to
>> do with the almost perfect ignorance of ecological factors that is part
>> and parcel to the anthropological current paradigm. It's deliberate.
>
> 'Deliberate' is hardly the right word.
> It's systematic. It's an integral part of
> what they are.

Again, regretably, I have to agree. But the problems aren't limited to PA.
In fact a lot of the source of the bad thinking comes from standard
evolutionary biology. You think the conversations here in this NG are
strange. You wouldn't believe some of the strange conversations I've had in
sci.bio.evolution. And this is with professionals.

Yet it is astonishing.
> The only hope I see would be for an
> influx into PA of specialists from other
> disciplines where concepts like 'niche'
> and 'ecology' are understood. But
> that's not on the cards at any time in
> the foreseeable future.

I agree. Not going to happen.

>
>> This is why none of the nimrods in this NG are ever able to discuss
>> these factors. It's taboo to them.
>
> I don't think it's 'taboo'. It's just not
> part of their tradition. It's not in their
> language. They simply don't understand
> what people say when they use those
> words.

I agree. But the roots of this have to do with deliberate ignorance of
biology which is based on taboo. They honestly believe that cultural
evolution is a process that is distinct from biological evolution and that
this serves as the basis for dismissing biological evolution.

All they know is that they are
> irrelevant, and nothing to do with them.
> It would be like going to a PA conference
> and giving a talk in Serbo-Croat. At best
> you'd get silence. You certainly would
> get no positive reaction.

I agree. But where I might differ from yourself is with respect to the fact
that I do understand the underlying rationale for the taboo. (In fact I
often feel guilt about the fact that I am very guilty of completely ignoring
this taboo in order to achieve scientific progress.) There are sound moral
and ethical reasons for it. And the more you understand how and why humans
evolved the more you understand these moral and ethical reasons. And the
moral and ethical drawbacks are completely inescapable the more hominid
origins are accurately comprehended. It's the mother of all irony. (This
is discussed in the bible, genesis, with respect to not eating the fruit
from the tree of knowledge.)

>
>> > Specialization from what into what?
>> > Eating more fruit? The man has not
>> > the faintest idea what he is talking
>> > about.
>>
>> You hear it in the dimwitted progressionist inspired comments from the
>> idiots in this NG. They'll saying something like, "chmpanzees have
>> more derived features--the implication being that there both hominids
>> and apes evolved from some intermediate between apes and hominids (not
>> unlike Verhaegen). It's pure idiocy.
>
> Yep. The AAT types actually work
> within this appalling PA tradition,

You hit that nail on the head. Much of the underlying rationale for the AAT
idiocy piggybacks off conventional theory.

with
> a zero concept of niche. Species can
> hop about, almost at will, not merely
> from one habitat to another, but from
> one element to another. You can
> invent any 'stage' or 'intermediary'
> you care to think about. And you can
> assume that it went extinct as soon as
> your theory no longer needs it to exist.
> You can have it eat grass (and compete
> with bovids) or be a pure carnivore
> (and compete with lions, hyenas and
> vultures) -- or whatever you fancy.
>
> Standard PA types can't criticise any
> AAT theories for their worst faults,
> because they are guilty of exactly the
> same thing. It's as though you had
> two blind drunks tied together,
> furiously beating each other up, not
> having a clue as to what the real
> problems were.

Again, regrettably, I agree.

Jim


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is my CS instructor nuts?
    ... species, homo sapiens sapiens, there are "innate" differences which are ... even those biology texts which don't address the issue, ... contain a single species entry for all humans alive today. ... rather than the science of evolution. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Ernst Mayr
    ... Ernst Mayr, the last of the people to have participated in the Modern ... Synthesis and perhaps the greatest evolutionary biology of the 20th ... revived Darwin's theories of evolution and reconciled them with new ... question of how new species originate. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • =?windows-1252?Q?Evolution_is_God=92s_work_=2D=2D_The_Catholic_Herald?=
    ... book On the Origin of Species was published 150 years ago on November ... relegating the existence of God to a gratuitous hypothesis. ... Evolution is an immensely complicated subject (and appears more ... not explicable through biology, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Michael Ruses Model
    ... biology long before darwin's pipe dream. ... There are two after the "family/kind". ... The genus and the species. ... Darwin's evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: lets ignore bvallelys political postings
    ... ntelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher ... In a recent volume of the Vienna Series in a Theoretical Biology ... form first arose during the evolution of life. ... and classes of animals also arose at this ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)