Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths

Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1XYnf.29248$BZ5.7882@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > > Of course. The only way that the new
> > > species can keep its identity, as such,
> > > is NOT to re-merge with its mainland
> > > ancestor. Nor can it compete directly
> > > with its ancestor. It must necessarily
> > > have established a new and quite
> > > distinct niche.
> >
> > No, you have the cart in front of the horse, again. Species
> > don't establish niches.
>
> To some extent they do establish niches.
> The range of Arctic species is very different
> from that of the Antarctic. The niches are
> different because they were 'created' by quite
> different taxa. Penquins could do quite well
> in the Northern hemisphere, and polar bears
> and walruses in the Southern one -- if they
> could get there.

I guess what I'm getting at here, Paul, is that there seems to be a
lack of ecological reasons for the dramatic shift in behavior that you
indicate in your model. And don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing that
it may have been dramatic. I'm specifically disputing any suggestion
on your part that your model successfully describes the selective
factors that would have brought about such a shift in behavior.
Specifically, you have them becoming isolated on predator free islands
and then, for some unknown reason, you have them picking up clubs to
chase each other around, kill each other, scare each other? Or,
whatever. But it involves constant possession or near constant
possession of clubs in the hands of these chimpanzee-like mammals, and
thus bipedalism.

You assume human behaviors. And that is all you are doing. You're
just assuming human behaviors instead of describing the situational
factors (beginning with climate change--climate change is nature's
trigger for new species [this one's so good I'm going to quote it
myself if Mikey doesn't]-- when there seems to be a complete lack of
any situational factors that would cause the behaviors prescribed in
your model.

So, Paul. This is the big hurdle you have to get over if you want to
convince me of your model. Why would apes isolated on predator free
islands suddenly assume human-like (for want of a better label)
interspecies war? It seems to me there's a world of details missing in
this supposition, at least as it stands at present.

>
> > If there's an open niche they can fill it.
>
> It is an interaction. More-or-less the
> right animal has to be around at more-
> or-less the right time.
>
> > But your notion that they'd be rejoined to the mainland and
> > just carve out a new niche is more of your wishful thinking.
>
> It is not 'wishful thinking'. The species exists,
> and we are obliged to explain its genesis.

And your explanations have a lot of missing details that can't be taken
for granted, as you would have us all do. You need to start addressing
these details.

> Your theory is nuts, but you still attempt to
> rule out mine on some 'theoretical' grounds
> -- that somehow don't apply to yours.

Vagueness is your problem. I layed out the details of why the
behaviors in my model are selectively advantageous. I don't see that
in yours.

> The process that I outline may have taken
> thousands of attempts over many millions of
> years before it was successful. It certainly
> took many attempts. There was nothing easy.
> Your wishful thinking has them do it easily
> on the one occasion the weather changed.

Don't be ridiculous. There's more to my model than just that.

>
> > > Almost all newly isolated populations
> > > will experience an 'environmental change'.
> > > (For example, there can be no large predators
> > > in such an ecosystem.) But there may be
> > > no change at all in climate (or in weather).
> > > That will often enable it to find a new niche.
> > > It may (on occasion) be able to maintain
> > > that new niche when its isolation comes to
> > > an end. The environmental conditions on
> > > the mainland may never have changed at all.
> >
> > But in your model there is really no reason for them to establish a new
> > niche. You just tack it on because it fulfills your model.
>
> No reason? You sound as though you'd
> expect them to have written up a manifesto
> first. All any individual was doing was his
> or her best to survive from day to day, and
> bring up their offspring as well as they
> could. That's all any individual in any
> species ever does. If your model needs
> any more than that, it's not scientific.

No, Paul. You're avoiding the main issue here. How do they get from
chimp to club-wielding, interspecies warriaristic hominids in one step.
And why? What is it about this island that would evolve such strange
behaviors? This is the issue.

> The animals on my island had no idea,
> and less intention, of creating a new
> species, or forming a new niche. They
> simply found that to survive in their
> new (predator-free and ground-based)
> environment, they had to use clubs.

Why? (I shouldn't have to ask this question.)

> Later on, they found that they could
> use sticks to dig out roots.

Why?

> Those with
> harder teeth survived better,

What? Did I hear you correctly? "Those with harder teeth survived
better, . . . "

Hmm. I wonder why this happened? Why would those with harder teeth
survive longer and reproduce more than those with softer teeth? Do you
think it might have something to do with diet? The answer to this
questions is, of course, yes. But we see no mention of it from you
Paul. Why did you omit this, Paul? Especially in light of the fact
that it is a common and explicit assumption of many tooth based models,
that enamel thickness is determined by diet. You can't just fluff this
off, Paul. If you wish to ignore the thinking of hundreds of
professionals in this field (and any field that involves interpretation
of the fossil evidence) then you should do it explicitly, directly,
honestly rather than dismissing it as you do here. (BTW, ignorance is
no excuse.)

> since razor-
> sharp ones weren't needed much any
> more for defence.

How does any of this predict a thickening of enamel? (Thought you'd
slide that one by us, didn't you, Paul. Admit it.)

>
> > This is not the case for my model. In my model it's
> > essential that they achieve behaviors
> > that enable them to survive the dry season.
>
> That was (and is) a problem for most
> tropical species. Nothing new (nor
> interesting) there.

Don't be ridiculous. The dry season of the tropics is insignificant in
comparison to that of a monsoon climate. This is common knowledge
amongst climatologists. So, Paul, not only do Seem to think you have a
license to ignore the the expertise of hundreds of experts that examine
fossil teeth but now you'd have us also ignore that of climatologists
(and paleoclimatologists).

>
> > And this is complicated by the
> > fact that they are surrounded by many species that employ migratory
> > behaviors to survive the dry season. This creates huge potential for
> > conflict between themselves and the migratory species that depend on the
> > resources that exist at locations where our early chimpanzee-like ancestors
> > reside--locations near water, where forest habitat still persists year
> > round.
>
> What evidence can you show of such a
> conflict anywhere on earth within the
> last 100 years?

Any and all human war and sports behavior, in addition any efforts to
protect "agriculture" from pests (of any kind).

Simple question, simple answer.

>
> > It is this conflict and the fact that the only way to effectively
> > deal with it is through communally cooperative war based behavior. This is
> > how the hominid character began to be selected. Communities that were good
> > at employing war-based behaviors to keep their fruit trees from being
> > depleted by inmigrating food competitors survived and persisted through the
> > dry season.
>
> Such tree-living war-like hominids must
> have done well, and got better at it.
> In which forests are all the millions
> (or billions?) of them living today?

We is them.

>
> This crap is as bad as the savanna
> nonsense. Or Verhagen's grass-eating
> swamp hominids.
>
> > Communities that were poor at this became impoverished during
> > the depths of the dry season and therefore became the targets of the
> > opportunity seeking predators who layed siege and caused the decimation of
> > the population.
> >
> > This is how the first hominids evolved. And the dominant behavior still
> > persists to this day: we fight wars to improve our economy. The one thing
> > that has changed is that now the enemy is ourselves.
>
> Nothing changed there. Chimps kill
> more chimps than any predator.

My scenario describes the selective origins of war. Your scenario, in
comparison, assumes war. This is the main difference between our
scenarios and it's a damning one for your scenario, IMO.

>
> > >> > Apart from that, there
> > >> > are unlikely to be any particular rules.
> > >>
> > >> It's funny that you seem to think you can make up rules and that anybody
> > >> would pay attention.
> > >
> > > I'm not making up rules. I am denying
> > > the existence of a whole range of rules
> > > which you believe exist -- even though
> > > you cannot state what they are.
> >
> > You stated, "Apart from that, there are unlikely to be any particular
> > rules." And you have no basis for this.
>
> Of course I do. There is only one true
> 'rule' in life and that is survival. Those
> (such as yourself) who claim that there
> are more, must (a) set them out; and
> (b) justify them. You do neither.


Nothing here adds up to an excuse for either or both ignoring
ecological principles or vagueness.

>
> > The group selective aspects of your scenario are missing, absent. There is
> > no reason for them to assume human adaptations, intellect, etc. These group
> > selective aspects are NOT missing from my scenario. I have no need to tack
> > them on.
>
> We all agree that "human adaptations,
> intellect, etc" came about at some point.

Aha. You have no intention of doing anything but tacking these on. No
group selection.

> Why do you insist that they came with
> (or before?) bipedalism? There is no good
> reason why they should.


Parsimony, occam's razor, (Punk-Eek). There's a world of good reason
to, in the least, expect considerably more detail than you've provided.


> You finish up
> having to explain far too much in one go.

This is how it's supposed to be. We're talking about a shift to a new
lifestyle in a new habitat facing new interspecies factors.

It should be plainly obvious to you why we have no choice but to
explain it all in one.

>
> > I have no need to attach notions of them suddenly and inexplicably
> > chasing each other around with clubs as happens in your model when the
> > predators are removed. That's pure nonsense. Very bad theory.
>
> As I have told you numerous times, they
> did little more than transfer a tree existence
> to one based on the ground.

Details?

>
> > Eventually you're going to have to face it, Paul. There is nothing about
> > your model that indicates selective factors for the emergence of human
> > intellect, culture, etc. Nothing.
>
> Nor does there need to be -- at the initiation
> of bipedalism. They began to live in much
> larger groups -- with monogamy -- and that
> was enough to form the basis.

In my scenario I explicate the why of this. I lay out the selective
factors involved. You do nothing but assume it. Again.

Why would an ape that is inclined to living in small groups suddenly
start assuming such large group size. Unlike my model, you haven't
delineated selective factors that would begin selecting for those that
were inclined to residing in large groups. All we have from you on
this important questions is vagueness.

>
> > >> >> grains, nuts, bugs, dried fruit,
> > >> >
> > >> > Dried fruit does not, in effect, exist in nature.
> > >> > Grains usually need grinding first -- the job
> > >> > cannot be done by hominoid teeth -- and
> > >> > then baking. (Ever tried to eat uncooked flour
> > >> > or uncooked rice?) Hard teeth are not needed
> > >> > for bugs -- their soft parts will be digested in
> > >> > the gut and the rest passed out. There are no
> > >> > (or very few) nuts which humans can eat that
> > >> > chimps can't.
> > >> >
> > >> > In other words, your theory does not begin
> > >> > to have a basis for the early hominid diet.
> > >> > So you don't have the beginnings of an
> > >> > account of hominid speciation.
> > >> >
> > >> > In this respect, you are 100% identical to
> > >> > standard PA. You have tamely followed
> > >> > them down their path of total ecological
> > >> > ignorance.
> > >>
> > >> Your scenario epitomizes ecological ignorance overlain with ecological
> > >> wishful thinking.
> > >
> > > Surely you can see that you make no attempt
> > > to deal with the issues? WHAT was the
> > > diet of early hominids?
> >
> > I've already answered this question.
>
> You stated:
> > >> >> grains, nuts, bugs, dried fruit,
>
> And I've demolished that. Please attempt
> to deal with my points.

I think you need to start dealing with the evidence that clearly
indicates the emergence of a significant dry season. Did you really
think you could get away with it?

>
> > >> > You should not be so credulous. All this
> > >> > is a PA fairy story. Dry seasons are next to
> > >> > universal in the tropics.
> > >>
> > >> Paleoclimatologists tell a different story.
> > >
> > > Quote some -- or refer to a source.
> >
> > See my hypothesis.
>
> Fake scientists always refer you to their
> 'sacred texts' where all the answers to all
> questions lie. Of course, they can never
> tell you what those answers are -- on that
> in this secret book, all is explained. Jason,
> and other PA dopes, do it with the claim:
> " . . .it's all in the scientific journals . . ".

You don't need to debate me on this, Paul. I'm just going with the
experts. If you chose to believe that there is no difference between
the dry season of a rainforest habitat and that of monsoon forest
habitat then I should inform you that there is an army of
climatologists and paleoclimatologists that would, upon hearing this
claim, dismiss you as an idiot. You need to debate them. Hopefully
they won't see you coming.

Jim

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.
    ... Surely you would accept that some selection ... I though you said selection couldn't be slight. ... >> species B would have some traits which help its greater aquaticism. ... So what's your explanation, Paul? ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: New Model for the Origin of Bipedality
    ... always carried weapons to explain the origins of bipedalism. ... My hypothesis explains the SELECTIVE origins of the behaviors we see ... presently in our species. ... You seem to be ignorant of natural selection. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Mendel refutes evolution
    ... Meiotic drive is just selection. ... I deny the validity of a term like "species selection". ... because it kills of organisms who ... reproduction that has nothing to do with genetic or phenotypic ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How does a new species emerge?
    ... >> Allopatric involves a separation that precedes speciation ... >> selection is not random and maybe focused for cultural ... The barrier gene meaning that no extrinsic barrier separates two ... species, the barrier is intrinsic meaning they could potentially ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Re: Evolution is not a fact
    ... All made of what some term micro evolution. ... exactly what you mean by "species selection". ... different populations then external pressures can select one or the ...
    (talk.origins)