Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1134702638.066030.118910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> 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.

I have given the 'ecological' reasons -- isolation
on a predator-free island. You assume that
something global was necessarily involved.
That is quite false.

> 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?

I have given you the reasons dozens of
times. Put several groups of modern chimps
on the same kind of island (i.e. without
sleeping-trees), and they'd behave in much
the same way as I suggest the first (proto-)
hominids did.

> But it involves constant possession or near constant
> possession of clubs in the hands of these chimpanzee-like mammals, and
> thus bipedalism.

Yep. Those who reverted to quadrupedalism
or who stopped carrying clubs would be
rapidly 'selected out'.

> You assume human behaviors.

NO. I assume chimp behaviours.

> 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.

What details? I have gone over everything
numerous times.

> > 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.

Maybe. But in this respect I am right. You
say the weather changed, and the 'chimps'
reacted to it in they way they needed to.
It was a one-off occasion, and if they had
slipped up on in that year, we would not be
here. Such a theory does not begin to be
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.

Put some groups of modern chimps on an
island without sleeping trees and you get
something like this.

> And why? What is it about this island that would evolve such strange
> behaviors? This is the issue.

If you think that there is something strange
about the behaviour of modern chimps,
then that's your own personal problem.

> > 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.)

You shouldn't -- because I have told you the
answer dozens of times. If you are a chimp,
and all the chimps around you are wielding
clubs, you'll be dead if you don't carry your
own. Ask any adult male in Somalia (or
downtown LA) why they go around armed
all the time.

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

Why what? Since they were becoming
bipedal and using clubs, they began to
use (and keep) other things, such as
tools.

> > 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?

I did not omit it. I have told you several
times. They dug roots and, therefore,
ate some sand and took small pebbles
into their mouths.

> 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.

I don't.

> > 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.)

My mistake. I did not realise how thick
you were. The point is that chimps don't
eat roots today -- even though they could
dig for them, and survive the dry season
more easily -- because they need razor-
sharp teeth. Those chimps which start
doing this (and there will a few in every
generation) will suffer damage to their
teeth and die young. Hard-teethed chimps
cannot evolve since their neighbours with
razor-sharp ones will wipe them out first.

Once early hominids started using clubs,
razor-sharp teeth were no longer absolutely
essential, and survival in the dry-season
became more important. So they evolved
hard teeth to eat roots.

> > > 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).

Look, you idiot, we are seeking to explain
the change from chimp-like behaviour to
human-like behaviour. YOU are claiming
that a chimp-like animal started to behave
in an extremely complicated way as the
result of common 'environmental' pressures
from other animals. You cannot justify that
claim by pointing to HUMAN activities.
I am asking what non-human ANIMALS
ever behave in the way you say these
'chimps' and other local species did some
5-6-7-8 mya. You should be able to
point to some non-human animals in
the modern world.

> Simple question, simple answer.

Simple question. Idiot 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.

We are most certainly NOT them.
We do not sleep in trees, nor live
in forests. Where are those TREE-
sleeping, FOREST-dwelling species
now?

> > > 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.

I assume no more war than we see
among modern chimps.

> > 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.

It would (in your terms) be 'parsimonious'
to claim that they invented writing and
symphony orchestras at the same time.
But it would not be good science.

> Why would an ape that is inclined to living in small groups suddenly
> start assuming such large group size.

It did NOT "suddenly start assuming such large
group size". They evolved over thousands of
generations -- with a lot of difficulty. But the
reasons for them were powerful. A larger club-
wielding group will out-perform a smaller one.
A larger group can exclude competitors (such
as baboons) from its territory. A smaller one
can't. A larger group can establish a 'home-base'
on a mainland peninsula, keeping nocturnal
predators at bay by constantly patrolling the
adjacent areas during the day. A smaller one
would have no hope of doing that.

> Unlike my model, you haven't
> delineated selective factors that would begin selecting for those that
> were inclined to residing in large groups.

You think your "delineated selective
factors" aren't vague?

> All we have from you on this important questions is vagueness.

What is vague about anything in my
paragraph above? I have repeated those
points many times.

> > > >> >> grains, nuts, bugs, dried fruit,

> > > > 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 still refuse to defend "grains, nuts,
bugs, dried fruit," -- because you know
that such a list is indefensible. You
have not the beginnings of an idea as
to early hominid diet. So all you can do
is bull*** -- just like the standard PA
types. Without specifying the diet of
a species, you have not got the first
clue as to its nature.


Paul.


.

Loading