Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths


"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Qgxof.3398$j7.81704@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "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

What suddenly emerging islands? There is no change in sea level associated
with the early miocene.


> sleeping-trees), and they'd behave in much
> the same way as I suggest the first (proto-)
> hominids did.

There is nothing in your model that would indicate why they would pickup
clubs and starting becoming bipedal.


>
>> 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'.

This is your fantasy. There is no way in the world that quadrupedal chimps
would begin chasing each other around with clubs.

>
>> You assume human behaviors.
>
> NO. I assume chimp behaviours.

No, chasing each other around with clubs is human behavior, not chimps
behavior.

>
>> 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.

And everytime you put clubs in chimps hands for no reason except that it is
convenient for your model. You could do it a hundred more times and it
won't make it valid.

>
>> > 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.

Nonsense.

>
>> 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.

Nonsense. This is nothing but wishful thinking.

>
>> 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.

No, it's yours.

>
>> > 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.

These were apes, they don't need or employ clubs to defend themselves. And
they're not inclined to fighting in groups. But you just assume all these
human-like behaviors. This is nonsense. You haven't indicated a shift in
selective factors.

>
>> > 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.

Tail wagging the dog.

>
>> > 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.

Now you're being evasive. You're answering a question that's different from
the one I'm asking. I'm asking why you omitted mentioning that it is common
knowledge that most scientists see a linkage between diet and enamel
thickness. And you pretended to not notice it.

>
>> 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.

You just tried to.

>
>> > 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

As I recall, Goodall indicates that savanna chimps do eat roots. And
besides


> -- 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

There's no dry season in your model. Just island isolation (at a time when
there was no change in sea level.)

> became more important. So they evolved
> hard teeth to eat roots.

Hard teeth to eat roots? Roots aren't hard. Grains, nuts, and dried fruit
is hard.

>
>> > > 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.

You should have specified.

> 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.

There are none others. We fully occupy the niche.

>
>> 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?

Nevertheless, we is them.

>
>> > > 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.

We see little of anything that resembles war among modern chimps. What of
it we do see we see only in savanna chimps (unlike jungle chimps, bonopo,
savanna chimps do experience a significant dry season and so we've seen some
[a lesser degree] of hominid evolution in these savanna chimps and it is
because of his coevolution that savanna chimps do display a minimal degree
of war behavior.)

>
>> > 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.

No, these require a sophisticated mind. My scenario has no behaviors that
require a sophisticated mind. And at one and the same time, my scenario (in
stark contrast to your scenario) indicates the selective factors that would
begin to select for a sophisticated mind--communal selection.

>
>> 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 if your model has small groups then it can only have small group
conflict. Thus you are unable to achieve the large group conflict war that
is intrinsic to my model. So your model lacks a shift to war.

> 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.

Again, you are assuming human behaviors. You are suppose to be laying out
the selective factors that make human-like behavior inevitable, unavoidable.
You are not doing this. Moreover, and most troubling, you seem to not grasp
the significance of this. Human evolutionary theory is not about assuming
human behaviors. Any idiot can do that. It's about laying out the
situational factors that forced them to assume a new lifestyle.

>
>> 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?

I know they aren't.

>
>> 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.

Yes, and repeating vagueness does not make it less vague.

>
>> > > >> >> 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

No, it's beyond reproach.

> 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.

Shut up. There's nothing about roots that would cause the dramatic increase
in enamel thickness. It's an obvious indication of the emergence of a dry
season. You even admitted it (and then tried to tack on a dry season to
your model).

Face it, Paul. The evidence refutes your model. Moreover, the vagueness of
the selective factors therein also refute it. And then there's the fact
that you have not delineated selective factors for the emergence of the
large groups we see in our species. All we see from you is a tendency to
tack on explanations. With my hypothesis all the explanations are intrinsic
to the model itself, nothing is tacked on.


.

Quantcast