Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ssCof.39394$tV6.38533@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > 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.

Sea-level changes are as frequent over
geological time as showers of rain were in
Hawaii in the last century. Numerous cycles
(such as the Milkhanovich {spelling?} or
local ones, like as the North Atlantic heat-
pump) produce warming and cooling effects,
making more or less polar ice. They do not
have to be large to create islands or re-unite
them to the mainland. Movements of rivers,
especially in estuaries, do it all the time.
Similarly, volcanic and tectonic movements
produce islands, although much less often.

> > 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

Chimps do that now.

> and starting becoming bipedal.

Chimps have to put them down since
they sleep in trees, and often climb in
daylight. But if there are no large trees.
they won't climb; and so will keep their
clubs at all times. Bipedalism will be
forced.

> >> 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.

They don't "chase". They protect
water-holes and the like. The 'chasers'
(without clubs) most often die of thirst
or starvation.

> >> You assume human behaviors.
> >
> > NO. I assume chimp behaviours.
>
> No, chasing each other around with clubs is human
> behavior, not chimps behavior.

'Chasing' is not part of it. Chimps hold and
wield clubs now. Doing so regularly is an
obvious step, in the right circumstances.

> >> 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.

It is not "convenient for [my] model"; it is
an integral part of it, and an obvious step.

> >> > 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.

How and why? Your inability to be more
precise shows that I have hit a raw nerve.

> >> 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.

What else would they do? Yet again
your inability to state anything different
shows that I am right.

> > 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.

They would if all around them used them.

> And they're not inclined to fighting in groups.

Eh? Where did you get THAT from?
Never read Goodall, I suppose. In any
case, numerous mammals (and other
species) fight in groups.

> But you just assume all these human-like behaviors. This is
> nonsense. You haven't indicated a shift in selective factors.

Yes, I have. Those who don't have clubs,
or are poor at using them (perhaps because
their adaptations to bipedalism are not so
good) die, and die rapidly. You have never
seen more effective 'selective factors'
outlined.

> >> > 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.

Nope. Tool and weapon use was fundamental
to bipedalism. Darwin knew that. You (and all
of modern PA) have forgotten it.

> >> > 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.

Eh? I can only read your words
and only answer what I see.

> I'm asking why you omitted mentioning that it is common
> knowledge that most scientists see a linkage between
> diet and enamel thickness.

Because they're PA 'scientists' -- and
do not remember to look at what animals
do the field, nor consider any factors other
than those immediately in front of their eyes.

> >> 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.

'Diet' (in this sense) consists of ALL that
is put into the mouth. If eating roots
means taking in sand and small pebbles
then THEY are also part of the diet.

Bad scientists often make bad assumptions
(and forget all about sand and gravel).
Only a dope like you would think that
there is a good reason to follow them.

> >> > 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.

Goodall did not study savanna chimps.

> > -- 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.

Eh? The whole of the eastern coast of Africa
has a dry season.

> Just island isolation (at a time when
> there was no change in sea level.)

Nonsense. There are always changes in progress.

> > 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.

Typical standard PA. Zero ability to look
beyond the end of your nose.

> Hard teeth to eat roots? Roots aren't hard.

It the sand and gravel that come with them
that destroy soft teeth.

> Grains, nuts, and dried fruit is hard.

Primates can't digest uncooked grain.
Nut kernels are not hard -- stones can
be used to break open hard shells.
Dried fruit is unknown (or virtually
unknown) in nature.

You just don't have a 'hard diet'.
Surely you can see that?

> >> > > 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?

> > You should be able to
> > point to some non-human animals in
> > the modern world.
>
> There are none others. We fully occupy the niche.

Ridiculous. Firstly humans don't occupy
forest (or do so only marginally). Secondly,
there is nothing in your scenario that
allows you to rule out similar occurrences
in other species.

> >> > > 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.

Faith always has a much firmer grip on
poor minds than evidence or logic.

> >> 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.)

Goodall (the first and best known authority)
did not study 'savanna chimps' -- although
those at Gombe do have a dry season. But
'jungle chimps' (which don't experience a dry
season) are just as aggressive and war-like.
Secondly, what they display is FAR from
"a minimal degree of war behavior". It is
usually intense war.

> >> > 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.

Of course, they do. You state: "communally
cooperative war based behavior" -- which, for
no good reason emerges from nothing -- in
species sleeping in trees.

> 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.

Nonsense. I set out the exact physical
conditions that sparked the change, and
then kept it going, in a population of
'chimps'. It probably happened a few
thousand times, before it was successful.

> >> 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.

Eh? Small groups among chimps are a function
of chimp mating systems, and the necessity to
finding fresh sleeping-trees every night. Your
model has to continue that indefinitely. There is
no reason why it should change. Whereas mine
has a radical change at the start: they begin to
sleep on the ground. That is possible because
there are no predators. But they leave themselves
open to attack by other groups. At the same time
they eliminate baboons and can achieve a much
higher density, but now larger groups are essential
to ward off attack. They are now possible, since
the shift to the ground brought about monogamy.
Without good protection, females become highly
vulnerable at night -- to rape by stranger males,
etc., etc.

> 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.

Your model does not begin to compete with
mine. Tell me where, how and why monogamy
came in.

> > 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.

Not so. Numerous species behave in much
more sophisticated ways. Ever study ants?
True, the behaviours would have been
difficult to acquire and it took time -- it is still
taking time. Those that were better at it, did
very well, and those that weren't, died out.

> You are suppose to be laying out
> the selective factors that make human-like behavior inevitable,
> unavoidable.

Not so. Intelligent behaviour is always avoidable
and never inevitable. All we are required to do
is set out how it became possible.

> 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.

The 'forcing' was only at the level that those
that did not follow the example of the best,
died out. Those that kept looking for a
sleeping-tree every night did not do well.
Those that neglected to hold on to their
clubs at all times did not survive -- and
so on and on.

> > 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.

Except that you can't defend it.

What animals are eating that food now?

How come that a highly successful
species eating that (forest) food, just
got up and abandoned that niche?

> > 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.

The change was truly dramatic. Yet you
can suggest nothing. Your early hominids
continued to eat 'chimp food', yet you say
that they now put in a few harder things that,
for some unknown reason, chimps do not
deign to eat at present. Your thinking is
pathetic. It is desperately contrived crap --
and absolutely typical of standard PA.

> It's an obvious indication of the emergence of a dry
> season.

IF you had anything going for your model,
chimps in areas with dry seasons should have
harder teeth than those elsewhere. But they
don't.

> You even admitted it (and then tried to tack on a dry season to
> your model).

More nonsense. I've incorporated (essentially
static) fighting over water-holes from the start.
These newly-bipedal guys with clubs were not
the best at moving around. I've also had -- from
the start -- them digging for roots (with digging
sticks) therefore directly competing with
baboons, and driving them out of their territory.
Roots are what baboons survive on during the
dry season. Early hominids would have imitated
them. Dry seasons are universal in East Africa.

> 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.

Maybe you did not read my earlier stuff properly.
However, I am certainly steadily expanding my
theory, incorporating new facts and ideas.
That is what always happens to those that are
soundly based on reality. A niche is always
more complicated that it seems at first sight.
All aspects of the species behaviour must be
inter-related, and must integrate with its diet,
with every aspect of its anatomy, with its patterns
of sleeping behaviour, its social structure, its
tools and weapons, its child-rearing, its method
of dealing with predators, and so on and on.

Bad theories, like yours, constantly run into
dead ends, where there is no possibility of
further explanation for numerous and crucial
aspects of the species anatomy and
behaviour.

Next time, I'll list all those I explain, and set
them against your (non-)list,


Paul.


.

Loading