Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths


"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0SBqf.3677$j7.83833@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:To2qf.40471$tV6.21299@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> My question was a requests for specifics and you gave me a general
>> answer.
>> Why don't you actually look into the specifics. If you do you'll realize
>> that lowering of sea level is associated with continental glaciation.
>> And
>> continental glaciation did not begin to occur until the pleistocene, 2
>> mya.
>> And this is three to 6 million years after the first hominids.
>
> The ice-cover prior to 2.4 mya was probably
> predominantly something like it is now: i.e.
> over the poles, Greenland, much of Alaska, etc.
> There would have been fluctuations around
> that level, with (say) Greenland free of ice
> some of the time and covered for the rest.
> Sea-levels might not have changed as
> drastically as they have over the past 2.4 mya
> with the inter-glacials, but they would have
> changed quite often -- more than enough to
> create and destroy large islands.
>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> Yes, all of this is obvious. You're not addressing my question/issue.
>> You
>> keep skipping over the part of the answer that is most important and then
>> jump into what would happen *if* chimps did begin to employ clubs more
>> often. I agree with you that *if* chimps did begin to use clubs more
>> often
>> as you indicate that bipedalism would be the result (afterall, my own
>> model
>> carries the same assumption). Your model completely fails to offer any
>> explanation for why chimps would begin to employ clubs more often. The
>> baseline assumptions is that chimps don't normally carry clubs
>> constantly.
>> You're saying that if we remove predators that chimps would begin to
>> employ
>> clubs more often. This is pure, unadulterated, wishful thinking,
>> nonsense.
>
> You left out several other factors -- (a) no
> sleeping in trees; (b) habitation of areas
> without sleeping trees, or even any large
> trees; (c) sleeping on the ground, and
> therefore in constant danger of nocturnal
> ambush by hostile bands; (d) open sight
> lines during the day, and therefore the
> necessity to show that you are armed;
> (e) the protection of water-holes -- often
> hard to find on low-lying islands.

Weak.

>
>> In my model there's a shift to a new lifestyle in which as a result of a
>> greater shift in climate/fauna that dictates that those that don't begin
>> to
>> employ weapons will have a significant selective disadvantage compared to
>> those that don't. In my model the adoption of tools/weapons is organic.
>> Your model is silly in comparison in that there is no underlying reason
>> at
>> all for them to begin employing clubs.
>
> Chimps do it now,

They certainly do not!

> so that is not a problem.
> The only problem is to show how they could
> live away from trees on a near-permanent
> basis. They can do it on predator-free islands.
> They cannot do it in your scenario.
>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> Here you are assuming my model. (This is monsoon habitat
>> you are proposing here, but you don't seem to realize it.)
>
> All I assume here are periods of drought.
> No big deal. But even they are not
> essential.

Without some kind of environmentally caused periodic scarcity there is even
less reason for them to assume the territorialism in you model than you have
already.

> Let the club-wielders protect
> the fruiting fig-trees. Same effect.
>
>> > 'Chasing' is not part of it. Chimps hold and
>> > wield clubs now. Doing so regularly is an
>> > obvious step, in the right circumstances.
>>
>> Well, I guess I agree. But my model explains this more parsimoniously
>> than does yours.
>
> It does not explain it at all.

It certainly does!

> A tree-sleeping
> hominoid would not retain weapons nor
> tools, nor need to. (When in danger, it
> could always flee to trees.) Nor would it
> be able to form large bands. Nor would
> it need to.
>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> Your island notion is contrived. Unnecessary.
>
> Isolation (over hundreds or thousands
> of generations) is essential. Freedom from
> predators likewise. Without an island,
> neither is possible.

Pure nonsense.

>
>> >> >> > 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.
>>
>> Your challenge is too vague to address.
>
> There is nothing vague. You say that
> the weather changed ONCE,

The climate changed. Weather always changes.

> and your
> population of 'chimps' was in the right
> place at the right time, and was able to
> react appropriately to this change.
> If it had not done so (or had died out
> then or later) we would not be here.
> Right?

Obviously they didn't die out, right? (What's your point?)

>
> That is not a scientific proposal. It has
> no 'wiggle-room'. Events in the natural
> world do not happen like that. Failure
> is the norm, and repeated attempts at
> anything are essential.

I haven't the slightest idea what your point is.

>
>> >> >> 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?
>>
>> They'd continue in the chimp lifestyle.
>
> Not possible. The predators are gone, and
> most of the island has no sleeping trees.
> The population will inevitably become
> ground-sleeping.

So, what's this got to do with them, supposedly, picking up clubs.

It will learn to survive
> on roots. Each band will defend itself

Why? Against whom?

> with
> all means available, and since escape is
> now usually impossible (there being few
> trees) that means picking up heavy lumps
> of wood: i.e. clubs.

Why? They have canines.

>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> You have a circular argument.
>
> Not so. Once one starts, the rest are obliged
> to follow. That is not the case for normal
> forest-living chimps, where any chase must
> result in both the pursued and the pursuer
> dropping their clubs.
>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> Pay attention, idiot. They are disinclined to fighting in the context of
>> communal groups.
>
> You have some special definition of 'communal'.

I don't need a special definition to distinguish the difference between
human war and chimpanzee disputes.

> Certainly Goodall witnessed fighting between
> groups of chimps -- although, they prefer to
> attack only when they have a clear superiority
> of numbers. In that respect, they are fully in
> accord with all gangs of human thugs.
>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> You've deluded yourself. You have nothing but a circular argument.
>
> You can't seem to find a problem though.
>
>> > Nope. Tool and weapon use was fundamental
>> > to bipedalism. Darwin knew that. You (and all
>> > of modern PA) have forgotten it.
>>
>> Your ignorance of my model makes this conversation counterproductive.
>
> Your model has tool-using animals sleeping
> in trees. Darwin knew better over 150 years ago.

In my model whether or not they slept in trees is an open issue.

>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> It makes you look like an idiot to dismiss the conclusions of dedicated
>> scientists without directly addressing why you dismiss these arguments.
>> Thusly you undermine the credibility of your own argument in that you are
>> not basing your argument on anything but a blanket denial of what the
>> professional profess.
>
> Point to one paper on early hominid diet
> in a PA 'scientific' journal that considers
> the effect of sand and gravel taken in with
> roots.

Point to one that doesn't, idiot.

> (I'd bet that none even considers
> that roots could be part of the diet.)
>
>> IOW, maybe they are wrong, but this doesn't serve as the basis that,
>> therefore, everything Paul says is right.
>
> None of us were there. All we can do
> is propose hypotheses or scenarios.
> Mine works, yours doesn't. Standard
> PA doesn't have any -- none at all.
> It does not even realise that it's supposed
> to have some.
>
>> >> >> > 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.
>>
>> You need to read Goodall. Goodall studied savanna chimps, not bonopo.
>
> There are, I understand, some 'savanna
> chimps' in West Africa -- Senegal AFAIR.
> They are no different morphologically from
> any other chimps, although they may have
> 'cultural adaptations'. Goodall stuck with
> East Africa -- the Rift Valley, and to 'forest
> chimps'.

Wrong. Bonopo (jungle chimps) reside in west Africa. "Savanna" chimps
reside in East Africa. Calling any chimp a savanna chimp is somewhat of a
misnomer in that they actually live in jungle habitat (but it's more
savanna-like in East Africa).

>
>
>> >> Grains, nuts, and dried fruit is hard.
>> >
>> > Primates can't digest uncooked grain.
>>
>> ?
>
> Which non-human primate eats grain?

We're not talking about non-human primates, are we.

>
>> > Nut kernels are not hard -- stones can
>> > be used to break open hard shells.
>> > Dried fruit is unknown (or virtually
>> > unknown) in nature.
>>
>> ?
>
> What animal (primate or otherwise) eats
> 'dried fruit' ?

Hominids.

>
>> >> >> > 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).
>>
>> Do cities have no trees?
>
> I've never seen anyone sleeping in
> them

Your point?

> -- not even the most desperate
> of the homeless. Somehow I don't
> think that behaviour was recent in
> our evolution. Standard PA never
> presents ANY account of how, when
> or why human ancestors stopped
> doing this. Strange, what? Guess
> what dope thinks that's OK, and who
> tamely follows them into that blind
> alley of ignorance?

Shut up, imbecile, I haven't indicated one way or another.

>
>> > Secondly,
>> > there is nothing in your scenario that
>> > allows you to rule out similar occurrences
>> > in other species.
>>
>> I suppose that accusation can be thrown at any model.
>
> Eh? You have a wildly fanciful account
> of proto-hominid animals engaging in
> some entirely new and complicated form
> of behaviour -- some 'communal' whatsits
> -- for no good reason, other than that the
> weather has changed.

Well, retard, look around you. We are a communal species. Certainly moreso
than chimps. If you can't explain this you don't have a hypothesis.

>
> If it was likely to happen at all, then we
> should see something similar taking
> place among chimps, from time to time,
> or in other species.

Yes, and if we compare savanna chimps to jungle chimps this is exactly what
we do see.

>
>> > Goodall (the first and best known authority)
>> > did not study 'savanna chimps'
>>
>> Goodall studies savanna chimps. Gombe is savanna like. It's not bonopo
>> habitat.

Duh.

>>
>> -- 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.
>>
>> It's similar to what we see amongst humans in New Guinea.
>
>
>> > Of course, they do. You state: "communally
>> > cooperative war based behavior"
>>
>> Yep. And it doesn't require a sophisticated mind. (But it does begin to
>> select for such. You'd have to have a comprehensive understanding of my
>> model to fully understand what I mean by this.)
>
> Your model is much too complicated for
> any evolutionary scenario. Remember
> parsimony? Simplicity rules.

No, you retard, parsimony and simplicity are two different things.

>
>> >> 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,
>>
>> You completely failed to provide any reason at all for them
>> to assume the war-like behavior in your model.
>
> It's present in chimps.

No, warlike behavior is nonexistent in chimps, except to a very limited
degree in savanna chimps (due to parallel evolution with humans).

> No more (in that
> respect) is needed. What is required is
> a shift to new habitat, where tool and
> weapon use becomes feasible, and where
> larger-sized groups can function.
>
>
>> >> > 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,
>>
>> Who cares? The significant factor here is that your model fails
>> to explain the emergence of large communal groups. Without
>> this you have no hypothesis.
>
> Where do you get this from? I set out
> explicitly how and why larger groups
> would evolve. The shift to ground-
> sleeping was crucial in numerous ways.

You completely failed to indicate a SELECTIVE benefit to larger groups. (I
have no trouble with this at all in my model.)

>
>> > Your model does not begin to compete with
>> > mine. Tell me where, how and why monogamy
>> > came in.
>>
>> I think it's a social adaptation that has to do with equallizing the
>> incentive for all of the members to participate in the war/sports
>> behavior
>> that is so essential to them achieving their dry season survival
>> strategy.
>
> So you have monogamy up in the trees?
> Did they make extra-large tree-nests
> for couples?

Shut-up, jackass.

>
> Can't you see how ridiculous your theory
> gets? You have a huge change in 'social'
> behaviour, and in morphology, while
> retaining every other aspect of chimp
> behaviour.

Specifically?

> The a few million years later,
> they drop all the chimp bits, without
> noticing, with no change in morphology.
> And (of course) the tree-living hominid
> then goes extinct, since it has served its
> purpose in your theory, and is no longer
> needed.

Your the only one that is obsessed with tree living.

>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> In my model they have no alternative to communal territorialism.
>
> At first glance, 'no alternative' theories
> sound good. But then you realise that
> they are one-shot theories. If that
> population at that time did not do exactly
> what it had to do, then we would not be
> here.

This is the way evolutionary scenario are supposed to be, you idiot.
Otherwise there is no reason for evolutionary change.

>
>> In your model it happens for no reason at all.
>
> Chimps have "communal territorialism" now.

Shut up, idiot. They do not.

> It steadily evolved in early hominids, for
> larger groups, with weapons, with monogamy,
> sleeping on the ground, eating roots, excluding
> baboons, getting steadily larger -- all so that
> each band could do better than its competitors.
> No reason other than competition is required.

Selection is require, you dip***.

>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> Nope. A hypothesis of hominid evolution that does not describe why it,
>> hominid evolution, would have beeb inevitable is not a hypothesis. It's
>> wishful thinking.
>
> Nothing in evolution was inevitable.

Everything in reality is.

> Name an evolutionary scientist who
> maintains otherwise.
>
>> >> 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,
>>
>> Tail wagging the dog, wishful thinking.
>>
>> True or false: in your model if no chimps begin wielding clubs then there
>> is
>> no reason for the others to do so? (Admit it, Paul, this is a true
>> statement.)
>
> True. But, in fact, most unlikely -- especially
> since they do it now. Evolutionary theories
> do rely on matters of fact.

It's not a matter of fact, it's nothing but your imagination.

>
>
>> >> > You still refuse to defend "grains, nuts,
>> >> > bugs, dried fruit," -- because you know
>> >> > that such a list is indefensible. You
>
>> > What animals are eating that food now?
>>
>> We are.
>
> We do not live in forests, nor go into them
> to collect this 'food'. Your answer is false.

Maybe you don't, but normal humans do eat these things.

>
>> > How come that a highly successful
>> > species eating that (forest) food, just
>> > got up and abandoned that niche?
>>
>> We didn't.
>
> We don't sleep in trees. Where is the
> ancestral bipedal tree-sleeping species?

We is them.

>
>> > 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.
>>
>> You're about as dumb about climate and climate change as it's possible to
>> be. It is the shift to a monsoon climate in east Africa, believed to
>> have
>> occurred about 8 mya, that perfectly describes the tooth data.
>
> Standard PA has not the faintest clue
> about niche, and therefore about diet.

Oh, shut up. And we're supposed to take your unqualified opinion over their
opinion.

> There was a HUGE change in diet for
> early hominids. That is manifest from
> the dramatic change in teeth. What was
> it? Standard PA says nothing, so you
> (tamely following on) say nothing too.

I hardly think anybody would describe by hypothesis as tamely following.

>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Aha! This is potentially testable. I contend that savanna chimps
>> (Goodall's chimps) will have harder, thicker enamel than bonopo.
>
> They don't. End of hypothesis.

I bet they do.

>
>> I also
>> contend that they will have other predispositions relative to bonopo that
>> are confirmatory of my model:
>> 1) They will be more likely to assume a bipedal stance
>> 2) They will be more territorial (and more likely to defend territory
>> agains
>> food-competitor species)
>> 3) They will be more likely to fight enforce (mob-oriented)
>> 4) They will have thicker tooth enamel
>> 5) They will be more likely to employ projectiles (rocks and sticks)
>> 6) They will be more conscious and communicative
>> 7) And more . . .
>
> All are quite false.

If you didn't have your head up your ass and you read some of my posts,
about 2 years ago, you'd see that in actuality some (maybe all) of these are
true!


############### begin cut and paste ####################


Kortlandt's Observations and the Emergence of A'piths


As I indicated in a recent post, I think Kortlandt's
observations are very important. But I think people
miss the full significance of Kortlandt's observations,
especially when it comes to some of the comparisons
Kortlandt made with respect to differences in savanna
chimps (seasonal habitat chimps) and bonopos
(seasonless habitat chimps).


What follows was cut and pasted from the post(s) at the
following link:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M5C435D65


*********** Begin cut and paste *********************


J. Moore said:
During the 1960s Dr. Kortlandt, a Dutch researcher, did a number of
experiments with wild chimpanzees in natural populations in Africa.
One of these was to see how different populations of chimps react to
predators. To do this, he used a stuffed leopard dummy with
electrically moveable head and tail. A baby chimpanzee doll was placed
in the leopard's front paws and the dummy was placed where it would be
encountered by mixed groups of chimpanzees, including females with young,
in all the experiments. Several populations of chimpanzees were so
tested several times, including groups in two different jungle areas,
and a group of savannah woodland chimpanzees. All the chimp groups
reacted by picking up sticks as clubs, breaking small trees and tree
limbs to use as clubs, and throwing these at the leopard dummy. An
interesting difference emerged between the jungle chimps and the
savannah chimps. The jungle chimps, while aggressive toward the
leopard, were uncoordinated in their attacks and when throwing objects,
never actually hit the leopard.


Dr. Kortlandt observed:
"The results with savannah chimpanzees, however, were quite different.
They grabbed the largest of the available clubs, which was 2.10 m long,
and they tore down small trees of about the same length; they slashed
viciously at the leopard with these. With the aid of the film we made,
we could measure impact velocities of approximately 90 km/h, which would
have been sufficient to break the back of a live leopard. In addition,
there was teamwork in evidence during these attacks, again in contrast
to what we observed in the jungle chimpanzees. During the final attack
the dummy was encircled by five chimpanzees, while two others stood in
readiness at some distance, in case they should be needed. Then the
leader grabbed the tail of the leopard and ran away, tossing the
predator so that the head flew from the body.
"A side effect of the experiment was the observation that the savannah
chimpanzees more often walked erect than do the jungle chimpanzees."


*********** End cut and paste *********************


Jungle chimps, who reside in seasonless rainforest habitat,
are relatively ineffective--less accurate and lower
velocity to their rocks/sticks--and incompentent at rock
throwing and stick wielding. Also, They are relatively less
cooperative and less coordinated in their collective rock
throwing and stick wielding attacks: IOW, they aren't very
good team players. And, they are less bipedal or, at
least, they don't walk erect as often as do the savanna
chimps.


Savanna chimps, who reside in habitat that is seasonal, most
notably with respect to the fact that it contains a
significant, if not especially severe, dry season, are more
effective and competent--more accurate and higher velocity
to their rocks/sticks--at rock throwing and stick
wielding than are jungle chimps. They are also relatively
more cooperative and coordinated in their collective attacks
than are jungle chimps: IOW, in comparison to jungle chimps,
savanna chimps are pretty good team players. And savanna
chimps are more bipedal or, at least, they walk erect more
often than do savanna chimps.


To this I'd like to add one more observation:
Humans/hominids are more effective and competent at rock
throwing and stick wielding than are even the best savanna
chimps (could a chimp throw a 90 mph fastball over home
plate?). Humans/hominids are more cooperative and
coordinated in their attack behavior than are even the most
cooperative savanna chimps: in other words, humans/hominids
are especially good team players. And, humans/hominids are
obligate bipeds.


Conclusion:
What is the determining factor here?: the seasonality of
the habitat/environment/climate. IOW the reason hominids
emerged is because their bipedal ability to employ team
oriented rock throwing, stick wielding, attack behavior
makes them better able to survive the selective
implications associated a habitat/environment/climate
characterized be severe seasonal dessication. More
precisely, IMO, the reason hominids emerged has to do with
the supposition that apes that are more bipedal and that
employ more team oriented attack behavior and that are, as
a consequence, better able to maintain territorially
situated resources and, as a consequence, better able to
maintain team oriented cooperation to keep predators at bay
will have had a very significant selective advantage over
those that are less proficient at the same.


How might this thinking be tested:
1) Savanna chimps should display more communal
territorialistic behaviors than do jungle chimps
2) Savanna chimps should be more sexually dimorphic (and
male dominated) than are jungle chimps.
3) Savanna chimps should display higher degrees of humanlike
intelligence than jungle chimps.
4) We should expect to find paleoclimatic and fossil evidence
of homids having emerged in a manner temporally and
geographically correlated with the onset of severe seasonal
dessication--monsoon habitat/environment/climate.


Is there a competing hypothesis in any of this? For example,
a quick reading of Kortlandt's thinking (and J. Moore's
thinking) in the link above might leave some with the
impression that the difference can more correctly be
correlated only to differences in predation pressures between
savanna habitat and jungle habitat and, therefore, my
hypothesis which focusses on seasonal dessication and communal
territorialism in addition to predation is uncalled for. But,
I contend, a more careful reading of Kortlandt
disputes/refutes this supposition. Would anybody like to
dispute this supposition?


Jim

############### end cut and paste ####################

>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> Now you're being dishonest. Your model, like my model, starts with
>> chimps
>> in chimp habitat. Chimp habitat tends to be rainforest habitat where it
>> rains every day of the year. You've indicated no shift in climate in
>> your
>> model. There is no reason for a chimp to fight over a water-hole in
>> rainforest habitat. It rains almost every day in rainforest habitat.
>> (Once
>> again, Paul, your ignorance of climate comes back to haunt you.)
>
> Goodall's chimps endure a dry season.

The dry season in Goodall's observations is not very dry or long.

> They have no problems about thirst --
> the mountain streams continue to flow
> and there is always the lake. But food
> is often very hard to find. (The trees
> produce few seeds and little fruit in the
> dry season.) There are many chimps
> further east of them and, in recent
> historical times, there were huge numbers
> right up to the east coast of Africa.
> All would have suffered a dry season.
> Thirst would have been a problem in
> many places.
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> We need selective reason for this. Not just your unqalified opinion.
>
> The 'selective reason' is survival in the
> dry season. It is not possible for chimps
> now to adapt to this diet, because they
> need their razor-sharp canines. But, if
> they were to acquire other weapons
> (i.e. clubs) they could forget about their
> canines.
>
>> Paul, your thinking is contrived in that it envisions human evolution as
>> inevitable and it's only a matter of eliminating the ecological factors
>> that
>> have been preventing this from taking place. My scenario, in stark
>> contrast, indicates the environmental and ecological factors that left
>> the
>> participants in my model with SELECTIVE REALITIES that left them little
>> choice but to assume a new lifestyle and it is this new lifestyle that
>> began
>> the selection of hominid characteristics. The selective realities of
>> your
>> scenario are cartoonish in that they cause themselves.
>
> 'Forcing' is a standard error in Standard
> PA.

Only in your imagination.

> It is yet another item of crap you
> have picked up from it.
>
>> New adaptations cannot be the result of conditons that they have yet to
>> cause.
>
> Tautological

'The tautology is all yours.

> -- but I am guessing as to
> the context in which you mean this. It is
> possible to say that a potential niche exists
> for a species, which it cannot get into
> because of 'local' or short-term difficulties.
> Humans might have to transport it across
> continents first (as they have done for
> tens of thousands of species).
>
> As another example, a requirement to change
> the method of locomotion would be a huge
> obstacle -- inconceivably large in nearly all
> instances. In effect, the species becomes
> disabled while it goes through the change.
> In some ways, it would have to go into a
> kind of 'purdah' (or a state of chrysalis) while
> it made the switch. Just like standard PA,
> you don't see this -- having the species
> endure its transient state for no good reason
> while also supposedly coping with predators
> and competitors and all the usual problems.

I think the fact that chimps do, so often, assume a bipedal stance make your
comments above regarding 'purdah' look really stupid.

Jim


.

Quantcast