Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1135626473.088346.5530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > > >> 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!
> >
> > You quote Kortland below, setting out how they do.
>
> Kortland involves an observation of an incident involving a leopard.

So what? They used clubs (and made them
on the spot from trees when they needed to).
The level of 'conscious' behaviour was far in
excess of what you allow to such animals,
and is more than enough for my theory.

> My model for communal territorialism involves constant intracooperative
> vigilance of a somewhat clearly defined communal territory

Two good basic rules (especially for you) would
be (a) never use words of more than three
syllables, and (b) allow no more than two three-
syllable words in every twenty. You might then
have some faint hope of making sense.

> (let's say a
> city sized, town sized patch of forest that persists near a lake).

What constitutes its 'clear definition'? What
are its boundaries?

> The vigilance would be continuous, day after day (but more intense in
> the dry season). At any moment a herd of food competitors

Such as . . . ? Wildebeeste? Zebra? Buffalo?
Elephants? Hippos? Rhinos? Or are they
entirely mythical entities in the McGinnian
mind?

How about chimps? I'd accept that THEY
would really be competitors. How do your
(recently ex-chimps) compete with their
ancestors?

> or a predator might be spotted and the call would go out to
> make a show of force, weapons in hand.

No animal is impressed with a 'show of force'
unless it sees the real thing in action fairly
often.

> Such behaviors would have only been adaptive in the context of the very
> unusual selective factors associated with monsoon forest habitat--most
> notably, predatory massacre behavior.

Drivel.

> > > > 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.
> >
> > This is crazy in any event. What species
> > (of, say, mammal or primate) has natural
> > populations which don't regularly encounter
> > scarcity? Along with forgetting Darwin,
> > you have (just like standard PA) forgotten
> > Malthus.
>
> Read what I wrote:

You are like a Bible-thumper -- only worse: you
regard your own 'texts' as Biblical. You seem to
think that anything you wrote is above criticism,
and is necessarily and inherently true.

> Without some kind of ENVIRONMENTALLY CAUSED periodic
> scarcity there is even less reason for them to assume the
> territorialism in your model than you have already. If you are (now)
> claiming that the motivation for them assuming weapons is the result of
> the same kind of periodic malthusian scarcity that all species
> experience then it brings us to wonder why there aren't a lot more
> species that employ weapons that do currently.

Because such species would (a) need good
hands; (b) be fairly large (only heavy clubs do
real damage, and small ones are a waste of time);
and (c) not sleep in trees nor spend much other
time in them. (Those that run around, and sleep
in, trees can't hold on to weapons while they are
up there.)

> Paul, you seem to not
> want to confront that fact that the communal territorialism in my model
> is categorically distinct both with respect to the specific behaviors
> involved and--most importantly--with respect to the unit of selection
> if these behaviors are successful or unsuccessful.

The 'communal territorialism' shown by chimps
is plenty for my model -- as regards the origins
of bipedalism in an isolated population. It would
be developed much more strongly by mainland
populations later on, and each population would,
to a large extent, become a 'unit of selection'.

But it is quite unnecessary at the start (i.e. for
about the first 200 Kyr) among a relatively small
isolated population, undergoing rapid genetic
change.

> In my model it's
> literally a matter of survival for the community as a whole. You don't
> have this in your model.

I do -- but probably not until they became
established on the mainland, and there was
usually a substantial distance between
hominid populations. Without that
distance, interbreeding would prevent the
development of distinct capacities or
morphology.

> > > >> 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.
> >
> > Say how or why.
>
> See my hypothesis.

The Holy Writ -- which can never be quoted
except in total.

> > Let's say two scientists find a population of
> > primates in Spain that has obviously got there
> > from Africa. Scientist A says that there was
> > some really bad weather in Africa in July of the
> > previous year which drove some to make the
> > journey and they succeeded. Scientist B says
> > that any bad weather was irrelevant, and that
> > the monkeys had been trying to swim across
> > for thousands (or tens of thousands) of years,
> > and eventually some had finally made it at
> > some unknown time in the past.
> >
> > Which theory is more likely to be true?
>
> I suppose B. But what's this got to do with anything?

I propose Theory B. You propose A.
Your theory is hopelessly unlikely.

> > Like other chimps, they'd be picking them up
> > sometimes anyway. But, being on the ground
> > all the time, means that they now hold on to
> > them. And the clubs become 'serious'
> > weapons.
>
> The problem you're going to be facing over and over again with this is
> that if it is this simple then why don't apes currently employ clubs on
> a constant basis.

Already answered dozens of times.
See above.

> > > In my model whether or not they slept in trees is an open issue.
> >
> > An "open issue" ! What a dope you are.
> > It changes everything. How did they cope
> > with nocturnal predators? How did they
> > ever start to cope with nocturnal predators?
>
> Collective show of force (see above).

Ever tried to put on a show in the pitch
black night?

Collective shows of force in the dark
are (a) hard to manage; (b) don't make
much impression on the audience.

You have picked up this form of 'thinking'
from standard PA (which along with
forgetting all of Darwin) has also forgotten
that night exists. The 'scientists' are asleep
during the night so, for them, it is a wholly
irrelevant period of time.


> > Do a search on 'early hominid diet' in the
> > 'scientific' journals. Not one paper you
> > locate will mention roots as part of the diet.
>
> What does this tell you?

PA 'scientists' are dopes. But we
knew that anyway.


> > > Shut up, imbecile, I haven't indicated one way or another.
> >
> > It's a basic part of human evolution.
> > If you don't account for it [descent from the trees]
>
> A shift to communal territorialism, as described above, does account
> for it.

How, when and why? As you say: "I haven't
indicated one way or another." So you
obviously haven't begun to think about it.
You might as well pretend to "explain" the
evolution of the whale taxon, but forget to
account for why a land-living mammal went
into the water.


> > > Well, retard, look around you. We are a communal species.
> > > Certainly more so than chimps. If you can't explain this
> > > you don't have a hypothesis.
> >
> > Sure I explain it. Once (substantial) monogamy
> > came in
>
> This is to put the cart in front of the horse. Monogamy could not have
> emerged without communal selection.

How come? What is the connection?

> > (as it did with descent from the trees
> > and bipedalism) there was no limit to the size of
> > the group.
>
> This is tacked on (at least you're consistent). In my model it's
> intrinsic to the scenario itself. It is the communal selective factors
> of my model (missing or tacked on in your model) that dictate the
> emergence of large, size scalable, group structure.

That's silly and unnecessary. The size of the
group in any species will depend on a range
of factors. In many species it varies, almost
by the week, as for example with starlings and
many other birds, which come together when
they can (presumably to keep predation down)
and disperse when they have to . . . for food
and breeding. I don't see hominids being
much different. The mating systems of many
primates dictate their group size, but that does
not apply once monogamy is established.

> > species manage large social groups, and
> > hierarchy is essential -- but even chimps show
> > the beginnings of that. There is no need to say
> > much more about early hominids; the need for
> > language, and for lots of culture would have
> > been pressing, but would have been relatively
> > slow to evolve.
>
> You have no SELECTIVE FACTORS that dictate the emergence
> of large group size.

Nor do any of the numerous species which
gather in large (and often massive) groups.

> > > You completely failed to indicate a SELECTIVE benefit to larger
> > > groups. (I have no trouble with this at all in my model.)
> >
> > I don't know how you fail to see that in my
> > scenario. As I told you, larger groups would
> > usually do better than smaller ones, for all
> > manner of reasons.
>
> Vague nonsense. If it was this simple then all species would only
> maintain very large groups.

Many species do form large groups -- herds
of bovids, flocks of birds, shoals of fish --
mostly to reduce predation. But most can't
do that, and have to disperse. It's little more
than a matter of practicalities. Chimps and
most primates can't do it. Their density is too
low. Nothing special there. Hominids usually
(or often) prefer to be in large groups, especially
when under threat.

> > Under your theory, the hour-to-hour and
> > day-to-day behaviour of your early hominids
> > would be identical to those of chimps. (In
> > fact, they'd have the same morphology --
> > but, for some unknown reason, you can't
> > see that.)
>
> No. I can't see that.

So -- tell us -- in what ways would the hour-
to-hour and day-to-day behaviour of your
early hominids DIFFER from that of chimps?

Presumably , they spend the 12 hours of
dark (and an hour or two at midday) doing
exactly the same as chimps -- sleeping in
tree nests?

> > > This is the way evolutionary scenario are supposed to be, you idiot.
> > > Otherwise there is no reason for evolutionary change.
> >
> > Where did you get such a crazy idea?
> > The first birds took to the air because they
> > were forced off the ground? (I suppose it
> > was a change of climate. Did it make the
> > ground icy, or what?) The first amphibians
> > were driven from the water to come on land?
> > Was that a change of climate too? The first
> > seals took to the sea because they were
> > driven from the land? Did the expansion
> > of a desert make them take to the water?
>
> Without a dry season you don't have a compelling rationale for the
> adoption of communal territorialism because without it you don't have
> communal selection.

Not so. There is no need for a dry season at
all -- although there almost certainly was one
at the time.

> > > > 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.
> >
> > List "these things". How can I search for
> > them on Google? Or are they reserved solely
> > for your imagination

You ducked this request. What a
surprise.

> > > > 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.
> >
> > Humans often go on their hands and knees
> > (especially in infancy). Does that mean
> > that they are well on the way to becoming
> > quadrupeds? If (for some strange reason)
> > one population of humans really had to
> > revert to quadrupedalism, how long would
> > it take? And would the new species be
> > fast at running, good at climbing and
> > effective at fighting, while it was going
> > through the process?
>
> What's your point here?

A species that changes its method of
locomotion will need a period of highly
protected 'purdah' while it goes through
the switch-over. Your scenario (like all
those of standard PA) fails to grant that
to early hominids. Just a complete failure
of imagination, I suppose.


Paul.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Human brain on an evolutionary sprint!
    ... > chimps never move, ... The hominids were certainly ... IMO, if we theorize large ... >> of constant competition from many other species ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... Your model has NO PREDATORS. ... to be "Chimps don't use clubs". ... hominids would not have ... Neither species needs any special ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... Your model has NO PREDATORS. ... > to be "Chimps don't use clubs". ... > hominids would not have ... Neither species needs any special ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... > Which other species have the capacity to ... Chimps do it all the time. ... The chimp-like early hominids would ... >> isolation scenario that would predict this. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... >> My model for communal territorialism involves constant intracooperative ... >> the same kind of periodic malthusian scarcity that all species ... >> literally a matter of survival for the community as a whole. ... I don't see hominids being ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)