Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- From: "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 15:52:34 -0000
"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:GkGtf.40774$BZ5.23880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > >> 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?
>
> Don't play dumb, Paul. Your model has NO PREDATORS.
So you've changed your argument. It used
to be "Chimps don't use clubs". Now it's
"Chimps DO use clubs . . . but only when
there are leopards around . . . and the first
hominids (in Paul's scenario) would not have
had leopards around. And early hominids
were always nice to each other and would
never have done anything nasty like fighting . .. "
Actually, in my scenario, leopards would
probably have been around on the island for
some time, but would have been driven into
extinction (a) by the small size of their population
leading to inbreeding and genetic problems, and
(b) by the aggression of the local chimps-turning-
into-hominids.
> > 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.
>
> You're just determined to ignore the fact that there is really no reason for
> them to be fighting each other in your scenario.
Chimps fight each other now -- whether or
not there is a dry season locally -- just like
humans. Neither species needs any special
reason. If they haven't got one, they'll find one.
> >> (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?
>
> Use your imagination. The boundaries are defined by the boundaries
> of the forested habitat.
That's the problem about "forested habitats";
'boundaries' are (a) uncertain; and (b) constantly
changing. There is no way that your bipedal
tree-living chimp-food-eating apes would ever
be able to become an independent population
from standard tree-living chimp-food-eating apes.
They would have been swamped out with
common genes, around ten thousand times, in
the period you claim they were 'isolated'.
> >> 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?
>
> Yes too all of the above.
So your bipedal tree-living apes ate grass
and ordinary leaves. That's nice to know/
> > How about chimps? I'd accept that THEY
> > would really be competitors. How do your
> > (recently ex-chimps) compete with their
> > ancestors?
>
> They were the chimps, you idiot.
So the standard chimps simply agreed between
themselves: "Let those guys alone -- for a few
hundred Kyr. It's what Jim McGinn's theory
will need."
> >> > > 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?
>
> It's nighttime for the predators also.
You don't seem to have a grasp of basic
biology. All apes have poor night-sight,
since they see in colour. Most mammals
don't see colour. On top of that, many
predators (especially cats) have special
adaptations for night-vision. So an ape
has almost no chance against a predator
of about its own size. One is (effectively)
blind; the other can see well.
> > Collective shows of force in the dark
> > are (a) hard to manage; (b) don't make
> > much impression on the audience.
>
> At nighttime they stayed in trees, just like chimps do presently.
Err . . . (a) you may not have noticed
(standard PA hasn't) that modern bipedal
apes (i.e. us) have actually come down
from the trees at night; (Darwin knew this,
but it's been forgotten since;) at some
point we stopped living like chimps;
(b) to quote what you said above: "In my
model whether or not they slept in trees is
an open issue."
> >> > > In my model whether or not they slept in trees is an open issue.
> >> > 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?
>
> Like I said, constant vigilance, mob oriented attack strategies. As
> hominids became better and better at communally controlling larger pieces of
> territory the result would be high degrees of security, especially at the
> core.
Talk about 'tacked-on'. Only you are using
drawing-pins . . and to fix storm shutters.
> >> 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?
>
> Haven't I already answered this question.
Nope. Not at all.
> >> > 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.
>
> No. They are selected. Prove otherwise.
The tendency to gather large groups
(among many species) is, of course,
selected for. Those individuals which
do it, survive better than those which
don't. Big deal. It was the same for
hominids -- although with them the
groups which worked better expanded
in size.
> > 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.
>
> Your hypothesis, unlike mine, fails to provide selective factors that
> explains the expansion of hominid group size (and the fact that
> hominid groups are significantly more situated).
You are pretending to explain things
that don't need an explanation. Of
course, hominids are more 'situated'
(although I don't know exactly what
you mean by that) -- since they always
need a well-protected home site for their
young, and for pregnant and nursing
females (i.e. the great bulk of females).
> > 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?
>
> See my hypothesis.
That's called 'a dodge'. It is also a lie.
No one believes that you have ever
thought about it.
> >> 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.
>
> You're lost. Without a dry season you have no rationale
> for territorialism
About a million species in all kinds of
habitats demonstrate territorialism. The
presence or absence of a dry-season has
no relevance to any of them, in this respect.
> and without territorialism you have not rationale for large
> communal groups
Maybe another million species gather in
large groups. Many of those are not
territorial.
> (and without large communal groups you have no basis for
> the emergence of intelligence, culture, and language).
Your logic is entirely screwed up.
> >> > > > 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.
>
> Stupid request.
The most important fact about any species
is what it eats. You can't even get that far
with your hominids. Is standard PA as bad
as this? (OK, ok, it probably is. There are
no pits into which it does not descend.)
But this is the absolute bottom of the scale
for anyone who pretends to know the least
thing about evolution.
> > 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.
>
> Purdah is evident in my scenario
How and where?
> but IMO purdah is not necessary.
Sure, you assume that chimps, baboons,
and all the other competitors, and all the
predators. will give this new species a free
ride for a few hundred Kyr -- out of the
goodness of their hearts.
That makes sense.
Paul.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- From: Jim McGinn
- Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- References:
- Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- From: Jim McGinn
- Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- Prev by Date: Re: Sex, Genes, Skin Color, Sex, and Europe Only?
- Next by Date: Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- Previous by thread: Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- Next by thread: Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
