Re: A'pith Predatory Realities: not like those of extant chimps (Repost from 08/2003)


Paul Crowley wrote:
<claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1167110735.331275.150520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You are ignorant of basic facts. Primates
(such as hominids) have colour vision, so
they cannot see well at night. The
animals would just walk around them.

Its common knowledge that hujmans see just fine at night,

Do a web search on the topic.

Oh brother. I'm not doing a web search to confirm the obvious.

Why not remain solidly ignorant? You
have all the qualifications for being a
standard PA.

Its common knowledge that humans see just fine at night. (End of
argument.)

<snip nonsense>

Mammalian prey species (especially those
with a slow rate of reproduction) must
necessarily be 'equivalent to' their common
predators -- in that they will not suffer
predation unless they get sick or injured, or
old or unlucky. That's a necessary condition
for the survival of such species.

We have no data to base such speculations, retard.

It is not speculation. It is a simple
observation.

It's data free speculation. Your writing seems to be a mixture of the
obvious and the trivial and is only peripherally related to the subject
under discussion. Why would you pretend to have some special knowledge
of a "necessary condition," on events that took place millions of years
ago. It makes you look stupid. You need to let the evidence be your
guide and leave your special knowledge out of the equation.

Hominids,
including Apiths could not have survived
predation in the scenarios set out by you,

Enough with the dimwitted speculation. If you have any SPECIFIC
reasons as to why you think A'pith could not have survived predation as
indicated in my model then present them. Otherwise get off your
soapbox.

I've given you numerous specific reasons
that apply to both Homo and to Apiths

Such as?

You have not been able to deal with any.
Slow rates of reproduction.

You call *this* specific? Why not make and effort to frame your
thinking with the evidence? Science isn't a spectator sport.

Hopelessly
vulnerable young and infants. Almost
complete night-blindness. Your answer to
all objections: "they waved their arms in the
dark, and that was enough to make the
predators go away".

Attribution? Source? Reference? Link? By golly I think you are
deliberately misquoting me. At best you are deliberately taking my
words out of context.

In your case I don't attribute your tactics a lack of ethics so much
as to an abundance of dumbness.

and by standard PA types. That's why
they never discuss it. They merely assume
survival -- in exactly the same way as you do.

Don't all hypotheses assume hominids survived?

Bad hypotheses (like yours) M E R E L Y
assume that they did,

That's ridiculous. My hypothesis is the most detailed one available.

and so predation
could not have been a problem.

I discuss predation in my scenario. And I do so in considerable
detail. I've yet to see any dispute from anybody--certainly not
you--on the specifics thereof. You seem to be only capable of
expressing vague grumblings.

You do
not begin to attempt to show how hominids
could have dealt with it

Dealt with what? Be specific for God's sake. How many goddamn times
does one have to say this to you before it gets through your thick
skull.

-- because in your
crazy scenario they couldn't have dealt with
it.

With what?

Standard PA is exactly the same, in this
respect.

The predators would consume any animal
significantly weaker than themselves.
They'd eat every Apith they could find.
And, under your scenario, they'd find the lot.

Nonsense. You have no dispute with anything I'm saying so you come
back with these absolutistic notions that have nothing to do with
reality as we know it.

The 'reality as we know it' consists of HUGE
predators catching and tearing apart any
hominid it finds on its territory.

Are you saying that lions (or whatever predator filled the lion niche
at that time, 6 to 8 mya) of that era (late miocene) would have been
able to climb high in trees to get at every last member of a band of
our earliest chimpanzee-like ancestor.

Your scenario does not work for ANY stage
of hominid evolution.

Answer the question you evasive twit: Are you saying that lions (or
whatever predator filled the lion niche at that time, 6 to 8 mya) of
that era (late miocene) would have been able to climb high in trees to
get at every last member of a band of our earliest chimpanzee-like
ancestor?

Chimps have special
adaptations for the time they spend in trees
(more than 50% of their lives) which are
essential to their survival. Hominids lost
those adaptations.

Evidence? (Surely you didn't think I wouldn't ask.)

They would not have
survived in your scenario; they would not,
have been able to raise young to adulthood.

Why not? (Be specific.)

If you are saying this then you
are flying in the face of the evidence that indicates that extant lions
(and hyena) don't climb trees.

Lions do climb trees

Evidence? (Remember Paul, your imagination is not evidence.)

-- to a limited extent
-- better than most humans. But leopard
predation would be more than enough to
stop Apiths reproducing (in your scenario).

Why? Do you have anything specific?


If you aren't saying this, you evasive
twit, then why they hell are you talking about, "HUGE predators
catching and tearing apart any hominid it finds on its territory?" How
could they possibly have killed every last hominid?

They would have killed most, and prevented
the remaining few from reproducing.

Tell us more about how the lions would have climbed up into the tops of
trees to chase down every last member of an A'pith community? Do the
hyena in your scenario also climb trees? Dogs?

It
happened -- possibly millions of times -- with
small Homo populations (and with some large
ones) which were not able to cope

Well, yes. I agree. Those that survived and flourished were those
(A'pith communities) that maintained their communal territory such that
they never or rarely ever experienced starvation, thirst, desperation,
in-fighting, these all being things that attract the attention of the
predators. The Apiths that died were those that were part of
communities that failed to guard their territory, letting it become
depleted, becoming desperate, drawing the attention of the predators
during the dry season. Possibly resulting in the decimation of the
whole A'pith community in a predatory siege/massacre that may have
continued for days/weeks.

when some
change in their situation

What change in situation? Be specific.

left them open to
predation.

A large
party of well-armed and well-prepared
hominids might IN DAYLIGHT cope with
such a predator. But they would never seek
to confront them at night. Nor would they
be able to raise young if such predators were
commonly in the vicinity.

I don't know why you think your idle speculation has any value here.

Do you have anything specific? Or are you trying to bowl me over with
vagueness.

There is nothing in the least vague in what
I am saying.

Uh . . .

Your only response is to say
that hominids would wave their arms in the
dark, and the scared predators would run
away. You seem to be aware that this is
not a good response, because you are not
repeating it. You are being careful to say
nothing at all.

I've already said it all in my hypothesis. You know, the one you have
no specific dispute with. And what dispute you do have seems to be
mostly comprised of a deliberate misquote. Why not quote me directly
you evasive twit?

In your scenario there is no pressure from predators.

Not so. The hominids would be fairly safe
-- if not entirely so -- on off-shore islands.
But they would be constantly seeking to
expand to (and then on) the mainland. They
would have needed very large, well-organised
tribes to do that successfully.

This is pure whackonery. You just kind of skip over the part where you
explain the transition from apes to animals capable of, "very large,
well-organised tribes."

Nope. I don't skip it. Once hominids began
to live on the ground, each band or tribe had
to become

Had to become? That's your evolutionary explanation? Something had to
become and therefore it did. Birds had to fly therefore they evolved
wings.

much larger and better organised
in order to defend vital resources (such as
water-holes) -- against other large, well-
organised bands or tribes.

Vague speculations. Sounds like 2001 space odyssey. (Note there are
no predators in this piece of fiction.)


Thus it has no group selelctive aspect. And you are just assuming
human behavior, you are not describing its selective origin.

Since chimps demonstrate it, there is no need
to describe 'its selective origin'. It is the
ancestral condition.

You retard. Hominid traits are not ancestral.

The one we are talking about here -- the
tendency to group conflict -- is ancestral.

Human conflict is categorically distinct from any other species.

NO, I am not. I am trying to ask a sensible
question about your nonsensical scenario
-- which, I admit, is not easy. You say that
Apiths slept in trees. But tree-sleeping
primates select their sleeping-trees with
care. Most are quite unsuitable. None will
sleep in thorny acacias, for example. So
what kind of trees did Apiths sleep in?

We'll probably never know for sure. Just look at the fossil evidence.
Spores, etc.

You should be capable of discussing POSSIBLE
types of trees. Of course, since there aren't any,
you have a problem.

Do you have any evidence that trees didn't exist back then?

I was saying that there are no POSSIBLE
kinds of trees in which Apiths could sleep.

Evidence? Data? Dreams?

We are talking about YOUR hypothesis.
It is up to YOU to set out the possible
kinds of trees.

But you do not deny that you are aware of no evidene that specifically
disputes my supposition that suitable trees did exist back then.

You don't, of course --
because there aren't any remotely
suitable kinds of trees.

Evidence? (Surely you are not so dimwitted you didn't realize I'd ask
this question.)

Your inability to suggest any is evidence
for that. In WHAT KINDS of trees did Apiths
sleep? It's a straightforward question. Were
they like those that baboons select (large
cedar type)? Or like those preferred by chimps:
big ones with lots of small branches where
each chimp can use all four limbs to cling on?

You seem to have a lot of interest in this subject. Why don't you
write a paper on it.

It's your theory (and that of standard PA).
Try to back it up. But there's no hope of
you doing that -- anymore than there is of
seeing an effort from a standard PA dope.

No, it's your theory that suitable trees did not exist back then.
Remember, your imagination is not data.

.

Relevant Pages