Re: Man-eaters


Paul Crowley wrote:
<claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1168561871.545289.277060@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Humans possess some extraordinarily
sophisticated capacities -- especially
language. They do indeed need an
evolutionary explanation, but yours is
not it.

My scenario does not assume such abilities.
Nor does it attempt to explain them.

Then its a useless hypothesis, by your own admission.

There is MANY basic issues in human
evolution that are (a) much easier to explain;

This is a plainly dumb statement.

The grammar is awful. But otherwise it's fine.

How would you supposedly know
apriori what is easier to explain or not.

Millions of species have developed new features,
and new morphologies. We know, as well as we
can know anything, the FORM of the explanation
needed.

The "FORM" of the explanation? Other than vagueness what form do you
prescribe? The only form I employ is that of natural selection. IOW,
I keep it simple. Just state what individuals with what variants of
behavior and morphology will survive and thrive under *specific*
situational conditions. In contrast you have nothing but vague notions
in which your audience is required to fill-in the details according to
your imagination. Why would larger groups emerge on an island? Why
would they, supposedly, begin to pick up clubs and collectively fight
other groups of conspecifics? You provide no details from which we can
properly evaluate aspects of your hypothetical thinking (specfically
its assumptions) which are critical to the conclusions of your
scenario. Ultimately your argument is an argument based on authority.
We're all supposed to just take your word on it. Not going to happen.

(Not that it is widely ignored, as when we
see human features 'explained' as having evolved in
deserts.) Whereas complex language has evolved
only once, We don't know where to start with a
theory for the 'evolution of complex language'

I do: Group/communal selection.


Ease of explanation is not a criteria I would entertain.

That shows only how foolish and impractical
you are.

(b) NOT explained by any other hypothesis,
including yours, such as bipedalism

My hypothesis explains bipedalism.

What was it again? (I suppose it's just a huge
pile of meaningless verbiage. You ducked my
questions on the differences between the day-
to-day lives of chimps and that you postulate
for Apiths.)

It was a stupid question.


, infant
altriciality, naked skin, and the move to
sleeping on the ground.

My hypothesis is consistent with all of the evidence (if any) related
to these factors.

It simply ignores them, as though they did
not exist.

Specifically?


There is no sense to seeking to provide
an explanation of a complex phenomenon,
when you can't do so for relatively simple
ones that, almost certainly, evolved much
earlier.

Bull***. Pure pseudoscience. You have no basis for assuming some
attributes evolved later.

Brain size.

Brain size doesn't dictate behavior.


What is vague in that statement? It seems
that your claim is that complex language
evolved before bipedalism -- or in association
with it.

Yes. (Only an evolutionary dimwit would assume otherwise.)

I prefer, in this matter, to go along with the
rest of the world.

That's your choice.


YOU will be
the only "evolutionary theorist" in the
history of the planet who maintains that
"punctuated equilibrium" has applied to
its development.

Yes. I know.

Aren't you proud of yourself. Is there no
way you can provide evidence for it?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


I have stated the rationale -- the isolation of
a pre-hominid population (of 'chimps') on a
fairly large island, where the predators died
out (largely through the usual natural causes).

Why large groups? IOW, why do those that prefer large groups have a
selective advantage over those that prefer small groups in your
scenario? You haven't addressed this issue.

Sleeping on the ground enabled the retention
of weapons (and tools). Remember?

Enabled? Listen dimwit. Just tell us why those that did do the
behavior would survive and reproduce and those that did not did not.
You haven't done this and I predict you won't.

That
immediately ramped up the threat level in all
inter-communal fights.

What are they supposedly fighting over? Why would they even bother.
Your whole scenario relies too much on imagination and too little on
plain old natural selection.

Larger groups always
had an advantage over smaller ones, but now
it became huge.

Why? (A question you will never answer.)

Secondly, running away got
much more difficult. They no longer lived in
the bush and few trees in the habitat were
readily climbable. Fast running was incompatible
with weapon-retention.

You're whacked. I can't make any sense of this. You're just throwing
behaviors around and hoping something sticks.


And puttin them on an
island in and of itself does not address this issue.

It eliminates large predators (in and of itself).

So what?

That allows ground-sleeping, weapon-retention,

Allows, yes. Necessitates, no way.

expansion into new habitats, and much else.
These are enormous changes in life-style and
will bring about great ones in morphology
and social structure.

Typical pseudoscientific statement.


Nope. It is fairly obvious that a population
which is better at language use (other things
being equal) will do better than its opposition.

Why don't chimps talk?

Their bands are much too small to be able
to develop it (or to much need it).

Only a simpleton would suggest that group size dictated language.
There's no selection with your scenario.

There is
virtually no communication between them.
The first stages in language were probably
in naming places and common things, for
communicating life-saving information:
"Lion under big tree, by white rock near fast
river". Every chimp band would have to
invent its own names, and codes. In other
words, that is not a language, and while
perhaps such an ability could be evolved,
we have seen nothing like it in any species.

Pure nonsense. Nothing you stated here explains why chimps don't also
have language.

You have to have group/communal selection for the origins of language.
You don't have this and don't understand evolution well enough to
realize it. Paul, you're a victim of your own ignorance. Few ever
recover from this.

.

Quantcast