Re: Lucy = slow
- From: claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:33:26 -0700
On Oct 29, 11:53 am, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"MClark" <m...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:SNudnV3P9JkRjbjanZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let's assume (a) 'Australopiths ranged over a
good bit of Africa' -- competing adequately
with other species, and (b) the hominid taxon
evolved substantially thereafter, acquiring
language, mastering fire, developing tools,
and generally raising their capability to FAR
higher levels.
How come then that around (say) 1600 a.d.
all of Africa was not dominated by humans,
with populations in the billions?
I think I have a solution for you
You must not know *anything* about how populations
reach equilibrium, eh?
OK, more unmarked snips, eh?
I think I'll give it a try...
So to explain the size of a species (in terms of
the number of individuals, or density in one
region) it is NOT good enough to merely to
say " . . it reached an equilibrium . . ". OF
COURSE it did. What else would it do?
You asked how "..all of Africa was not dominated
by humans, with populations in the billions?
I DID NOT say " . . it reached an equilibrium . . ",
I asked if you knew anything about how populations
reach equilibrium --hoping that you might then make
the connection.
OF COURSE, you did not say anything --
since whatever was left in your brain was
finally eviscerated by some ghastly PA
'training', and you are now quite incapable
of any kind of thought, or of ever coming
out with any positive statement on anything
one way or the other.
PA can't answer my question. It might
(theoretically at least) have had an answer
if it allowed that humans (and earlier
hominids) were like all other species, and
occupied a niche.
You got this from me, Paul. But you're right. The LCA couldn't have
been ecologically dominant like ourselves. It is the selective
scenario that the LCA entered into that eventually allowed us the
intelligence, cooperativeness, and flexibility of behavior to more and
more come to dominate other species.
So, what selective scenario would you suggest that would select for
those that are more cooperation, intelligence, and communal
territorialism? (and that doesn't involve silliness like predator
free islands).
I've already answered these questions.
But it has to deny even
that. Hominids are supposed to be the
ultimate generalists -- capable of going
anywhere and doing anything. So, given
that the very early versions prospered all
over Africa, later and technologically much
superior ones should have magnified their
numbers a thousand-fold or much more.
How come that there weren't populations of
BILLIONS in Africa at the dawn of recorded
history?
This just isn't a very well framed question.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Lucy = slow
- From: Paul Crowley
- Re: Lucy = slow
- Prev by Date: Re: Early Pliocene Tragulidae and peafowls in the Rift Valley
- Next by Date: Re: Lucy = slow
- Previous by thread: Re: Early Pliocene Tragulidae and peafowls in the Rift Valley
- Next by thread: Re: Lucy = slow
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
