Re: Fire/Cooking -> Bigger Brains - erectus

On Dec 31, 1:01 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 31, 11:40 am, claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Dec 31, 11:22 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 31, 10:25 am, "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Rch Travsky" <traRvE...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:477899CA.E624187C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Dec 24, 9:41 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=cooking-up-bigger-brains
Scientific American Magazine - January, 2008
Cooking Up Bigger Brains
Our hominid ancestors could never have eaten enough raw food to support
our
large, calorie-hungry brains, Richard Wrangham claims. The secret to
our
evolution, he says, is cooking

Absurd.  Cart before the horse.  Cooking requires control of fire.
Control of fire--as with tool manufacturing--requires an intellect
that already has consciousness and the ability think in terms of
concepts that can be communicated from one indivdual to another.

Evidence indicates cooking emerged at earliest about 2mya.  By this
time hominids had already evolved and intellect that was capable
conceptual thinking--as is evident in tools.

And that's exactly the time frame mentioned in the article excerpt..

Uh huh.  What's your point?

Uh, huh. What is your point for asking?

Why are you asking me this question?

Why are you asking him?

Why are you asking me this question?

Did you
bother to read it? Here it is again.

Fire to cook food, he reasoned, which led to bigger bodies and brains.

And that is exactly what he found in Homo erectus, our ancestor that first
appeared
1.6 million to 1.9 million years ago. H. erectus's brain was 50 percent
larger than
that of its predecessor, H. habilis, and it experienced the biggest drop
in tooth
size in human evolution.

Australopiths used tools, and they're older, so it is not much of a
stretch for
habilis - in fact, that's how habilis got its name...

Be specific.  What, exactly, is your point?

Why are you asking him to be specific, when we have seen nothing
specific from you?

My hypothesis is more detailed than any other hypothesis.

Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
than 50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety
of trees."

Jim McGinn: "Spears are useless against hyena and lions."

Jim McGinn:  "..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow
and
 arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?"

Detailed errors are hardly convincing.

Keep in mind we don't have direct access to your imagination.

<snip>

"I tend to think about human evolution through the lens of chimps," he
remarks.

Big mistake.

Why? Chimps are the only contemporary creature approximating earlier
hominids.

Is it not obvious that early hominids must have had a lifestyle that was
distinct from chimps?

The problem is, which hominids? They are not all the same, I'm sure
even you know that.

Relevance?

Are you saying your hypothesis is not detailed enough to point that
out?

No.

Most of them are dead ends.

Relevance?

Just which one was it (of the Gatekeepers)
 that evolved into Homo? Who were the gatekeepers?

What's your point? (Assuming you even have one.)

Wrangham's theory would fit together nicely if not for that pesky
problem of
controlled fire.

<snip>

This is, and has been for quite some time, a dead issue.

Why?

For the reasons mentioned.  Read it again.

You are confused. Why reread baseless assertions from you?

It's regrettable you were unable to find any evidence based dispute
with my assertion.

Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
than 50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety
of trees."

Jim McGinn: "Spears are useless against hyena and lions."

Jim McGinn:  "..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow
and
 arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?"

Since there isn't any evidence for them, how can one refute them?

Again, what is your point?

Zero data is zero data.

Thank you for clarifying that.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fire/Cooking -> Bigger Brains - erectus
    ... Cooking Up Bigger Brains ... time hominids had already evolved and intellect that was capable ... Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more ... "..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Fire/Cooking -> Bigger Brains - erectus
    ... Cooking Up Bigger Brains ... time hominids had already evolved and intellect that was capable ... Chimps are the only contemporary creature approximating earlier ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Fire/Cooking -> Bigger Brains - erectus
    ... Cooking Up Bigger Brains ... Our hominid ancestors could never have eaten enough raw ... time hominids had already evolved and intellect that was ... the lens of chimps," he remarks. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Fire/Cooking -> Bigger Brains - erectus
    ... Cooking Up Bigger Brains ... time hominids had already evolved and intellect that was ... the lens of chimps," he remarks. ... I did not say behavior doesn't fossilize, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Fire/Cooking -> Bigger Brains - erectus
    ... Cooking Up Bigger Brains ... Our hominid ancestors could never have eaten enough raw food ... time hominids had already evolved and intellect that was ... the lens of chimps," he remarks. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)