Re: What Conventional Whackos Refuse to Discuss


"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4A2ij.24092$j7.448670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:IxEhj.10328$6%.5155@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1) Selective origins of bipedalism in the earliest hominids. (Since
you can't explain it you pretend not to notice.)

This is something YOU also refuse to
discuss -- except in terms of the utmost
vacousness. You CANNOT describe
the day-to-day pressures that made the
slightly more bipedal quasi-hominid more
successful than his or her siblings.

Well, part of what your saying is true. It's true that I don't describe
them as being more
successful than his or her sibling. Because according to my hypothesis
it didn't involve
competition between individuals. It involved competition between
communities.

Unlike many evolutionary theorists, I have
no objection, in principle, to group selection.

That's good because those that do reject it do so for reasons that are not
rational.

IMHO it can work -- but only in very special
circumstances. The slightly-superior group
has to be able to wipe-out its neighbours,

You are deluding yourself to think that the "wiping out" must be done by
they themselves. Can you explain why you insist on this?

and this has to happen time and time again.
Group 'wiping-out' has to be a routine part
of that species nature.

You need to explain your assumption that the wiping out must be done by they
themselves. If you can't explain this (and I know for a fact that you
cannot) then you are making a false assumption.


BUT (a) there is nothing like that in your
scenario;

That is right.

and (b) you STILL have to describe
the day-to-day circumstances that made the
slightly more bipedal quasi-hominid GROUP
more successful than its neighbouring GROUP
-- to the extent that it could wipe it out. You
don't even think of beginning this task.

Obviously this is because I don't accept your dimwitted assumption that
group selection requires that the wiping out be done by they themselves.


Remember, my hypothesis is a group selective process and the groups are
communities. My
ecological gatekeeper hypothesis has to do with which communities are
better ecological
gatekeepers. More specifically, the groups that can best preserve the
resources in their
garden-like community site are the ones that are going to best avoid the
grim reaper of late
miocene east africa: predatory massacres during the depths of the dry
season. And the way
they achieved this resource preservation was by closing the gate on the
community from food
competitor species at all times of the year.

Fantastical nonsense.

Why do you think it is that you cannot explain why you believe this?


Why bipedalism? Because bipedalism better enabled the collective
rock-throwing,
stick-wielding, mob oriented attack behaviors that they employed to keep
these food competitor
species out of their garden community site.

Even you should be able to see that you
are grasping at the faintest of straws.
Even IF such a scenario was possible
(which it isn't), the animal would not
need bipedalism to become good at this
kind of activity.

Answer this question you evasive twit: Are you saying that animals that are
quadrupedal can/could throw, weild, and carry weapons just as well as a
bipedal variant of the same species? (Let' us watch Paul evade this
question.)


The communities that had whatever traits and behaviors--bipedalism being
one of many--that
enabled them to close the gate on these food competitor species were the
communities that
survived. Those that could not or could not as well were victims of
predatory massacres.

You cannot quote ANYTHING like this
anywhere else in nature -- nor in human
history

I don't have to. It's plainly apparent in all human history.

[..]

3) How HE supposedly ran down prey species in open habitat and outran
Sabertoothed cats and bear-sized hyena.

That is standard PA brain-dead nonsense.
But YOU cannot say how hominids avoided
ruinous predation when they left the
immediate protection of the trees.

For the most part I don't have them leaving the immediate protection of
their trees/community
until very recently, as we've discussed extensively.

It's hard to remember crazy theories --
especially those in conflict with everyday
experience. No explorers before or after
the 15th century ever encountered a tribe
that was remotely dependent on trees after
the manner you fantasize.

All the evidene of modern humans confirms my hypothesis. But, obviously,
modern humans, being ecologically dominant, are not as tightly constricted.

[..]

Paul.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... And the group selective aspects of the same scenario ... >>> Only in the context of large, cooperative groups, like the communities ... Clubs were the first weapons. ... >>> lot of other species start using weapons. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: What Conventional Whackos Refuse to Discuss
    ... It involved competition between communities. ... competitor species at all times of the year. ... mob oriented attack behaviors that they employed to keep these food competitor ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Lifes complexity: self-organization, evolution or both?
    ... I don't think one should completely dismiss the idea of ecosystems ... composed of a large number of organisms. ... statistical treatment that captures the importance of capstone species. ... with the concept of ecological communities - for some reason I had ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Lifes complexity: self-organization, evolution or both?
    ... communities, the interactions between different organisms, the individuals ... helping "create each others' environments", ... I can't think of any such communities. ... they tend to be between species pairs at the most. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Lifes complexity: self-organization, evolution or both?
    ... communities, the interactions between different organisms, the individuals ... helping "create each others' environments", ... I can't think of any such communities. ... they tend to be between species pairs at the most. ...
    (talk.origins)