Re: Faster Than A Hyena?

On Feb 23, 8:45 am, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<pgarr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:d5edbbf3-d62d-4657-a0c3-905c9afd26f6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Luckily, you did not have to compete
with lions, hyenas, cheetahs, wild dogs,
smilodon, dire wolves, giant carnivorous
bears, and all he other predators around
with HE.

The point I was making was that it is definitely possible and
straightforward for humans to engage in cursorial hunting.

Considering your predators with respect to the emergence of Erectus :

- Dire wolves and giant carnivorous bears were uninvolved, as they are
American. (Erectus emerged in Africa)
- the felids such as lions, cheetahs, and Dionfelis (rather than
smilodon, which again is American) are not cursorial hunters. Lions
were not around until 1.5 mya.

Until Dionfelis disappeared about 1.5 mya, hyenas made their living
scavenging their kills. Erectus had emerged by then.

This leaves the African hunting dog, Lycaon Pictus. While these are
formidable cursorial predators, it is not difficult to envisage Homo
having advantages such as posture, vision, and intelligence, as well
as an alternate food supply when game was sparse.


It takes a certain intelligence to cope with the hunted animal's
various strategems. So its still an option. However any sensible
person would obviously just lay a trap and save all that unnecessary
energy expenditure.

Very likely. So why all the supposed
selection for speed and endurance?

A cursorial hunter needs to eventually run down it's prey, as well as
out-think it, so both endurance and intelligence are required.


As to why the A'piths went extinct? Leakey says they were under
pressure from Homo on one side

Homo were in a different habitat --
according to you and to standard PA.

What different habitat?


and Baboons on the other.

They'd been competing with baboons
from day 1. Why evolve at all if they
did not have some distinct advantages?
Baboons will always survive in dense
jungle (where no one maintains
hominds lived). Apiths must have
had some edge in more open habitat.

"We know that Homo Erectus was an extremely successful species, since
it was the first human to expand its range beyond Africa. It is
therefore likely that early Homo grew rapidly in numbers, thus
becoming a significant competitor for a resource essential to
Australopithicene survival: food. Moreover between 1 and 2 million
years ago ground-living monkeys - the baboons - were also becoming
highly successful and burgeoning in numbers, and would have competed
with Australopithecines for food. The Australopithecines might well
have succumbed to a twofold competitive pressure- from homo on one
side and baboons on the other."
Leakey 1994 "The origin of Humankind" p 58

It seems unlikely that "baboons were there from day 1" as you say.
However I do tend to disagree with Leakey in the sense that the
biggest enemies of the A'piths would have been Homo, rather than
baboons, because only robust A'piths evolved after Homo appears. As
Homo had the speed, endurance, and intelligence, the only A'pith
advantage was size and possibly numbers, as breeding an A'pith would
have been faster than a Homo. A robust A'pith group would have been a
big threat to the gatherers in a Homo band. So I imagine that the
Homos would have either dealt with the A'piths if possible, or moved
on, and I further imagine that the baboons probably took advantage of
the demise of the A'piths.


As to niche swapping, obviously most species occupy quite stable
niches, but homo is the "first", so must have transcended a sequence
of niches quite rapidly, biologically speaking

A classic cop-out. We can forget all
evolutionary theory which applies to
every other species, and invoke a set
of special ones for our own line.

This is not scientifically respectable
(but that is never a concern for
standard PA).

There do not seem to be any barriers going from
brachiating ape,to a'piths walking on the savanna,

Except that it is manifest fantasy.

to homo habilus
with scavenging and running and stone tools, to erectus with endurance
hunting,

More fantasy.

to full language and rationality of homo sapiens.

Language and *some* rationality
indisputatbly arrived over some period.

Probably the most difficult step is the evolution of Homo from Apith.
I find the scavenging hypothesis fairly satisfying

Hopeless. A primate does not descend
from the trees to start scavenging. There
were already many species far better
adapted to the purpose. We have no
liking for rotten meat; we have a poor
sense of smell, we are hopeless in the
dark. Normal adults carry a large weight
of fat. There is nothing that indicates
scavenging.

as if fills the criteria of small gradual steps,

Gradual steps? Nonsense. The
adaptation to cope with rotten meat
is huge. All cats are carnivores, but
none will touch rotten meat -- even
though they must encounter it all
the time. Much the same applies to
carnivorous birds. Only those with
special adaptations (e.g. vultures)
will eat rotten flesh.

Paul.

Where you accuse me of fantasy, and you do not present any arguments
against the scenario's outlined, then you are simply engaging in
personal attack, and you make no point at all.

You accuse me of ignoring the rules of evolution, but do not outline
which rules are being broken. This unfortunately leaves us as
unenlightened as previously.

With respect to the absurdity of primates leaving trees and
scavenging, Baboons and chimps hunt, and all hunters scavenge when
they can and hunt when they must.

You say scavenging is impossible because homo cannot eat rotten meat.
Yet it is possible to scavenge meat that is not yet rotten, most
likely by stealing a kill. You just have to be smart, and quick.

"We are hopeless in the dark". No one is claiming Homo was a nocturnal
ambush predator.

I am growing tired of your ad-hominem, your mindless and un-sustained
accusations of fantasy and ignorance, when you make such stupid
mistakes as inferring american predators such as smiledon, giant
bears, and dire wolves, would interfere with the emergence of Erectus.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Faster Than A Hyena?
    ... it is not difficult to envisage Homo ... They'd been competing with baboons ... Baboons will always survive in dense ... with scavenging and running and stone tools, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Faster Than A Hyena?
    ... castrate them, and did this by running them down, homo erectus style. ... you did not have to compete ... I find the scavenging hypothesis fairly satisfying ... liking for rotten meat; we have a poor ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Faster Than A Hyena?
    ... and all he other predators around ... Homo were certainly not an obligate ... much of a carnivore at all. ... Baboons will always survive in dense ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Faster Than A Hyena?
    ... that all species of homo, including the early/questionable ones, were ... niche from later ... castrate them, and did this by running them down, homo erectus style. ... I find the scavenging hypothesis fairly satisfying, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)