Re: Born To Run: What Humans Really Evolved To Do

Claudius Denk wrote:

On Oct 1, 2:47 am, Paul Crowley <crowl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-- the absence of

predators enabled huge changes in behaviour,

Speculative nonsense.

Take a look around you sometime, at birds and wild
mammals. When a predator arrives on the scene
the prey animals start to behave in a very different
manner. Likewise for large primates. Lions, hyenas
(and leopards at night) keep chimps in trees. Once
they are completely absent, the chimps can move
away from trees suitable for sleeping.

including sleeping on the ground and the ability
to retain tools and weapons almost indefinitely.

Absurd assumption.

Try to be more articulate (and it is NOT an
assumption it is a conclusion drawn from the
evidence).

Those brought about the need for larger groups,

"Brought the need" for larger groups? How do you expect anybody to
take statements like this seriously? This is a vague, worthless
statement.

It is simply a continuation of the line of reasoning.
Chimp groups are remarkably small for a primate
or a mammal -- relying on one alpha male to control
both males and females. Once the taxon was out
of the chimp niche, into a different habitat (of more
wide-open spaces) it would have been very unlikely
that it would have been able to maintain that unusual
social structure. In a violent and dangerous species,
groups with large numbers are always desirable, but
limited resources will inhibit them. Small groups
(in such species) are feasible in a forest, but much
more difficult to maintain on the ground, in open
territory.

If there was truly a selective/situational factor that
"brought the need" for larger groups you wouldn't have to state such.
It would be apparent in your scenario.

It is apparent in my scenario.
I only state it because you ask me to.

You have chimps who start carrying weapon on a regular basis for no
apparent reason

Nope -- it's the same reason as peasants in Afghanistan
and Somalia wear Kalashnikovs. It is dangerous to
be seen without them.

and you have them forming larger groups for no
apparent reason.

I have explained the reasons numerous times.

And it all stems from your simplistic notion that
being able to sleep on the ground, supposedly, enables/allows this
behavior.

There is no reason to get complicated. All agree that
the hominid taxon started to sleep on the ground at
some point. But you (just like standard PA) prefer to
think it was an insignificant event undertaken at no
particular time for no particular reason, involving no
change in habitat, nor in morphology nor in any other
behaviour.

There is every reason to believe that they'd do exactly the opposite
from what you're stating because there is no selective penalty from
breaking off.

I don't get this. The penalty (for one or a few individuals)
would, of course, be huge. Death would be rapid for any
isolated person or a small group. (The same applies now
for modern chimps and for humans in Afghanistan, Somalia
and inter-city blocks.)

In my scenario there is a selective penalty from
breaking off from the communal group--sure and certain death. In
yours there is not. Right? (Answer the question you evasive nitwit.)

I have no idea why you see "sure and certain death"
in your scenario. In mine, it could not be more obvious.

and that, and the weapon and tool use, enabled
the species to steadily become more organised
and sophisticated.

Why do you believe this? What is preventing some subgroups/
individuals from breaking off, going on their own? (Don't evade this
question. It's crucial.) They'd be better off because they wouldn't
have to compete for resources. This isn't the case in my scenario.

What are you talking about? All significant resources
available to the hominids would be exploited by the
established (and constantly warring) groups -- the food,
the shelter, the water, etc. Groups would sometimes
be forced to leave -- as the result of conflict, drought,
etc. But they would nearly always soon die. Some
would have headed up into the dry dusty highlands,
and it is their remains that now lead PA dopes to
imagine a 'savanna hominid'.


Paul.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Born To Run: What Humans Really Evolved To Do
    ... and stop using sleeping trees when those trees ... reason to assume they wouldn't just avoid each other. ... evolved from chimps that you--in the ... responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... >>> The reason why you and I seem to be slowly becoming at loggerheads is ... > But I'm not arguing the VM on a professional level with Ken Towe. ... > Ken Towe wants those who argue for authenticity to set out a scenario ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... Put several groups of modern chimps ... Your model is silly in comparison in that there is no underlying reason at ... Your island notion is contrived. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Nuclear Plot of "Jericho"
    ... at the world today, the biggest danger right now is from international terrorist gangs and/or their state sponsors, rather than from a superpower attack like in ... Russia has no reason to nuke us at this moment. ... politics in any way they want to create the scenario they gave us. ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... Chimps do that now. ... clubs at all times. ... They dug roots and, therefore, ... there is a good reason to follow them. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading