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

On Oct 1, 3:47 pm, Paul Crowley <crowl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

I don't dispute this. I don't know why you think I do. And since you
keep snipping the context it seems you don't care to be clear.


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).

You don't get it. You have to construct a selective scenario. And in
the scenario you have to explain to us why the variants of the
population that (as with chimps) do not habitually (indefinitely)
retain tools/weapons would have, generall, died childless while those
that do habitually (indefinitely) retain tools/weapons would have,
generall, survived and had offspring. (And, obviously, you will never
be able to do this.)


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.

The only reason that matters in a selective scenario is who lives and
who dies and why. You don't have any of that

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.

Speculative nonsense.

In a violent and dangerous species,
groups with large numbers are always desirable, but
limited resources will inhibit them.

Here you go with the vague rhetoric again. "Always desirable?" You
dont' get it. You have to tell us why those with large group traits
survive while those withou died. See my hypothesis for a perfect
example of following this standard approach.

Small groups
(in such species) are feasible in a forest, but much
more difficult to maintain on the ground, in open
territory.

Speculative nonsense.

Do you have anything that explains why humans have *human*
characteristics? No?


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.

It's not apparent in your scenario or I wouldn't have had to ask.


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.

Why, there are no predators. And there is no conflict over
resources. why would they bother?


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

I have explained the reasons numerous times.

Your reason havre to involve biological selection.


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.

IMO, it occurred after they became ecologically dominant in treed
habitat (HE).


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.

This is clear to you and you only. You need to make the details of
this clear to your audience. Where are the details. Why wouldn't
individuals just hide in the trees?

(The same applies now
for modern chimps

Then why didn't they evolve into humans?

and for humans in Afghanistan, Somalia
and inter-city blocks.)

What follows was cut and pasted from previous posts of mine. Pay
particular attention to the phrase, "losers or insipient losers."

*******************

I've discussed this subject more extensively in other posts.

The nature of the selective process that this amounts to is auto-
catalytic
(self-propelled). In other words the evolution of the resulting
homonid
species that would have been the result of this unique selective
process
would have caused them to, eventually, break free from the niche that
normally holds in check the continued evolution of a species.


What is an "auto-catalytic (self-propelled) selective process. I'll
repeat
a quote by Richard Alexander that explains it: "At some point in
their
evolution humans obviously began to cooperate to compete,
specifically
against like groups of conspecifics, this intergroup competition
becoming
increasingly elaborate, direct, and continuous until it achieved the
ubiquity with which it has been exhibited in modern humans throughout
recorded history across the entire face of the earth (Alexander,
1990)."
And, " . . . the necessity of dealing continually with our fellow
humans in
social circumstances that became ever more complex and unpredictable
as the
human line evolved (Alexander, 1990)."


Human evolution is the result of an intraspecies, socially oriented,
auto-catalytic, selective process. He was mistaken, however, in his
assumption that only if our ancestors first had achieved ecological
dominance could they have actualized this autocatalytic selective
process.
He was also mistaken not to make a more comprehensive analysis of the
environmental factors (paleoclimatic factors) that were in effect
during the
earliest years of hominid evolution. If he had he may have
eventually
figured out how our earliest chimpanzee-like ancestors actualized an
autocatalytic selective process despite the fact they were unable to
achieve
ecological dominance.


It's also important to understand why Alexander assumed that only
through
ecological dominance could our ancestors have acheived an
autocatalytic
selective process. The thinking that underlies this assumption is
not
without its merits. Alexander correctly surmised that in order for
an
autocatalytic process to be actualized there had to have been some
means by
which the "losers or insipient losers" of any such socially oriented
selective scenario couldn't just walk away without losing even
bigger. In
other words, Alexander realized that a necessary component of any
such
socially oriented, autocatalytic, selective process had to have
involved the
participants having little choice but to participate, with the only
alternative being sure and certain death. But Alexander was mistaken
to
assume that only through ecological dominance could this prerequisite
be
realized.

*******************





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.

In mine it's plainly apparent. In yours it's not existent.


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

Perfectly absurd. This could never happen with a starting population
of chimps (and no predators).

-- 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.

Why?

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'.

Why wouldn't they stay in the trees. That's where the food is.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Born To Run: What Humans Really Evolved To Do
    ... The only reason that matters in a selective scenario is who lives and ... Your reason havre to involve biological selection. ... the locals would come looking for it. ... What is an "auto-catalytic selective process. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Born To Run: What Humans Really Evolved To Do
    ... There's no reason for them to fight. ... We're talking about a transition from apes to hominids, ... My reasons are, of course, based entirely on selection. ... autocatalytic selective process despite the fact they were unable to ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Born To Run: What Humans Really Evolved To Do
    ... as chimps and humans do. ... of other primate and mammalian species. ... You don't have a selective scenario. ... You need to reexamine the concept of natural selection. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Updated AAH Definition
    ... The evidence you've used to support it ... likely given the nature of the beast and the nature of the selection. ... has shown errors in his scenario, and it's false there as well. ... who is clearly out of his league but insists that this is not the ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Cumulative Security Update for Outlook Express 6 Service Pack 1 (KB837009)
    ... >> recommendation to expand Security Update Information and Outlook Express ... > pre-837009 and that is the reason that you are getting that update ... > one is selected and then copy the combined selection. ... > just uninstall the above two updates in the hope that ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)