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

On Oct 2, 3:05 am, Paul Crowley <crowl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Claudius Denk 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.  

Read your own post.  What were you trying to dispute?

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.

You can always restore what you
regard as "the context".





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.)

I have done this often.  And it's not hard.  Try to
imagine what would happen when one group (of
proto-hominids) which had weapons had a fight
with a group without weapons.  Might some
'selection' appear to operate?

There's no reason for them to fight. Why wouldn't they just avoid
it?

You dont' have a hypothesis.

What happened in 19th century California, when
local indians (without guns) came up against whites
(with guns)?  Do you now see many native Indians in
California?

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

When europeans moved to North America,

We're talking about a transition from apes to hominids, you retard.

they
nearly always had larger numbers in any particular
locality (with their more intensive farming, and
ability to infect local Indians with their diseases).
Did those larger numbers have an effect on the
native population?

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.

This seems to be the limit of your capacity to 'argue'.

You don't have a hypothesis.

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.

This does not need stating -- to anyone who has
any knowledge of biology -- or of human history.
Larger groups DO tend to dominate, and then wipe
out, smaller ones.  Ask most europeans for their
opinions of Germans.

We're talking about a transition from apes to hominids, you retard.

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.

Sorry, I had not realised how completely ignorant
you were of all nature and all human history.

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?

Do you really think that there are no disputes over
resources in places like Afghanistan and Somalia?
Or that such disputes as do occur have nothing to
do with resources?

All animals dispute resources. Your thinking is worthless.

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.

My reasons are, of course, based entirely on selection.

But it happens only in your mind. Is it a secret?

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).

As I said, you 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.

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?

Absurd. Don't you think that the local population
(which had driven them out) would see them?

No, not necessarily.

If those trees had fruit, or other edible matter,
the locals would come looking for it.

How would a bunch of chimps get organized in the manner you suggest.
Your thinking is absurd. All you have is vague notions that are
applicable to any and all species. You have nothing that explains the
transition from ape to hominid. You don't even seem to be capable of
grasping what this means.

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

I have no idea why you think any of it is relevant.
And it's "incipient".

I suggest you study up on group selection. My scenario is a group
selective scenario in which the incipient losers cannot just walk away
or they will have an even greater chance of dieing. You don't have
this.

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

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.

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

[..]

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).

What, on earth, are you talking about?  Chimps,
like ALL other species, generally MAXIMISE
their numbers in any particular location.
There will not usually be anything to spare.

You are assuming human behaviors/characteristics. A selective
scenario is supposed to explain the selective origins of human
behaviors/characteristics starting with apes that lack these behaviors/
characteristics.

Your hypothesis is worthless--sorry to be so blunt.


-- 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?

They would find little ...

You're such a phoney. You know what the correct answer to this
question is.

You need to stop pretending and be honest with yourself. You do not
have a hypothesis. Don't kid yourself.

.

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
    ... You have to construct a selective scenario. ... The only reason that matters in a selective scenario is who lives and ... Your reason havre to involve biological selection. ... What is an "auto-catalytic selective process. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Updated AAH Definition
    ... > the fervor with which Algis is confident that hominids were more ... > investigation for Algis (who seems to be on track to do research built ... > The prediction that humans swim better than apes isn't a prediction so ... > like the null to be that selection was responsible and put the burden ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedal adaptation
    ... densely-populated society of hominids ... You have Apiths sleeping in trees, ... Pure nonsense. ... cause selection of human intelligence/consciousness. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedal adaptation
    ... You have Apiths sleeping in trees, ... Pure nonsense. ... cause selection of human intelligence/consciousness. ... AT SOME POINT, you dope, hominids ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)