Re: Clark's dilemma

rmacfarl wrote:

The notion that the evolution of a species could be
driven by the state of its neonates' legs (determined
in turn by the nature of its brain) must be one of the
silliest of all time.

Not contradicted.

Still not contradicted.

It is a statement of opinion on your part.

No. It is an account of YOUR 'theory'.
You choose not to correct my account, nor
to give a clear one of your own as to how
hominid infant legs and infant brains
evolved to become what they are. You don't
do this, because you can't. No one ever has.
No coherent account of it can be given.

However, unlike other animals who
produce altricial young, such as many rodents or small birds, this is
not because humans' reproductive strategy is to produce a lot of
offspring and expect very high attrition.[..]

Wrong. There are different reproductive strategies
("r": producing many with minimal care [..]

Not contradicted. Nor admitted.

[..] What is important is to explain
why humans produce so much more altricial young than other
great apes.

Then why bring in all that 'K' and 'r' stuff?
Great apes produce young with a 'K' strategy
-- similar to that of humans.

My explanation relies on physical factors and is
based on evidence from people who know what they are talking
about.

You mean all those GREAT Standard-PA scientists?
Vrba and the like? Those people who cannot walk
and chew gum at the same time?

Your explanation is uniquely and very specially your own, and is
so ludicrous as to defy description.

It is one based on the concepts of niche
and of natural selection. I can see how
you would find it shocking.

I am not disputing FACTS -- but the REASONS
for those facts. Human infants are altricial
because it would be highly dangerous for them
to be precocial, and to be able to wander around.
Relative precocity is not a problem for chimp
infants, because they stay attached to their
mother (and they also need a certain amount of
strength to be able to hold on). Since hominid
infants -- as part of the requirements of the niche
-- are lying there doing nothing, they are able to
develop differently from chimps, and grow their
brains, etc. at different rates.

Human children are born weak and helpless as a *survival
strategy*? Stop it, you're killing me!

Would you fancy your three-month-old baby
being able to wander around your open-air
'home'? (Remembering that it was something
like a campsite, only with plenty of wild
animals, snakes, water-pits and other traps.)
How long do you think it might survive?

It would survive as well as a 15-month old toddler whose parental
care was as negligent as you seem to assume.

Parents are rarely perfect, and our ancestors
were often under extreme pressure to survive
themselves. Most parents would, in many ways,
prefer to see their infants remain immobile
(or less mobile) for much longer. They could
then get on with their lives (in ancestral
terms -- acquire more food) much more easily.
That would make survival for everyone much
easier.

This is a completely ridiculous argument. What do you think
human mothers do now? They keep their children under close
supervision and teach them to recognise threats around them,
until they judge the children are old enough to take on greater
decision-making responsibility for themselves.

In the early years, immobility (i.e. altriciality)
is a great help to parents. It stops the infant
getting into trouble. THAT is why it is there.

Your argument, on the other hand, is that a helpless infant,
that can't run away and has no defense apart from a reflex
"lunge", has better survival prospects than a 1-year old
toddler.

Are you really claiming that a 1-year-old
toddler has some defence capacity -- against
(say) a large-dingo-type predator?

Remember, the basis of this argument is that relative to apes,
humans are born at a relatively undeveloped stage. Considering
that human brain growth continues at foetal rates for a year
post-natally, a 1-year old human is the proper developmental
analogue for a newborn chimp.

Pure crapology -- if pure Standard-PA crapology.

This kind of thing is routine in nature.
Birds on islands often evolve flightlessness
-- those that fly best get blown off the
island.

You have got to be kidding. Is this really the basis for your
hypothesis? Using this as the basis for some form of
selective pressure in humans is too ridiculous for words.

The selective pressure in favour of immobility,
(i.e. altriciality) in human infants, does not
need stating. It is far too obvious. Children
that are too active too early get into trouble.
They run off into the bushes; they drown in
neighbour's swimming pools, and so on and on.

Island birds evolve flightlessness because a) it's energy
intensive, and b) they are under little or no selective
pressure from predators. If they don't need to fly to get
their food or to escape predators, they often lose the
ability to fly.

You have not got even the basic elements of
natural selection. For island birds there is
strong selection AGAINST flying. Those that
fly best, in each generation, do worst. They
leave fewer offspring.

Humans evolved large brains living in Africa. I shouldn't
need to explain, but since it's you I know I do: a) brains
are the most energy-intensive organs in humans (consuming 25%
of our energy at rest); and b) Africa had and still has a lot
of large predators with big pointy teeth.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.
But I am sure that I am not missing much.

You said "Tell us how many new species came into existence
around 10 kya, when there was drastic climate change... It
can't happen." You were wrong, and I called you on it.

I was right, and you miscalled. NOT ONE
of those "Tasmanian species" came into
existence around 10 kya. ALL were once
common on the Australian mainland, and
are now restricted to Tasmania, largely
because dingoes and foxes did not get
there before the sea-levels rose around
10 kya.
http://www.zoo.utas.edu.au/tfprofiles/tasanimals/allfauna2.htm

<more nonsense snipped>


Paul.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.
    ... The fact humans swim better ... >> chimps really must be due to natural selection because the weakest ... > history of chimps since the bifurcation of our lineages where in one ... > lineage increasing abilities in water led to greater survival. ...
    (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: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... >> the context of a discussion about locomotion, ... Sexual selection? ... If it's humans, is it because we've had selection to move ... I take your point that chimps may have *lost* their ability in water, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Updated AAH Definition
    ... Because that was where you seemed to be heading in the debate before. ... > likely given the nature of the beast and the nature of the selection. ... modern humans do all of those things - you don't. ... through water than chimpanzees. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Clarks dilemma
    ... use a "K" one with altriciality, e.g. bears, seals, ... What is important is to explain why humans produce so much ... more altricial young than other great apes. ... Humans evolved large brains living in Africa. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)