Study shows apes can plan ahead
Paul Crowley
As most around here know, modern PA is a
'science' that has gone backwards for the past
150 years. One of the things that Darwin knew,
(which modern PA does not) is that one of
the most distinguishing characteristics of the
hominid line is its constant and habitual use
of tools and weapons.
Darwin also knew that this characteristic was
the basis of bipedalism. The first 'hominids'
were chimps who stood upright because they
needed to use their hands for other purposes:
namely the holding of tools -- or more crucially,
weapons.
Chimpanzees can do this now. But life in the
trees is not compatible with the retention of
tools and weapons. It is very hard to keep or
carry them while climbing or sleeping in a tree.
The first hominids were chimps that began
to live on the ground, and at the same time
became capable of retaining their tools and
weapons on a near-permanent basis. One or
two around here (Jim McGinn was one) have
suggested that chimps lacked the mentality
necessary for the retention of tools and
weapons. This report disproves that
argument.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4996942.stm
Paul.
Jim McGinn
Paul Crowley wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4996942.stm
>
> As most around here know, modern PA is a
> 'science' that has gone backwards for the past
> 150 years. One of the things that Darwin knew,
> (which modern PA does not) is that one of
> the most distinguishing characteristics of the
> hominid line is its constant and habitual use
> of tools and weapons.
Uh, well Paul, honestly, modern PA seems to have no problem at all with
the supposition that early hominids were tool using. In fact, like
yourself, they seem to view this supposition as a theoretical panacea.
Unfortunately, like yourself, they are dickheads with respect to the
very obvious fact that humans are--first and foremost--social animals.
Communalism underlies human origins, you jackass. Tool usage is
coorelated, but not causal. Go figure.
It's not like it isn't obvious to any intelligent person that considers
the facts.
>
> Darwin also knew that this characteristic was
> the basis of bipedalism.
Darwin, blah blah blah. Who cares what Darwin thought. Before you go
dropping the D word consider the fact that Mr. D live over a hundred
years ago and his main opponents believed that the origin of species
was described by the first chapter of the bible.
> The first 'hominids'
> were chimps who stood upright because they
> needed to use their hands for other purposes:
> namely the holding of tools -- or more crucially,
> weapons.
Yeah, so. This is consistent with my theory also.
>
> Chimpanzees can do this now.
Yeah, so?
> But life in the
> trees is not compatible with the retention of
> tools and weapons. It is very hard to keep or
> carry them while climbing or sleeping in a tree.
Nonsense. Paul, you seem incapable of comprehending that, originally,
we are talking about chimps here. If maintaining weapons--carrying
sleeping etc.--was a major requirement (as you claim) then human
evolution would never have happened.
Human evolution occurred not because of tool usage, you retard, but
because communal territorialism became the most effective weapon in the
context of the situational factors dictated by seasonal scarcity, which
itself was the result of them sudden emergence of monsoon habitat.
>
> The first hominids were chimps that began
> to live on the ground, and at the same time
> bme capable of retaining their tools an
> weapons on a near-permanent basis. One or
> two around here (Jim McGinn was one) have
> suggested that chimps lacked the mentality
> necessary for the retention of tools and
> weapons. This report disproves tha
> argument.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4996942.stm
Give it up, dimwit. Why don't you specifically address the objections I
had to your scenario. This "evidence" changes nothing.
My scenario is the only scenario that actually works.
Jim
Paul Crowley
news:1148205602.1...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Paul Crowley wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4996942.stm
>>
>> As most around here know, modern PA is a
>> 'science' that has gone backwards for the past
>> 150 years. One of the things that Darwin knew,
>> (which modern PA does not) is that one of
>> the most distinguishing characteristics of the
>> hominid line is its constant and habitual use
>> of tools and weapons.
>
> Uh, well Paul, honestly, modern PA seems to have no problem at all with
> the supposition that early hominids were tool using.
On the contrary, many PAs (and my
impression is "most PAs") believe that early
hominids did not use tools or weapons.
This is from a post here of last week (16 May):
"Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147811570.2...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
" . . . There are numerous sites where items as small as grass roots are
preserved, spears and digging sticks should be there if there were any.
Once Homo habilis arrives and later Acheulean, then woodworking
residues are found on some tools. Olduvai has some convincing examples
of pointed bones that were obviously sharpened; these could be argued
to be digging sticks. But this is all long after the first stone tools
show up. . . ."
You are ascribing a minimal level of intelligence
to PA people. That is quite wrong -- hopelessly
wrong. It is impossible to plumb the depths of
their stupidity. Its extent is an unending source
of astonishment.
> In fact, like
> yourself, they seem to view this supposition as a theoretical panacea.
> Unfortunately, like yourself, they are dickheads with respect to the
> very obvious fact that humans are--first and foremost--social animals.
Sure -- but then that applies to numerous
animals, including all our primate cousins.
We could hardly be anything else.
> Communalism underlies human origins, you jackass. Tool usage is
> coorelated, but not causal. Go figure.
The use of bone and muscle underlies human
origins. You can state thousands of such
tautologies. But when you are looking for the
cause of a radical change in morphology, you
need a radical change in behaviour. Tool (and
weapon) use provides that. There was nothing
particularly new in the "degree of sociality"
> It's not like it isn't obvious to any intelligent person that considers
> the facts.
>>
>> Darwin also knew that this characteristic was
>> the basis of bipedalism.
>
> Darwin, blah blah blah. Who cares what Darwin thought.
Darwin was about the last intelligent person
in this field. Since him, there has been a line
of near-total dopes.
> Before you go
> dropping the D word consider the fact that Mr. D live over a hundred
> years ago and his main opponents believed that the origin of species
> was described by the first chapter of the bible.
Agreed. But the fact is that there has been no
progress since Darwin. In fact, the 'science'
has gone backwards and forgotten nearly all
he told them.
>> But life in the
>> trees is not compatible with the retention of
>> tools and weapons. It is very hard to keep or
>> carry them while climbing or sleeping in a tree.
>
> Nonsense. Paul, you seem incapable of comprehending that, originally,
> we are talking about chimps here. If maintaining weapons--carrying
> sleeping etc.--was a major requirement (as you claim) then human
> evolution would never have happened.
Read the evidence. Chimps and other primates
are highly intelligent. They CAN plan ahead.
Tool use (and retention) was the one thing
that allowed our ancestors to begin to make
the huge jump.
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4996942.stm
>
> Give it up, dimwit. Why don't you specifically address the objections I
> had to your scenario. This "evidence" changes nothing.
What objections? (I note the care you
take not to mention any.)
You've just lost the only one you had.
Paul.
nickname
quadrupedally. DD
Rich Travsky
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4996942.stm
>
> As most around here know, modern PA is a
> 'science' that has gone backwards for the past
> 150 years. One of the things that Darwin knew,
> (which modern PA does not) is that one of
Not true. Leakey. Tools. "handy man". Decades ago. The discovery that chimps
make and use tools shook things up.
> the most distinguishing characteristics of the
> hominid line is its constant and habitual use
> of tools and weapons.
How did Darwin "know" this?
> Darwin also knew that this characteristic was
> the basis of bipedalism. The first 'hominids'
How did Darwin "know" this?
> were chimps who stood upright because they
> needed to use their hands for other purposes:
> namely the holding of tools -- or more crucially,
> weapons.
Kortlandt documented weapons use some time ago.
> Chimpanzees can do this now. But life in the
> trees is not compatible with the retention of
> tools and weapons. It is very hard to keep or
> carry them while climbing or sleeping in a tree.
Carry tools while sleeping in a tree? How did they carry them while
sleeping on the ground?
> The first hominids were chimps that began
> to live on the ground, and at the same time
> became capable of retaining their tools and
> weapons on a near-permanent basis. One or
> two around here (Jim McGinn was one) have
> suggested that chimps lacked the mentality
> necessary for the retention of tools and
> weapons. This report disproves that
> argument.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4996942.stm
Already old news. From 2002:
http://www.sciencenews.org/20020330/fob2.asp
Archaeologists, by definition, uncover the remnants of past human
activity. With the first excavation of chimpanzee stone tools at
an African site, however, the scope of their work has entered virgin
terrain.
Chimps transported suitable pieces of stone to the undated site and
used them to crack open nuts placed on thick tree roots, according
to Julio Mercader of George Washington University in Washington, D.C.
...
Rich Travsky
>
> "Jim McGinn" <jimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1148205602.1...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4996942.stm
> >>
> >> As most around here know, modern PA is a
> >> 'science' that has gone backwards for the past
> >> 150 years. One of the things that Darwin knew,
> >> (which modern PA does not) is that one of
> >> the most distinguishing characteristics of the
> >> hominid line is its constant and habitual use
> >> of tools and weapons.
> >
> > Uh, well Paul, honestly, modern PA seems to have no problem at all with
> > the supposition that early hominids were tool using.
>
> On the contrary, many PAs (and my
> impression is "most PAs") believe that early
Cite or list some. Prove this claim.
> hominids did not use tools or weapons.
>
> This is from a post here of last week (16 May):
>
> "Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1147811570.2...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> " . . . There are numerous sites where items as small as grass roots are
> preserved, spears and digging sticks should be there if there were any.
> Once Homo habilis arrives and later Acheulean, then woodworking
> residues are found on some tools. Olduvai has some convincing examples
> of pointed bones that were obviously sharpened; these could be argued
> to be digging sticks. But this is all long after the first stone tools
> show up. . . ."
Please explain how the above passage denies early tool use???? It CITES it!
> You are ascribing a minimal level of intelligence
> to PA people. That is quite wrong -- hopelessly
> wrong. It is impossible to plumb the depths of
> their stupidity. Its extent is an unending source
> of astonishment.
But you just posted an excerpt that you claimed denied tool use, when
it did the opposite...
> > In fact, like
> > yourself, they seem to view this supposition as a theoretical panacea.
> > Unfortunately, like yourself, they are dickheads with respect to the
> > very obvious fact that humans are--first and foremost--social animals.
>
> Sure -- but then that applies to numerous
> animals, including all our primate cousins.
> We could hardly be anything else.
>
> > Communalism underlies human origins, you jackass. Tool usage is
> > coorelated, but not causal. Go figure.
>
> The use of bone and muscle underlies human
> origins. You can state thousands of such
> tautologies. But when you are looking for the
> cause of a radical change in morphology, you
> need a radical change in behaviour. Tool (and
> weapon) use provides that. There was nothing
> particularly new in the "degree of sociality"
How does it provide that? Show the steps supported by the archaeological
record...
Jim McGinn
Well, I don't know that we can assume from Olsen's comments that he is
dismissing the possibility that earlier hominids used crude
weapons--rocks, sticks. Obviously the earliest chimpanzee-like
hominids were incapable of manufacturing and using the more
sophisticated tools that we see in Acheulean and Oduvai.
Chimps (and the earliest chimp-like hominids) use rocks and sticks in
the context of collective threat displays. The question is what took
place in the millions of years between this original crude stone
throwing, stick wielding and the first manufactured stone tools about 2
million years ago. I haven't seen much evidence that modern PA even
makes any effort to address this issue. Mostly modern PA hides behind
the vagueness of tool-using, hunting and gathering notions.
There really is no difference between modern PA and yourself with
respect to your fundamental assumptions. What is different about you
is that you don't hide behind the vagueness. The inevitable result is
your contrived scenario.
>
> > In fact, like
> > yourself, they seem to view this supposition as a theoretical panacea.
> > Unfortunately, like yourself, they are dickheads with respect to the
> > very obvious fact that humans are--first and foremost--social animals.
>
> Sure -- but then that applies to numerous
> animals, including all our primate cousins.
> We could hardly be anything else.
Obviously hominid sociality is categorically distinct from that of any
other species.
> > Communalism underlies human origins, you jackass. Tool usage is
> > coorelated, but not causal. Go figure.
>
> The use of bone and muscle underlies human
> origins. You can state thousands of such
> tautologies. But when you are looking for the
> cause of a radical change in morphology, you
> need a radical change in behaviour. Tool (and
> weapon) use provides that.
In and of itself, no. And nothing better exemplifies this than the
gymnastics that you go through to pretend that your scenario makes
sense.
Human evolution began when the climate suddenly shifted from rainforest
to a monsoon climate. Communal territorialism--rock-throwing,
stick-wielding warlike behavior directed against large mammalian
food-competitor species--was the strategy that evolved to insure that
they had enough resources in their vicinity to survive the dry season
of the monsoon habitat. It was the communalism of this scenario that
provided the context for the emergence of human intelligence,
communicativeness, and psychological complexity, not tool usage.
Tool-usage is part of the larger scenario. Tool usage is not and could
not be the "selective engine" of human intelligence.
> There was nothing particularly new in the "degree of sociality"
You about have to be retarded to believe this. It's obviously of a
higher degree and categorically distinct.
> > It's not like it isn't obvious to any intelligent person that considers
> > the facts.
> >>
> >> Darwin also knew that this characteristic was
> >> the basis of bipedalism.
> >
> > Darwin, blah blah blah. Who cares what Darwin thought.
>
> Darwin was about the last intelligent person
> in this field. Since him, there has been a line
> of near-total dopes.
Nobody understands the inadequacies of the current paradigm better than
myself. But, Paul, I woud count you among them. The problems stem
back to the fact that Darwin tended to simplify his explanation of
natural selection by way of emphasizing indviduals that out-compete,
out-reproduce other individuals. It is mostly because of this
caricature of NS that yourself and the rest of PA is stuck on this
notion of individuals that use tools to out-compete other individuals.
> > Before you go
> > dropping the D word consider the fact that Mr. D live over a hundred
> > years ago and his main opponents believed that the origin of species
> > was described by the first chapter of the bible.
>
> Agreed. But the fact is that there has been no
> progress since Darwin. In fact, the 'science'
> has gone backwards and forgotten nearly all
> he told them.
Nah.
> >> But life in the
> >> trees is not compatible with the retention of
> >> tools and weapons. It is very hard to keep or
> >> carry them while climbing or sleeping in a tree.
> >
> > Nonsense. Paul, you seem incapable of comprehending that, originally,
> > we are talking about chimps here. If maintaining weapons--carrying
> > sleeping etc.--was a major requirement (as you claim) then human
> > evolution would never have happened.
>
> Read the evidence. Chimps and other primates
> are highly intelligent. They CAN plan ahead.
> Tool use (and retention) was the one thing
> that allowed our ancestors to begin to make
> the huge jump.
Dogs too are intelligent but they are disinclined to tool usage.
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4996942.stm
> >
> > Give it up, dimwit. Why don't you specifically address the objections I
> > had to your scenario. This "evidence" changes nothing.
>
> What objections? (I note the care you
> take not to mention any.)
I note the care you take to pretend I haven't already voiced my
objections.
> You've just lost the only one you had.
Hardly. Why don't you explain to us how your tool-using scenario
explains the selective origins of language. If nothing else that ought
to be good for a few laughs.
Jim
Paul Crowley
news:4470CAC5...@hotmMOVEail.com...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4996942.stm
>>
>> As most around here know, modern PA is a
>> 'science' that has gone backwards for the past
>> 150 years. One of the things that Darwin knew,
>> (which modern PA does not) is that one of
>
> Not true. Leakey. Tools. "handy man". Decades ago.
Most modern PA people believe that early hominids
did not use tools. Did Leakey have a different view?
(I'd be surprised if he did.) His 'handy man' was far
from early.
> The discovery that chimps make and use tools shook things up.
That's very recent, and not really absorbed.
Bipedalism is still explained (insofar as PA
people ever pretend to explain it) with a
series of idiotic ideas, such as standing
tall in the midday sun, or finding the gaps
between the trees a bit more each year,
or wading in water ( . . . joke).
>> the most distinguishing characteristics of the
>> hominid line is its constant and habitual use
>> of tools and weapons.
>
> How did Darwin "know" this?
He took a look around at the way all humans
behaved, in comparison to animals. He saw
that human anatomy was modified for that
purpose; he was aware of the concept of
niche (now virtually forgotten) . . and so on
and on.
>> Darwin also knew that this characteristic was
>> the basis of bipedalism. The first 'hominids'
>
> How did Darwin "know" this?
He applied simple logic to simple observations
and, with much thought, came to sound
conclusions. (PA people have long forgotten
how to make simple observations, simple
logic has always been beyond them, as has
any capacity for thought.)
>> were chimps who stood upright because they
>> needed to use their hands for other purposes:
>> namely the holding of tools -- or more crucially,
>> weapons.
>
> Kortlandt documented weapons use some time ago.
True, but it has not been absorbed into PA
thinking. Weapons are nasty things and
not politically correct.
>> Chimpanzees can do this now. But life in the
>> trees is not compatible with the retention of
>> tools and weapons. It is very hard to keep or
>> carry them while climbing or sleeping in a tree.
>
> Carry tools while sleeping in a tree? How did they carry them while
> sleeping on the ground?
Err. . . you don't need to carry them when
you sleep on the ground. You can lie on
them, or even hold on to them all night.
Do you remember in 'Full Metal Jacket' how
the trainee-grunts had to lie with their rifles
. . and address them in loving tones before
they went to sleep?
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> > Uh, well Paul, honestly, modern PA seems to have no problem at all with
>> > the supposition that early hominids were tool using.
>>
>> On the contrary, many PAs (and my
>> impression is "most PAs") believe that early
>> hominids did not use tools or weapons.
>
> Cite or list some. Prove this claim.
The distinguishing characteristic of a PA
person is a blank mind. They rarely say
anything about anything A clear statement
on this (or on anything) by a PA person is
close to non-existent. So we often have a
major problem finding hard evidence of what
any believe or might believe.
BUT either the first hominids DID use tools
and weapons, or they did NOT. It would be
a lot easier to find statements that early
hominids DID use them -- if that is what they
believed. But such statements are rare to
non-existent. So it makes sense to conclude
(provisionally) that they believe the opposite.
However, if you prefer to say that their minds
are quite blank on this matter, I'll be happy to
go along.
>> This is from a post here of last week (16 May):
>>
>> "Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1147811570.2...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> " . . . There are numerous sites where items as small as grass roots are
>> preserved, spears and digging sticks should be there if there were any.
>> Once Homo habilis arrives and later Acheulean, then woodworking
>> residues are found on some tools. Olduvai has some convincing examples
>> of pointed bones that were obviously sharpened; these could be argued
>> to be digging sticks. But this is all long after the first stone tools
>> show up. . . ."
>
> Please explain how the above passage denies early tool use???? It CITES it!
Read the words:
" . . . spears and digging sticks should be there if there were any . ."
>> tautologies. But when you are looking for the
>> cause of a radical change in morphology, you
>> need a radical change in behaviour. Tool (and
>> weapon) use provides that.
>
> How does it provide that? Show the steps supported by the archaeological
> record...
There is the rapid diminution in the size of
canines. These are the primary weapon-
systems of large primates. It makes sense to
assume that they had rendered their large
canines largely redundant by the introduction
of other weaponry.
Paul.
Rich Travsky
> "Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:4470CAC5...@hotmMOVEail.com...
>
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4996942.stm
> >>
> >> As most around here know, modern PA is a
> >> 'science' that has gone backwards for the past
> >> 150 years. One of the things that Darwin knew,
> >> (which modern PA does not) is that one of
> >
> > Not true. Leakey. Tools. "handy man". Decades ago.
>
> Most modern PA people believe that early hominids
> did not use tools. Did Leakey have a different view?
> (I'd be surprised if he did.) His 'handy man' was far
> from early.
Please name some of those "most modern PA people" who believe
this.
> > The discovery that chimps make and use tools shook things up.
>
> That's very recent, and not really absorbed.
> Bipedalism is still explained (insofar as PA
> people ever pretend to explain it) with a
> series of idiotic ideas, such as standing
> tall in the midday sun, or finding the gaps
> between the trees a bit more each year,
> or wading in water ( . . . joke).
Not really absorbed? Tool us in chimps goes back to Goodall. It's
been very well assimilated. Show, with cites/examples. that it
hasn't been absorbed.
> >> the most distinguishing characteristics of the
> >> hominid line is its constant and habitual use
> >> of tools and weapons.
> >
> > How did Darwin "know" this?
>
> He took a look around at the way all humans
> behaved, in comparison to animals. He saw
> that human anatomy was modified for that
> purpose; he was aware of the concept of
> niche (now virtually forgotten) . . and so on
> and on.
>
> >> Darwin also knew that this characteristic was
> >> the basis of bipedalism. The first 'hominids'
> >
> > How did Darwin "know" this?
>
> He applied simple logic to simple observations
> and, with much thought, came to sound
> conclusions. (PA people have long forgotten
> how to make simple observations, simple
> logic has always been beyond them, as has
> any capacity for thought.)
Darwin's simple observations included chimps in the wild?
> >> were chimps who stood upright because they
> >> needed to use their hands for other purposes:
> >> namely the holding of tools -- or more crucially,
> >> weapons.
> >
> > Kortlandt documented weapons use some time ago.
>
> True, but it has not been absorbed into PA
> thinking. Weapons are nasty things and
> not politically correct.
Why? Weapons are good archaelogical finds.
> >> Chimpanzees can do this now. But life in the
> >> trees is not compatible with the retention of
> >> tools and weapons. It is very hard to keep or
> >> carry them while climbing or sleeping in a tree.
> >
> > Carry tools while sleeping in a tree? How did they carry them while
> > sleeping on the ground?
>
> Err. . . you don't need to carry them when
> you sleep on the ground. You can lie on
> them, or even hold on to them all night.
Err. . . you're the one who stated it as carrying them while
sleeping in a tree. Chimps build nests, the tools could easily
be placed there.
> Do you remember in 'Full Metal Jacket' how
> the trainee-grunts had to lie with their rifles
> . . and address them in loving tones before
> they went to sleep?
No.
Rich Travsky
I don't see a single PA listed there. Try again ->
> >> This is from a post here of last week (16 May):
> >>
> >> "Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1147811570.2...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> " . . . There are numerous sites where items as small as grass roots are
> >> preserved, spears and digging sticks should be there if there were any.
> >> Once Homo habilis arrives and later Acheulean, then woodworking
> >> residues are found on some tools. Olduvai has some convincing examples
> >> of pointed bones that were obviously sharpened; these could be argued
> >> to be digging sticks. But this is all long after the first stone tools
> >> show up. . . ."
> >
> > Please explain how the above passage denies early tool use???? It CITES it!
>
> Read the words:
> " . . . spears and digging sticks should be there if there were any . ."
Read the words "long after the first stone tools show up"...
> >> tautologies. But when you are looking for the
> >> cause of a radical change in morphology, you
> >> need a radical change in behaviour. Tool (and
> >> weapon) use provides that.
> >
> > How does it provide that? Show the steps supported by the archaeological
> > record...
>
> There is the rapid diminution in the size of
> canines. These are the primary weapon-
> systems of large primates. It makes sense to
> assume that they had rendered their large
> canines largely redundant by the introduction
> of other weaponry.
Or a change in diet.
Paul Crowley
>> > How does it provide that? Show the steps supported by the archaeological
>> > record...
>>
>> There is the rapid diminution in the size of
>> canines. These are the primary weapon-
>> systems of large primates. It makes sense to
>> assume that they had rendered their large
>> canines largely redundant by the introduction
>> of other weaponry.
>
> Or a change in diet.
Total nonsense. Firstly, all primates and
many other mammals (especially the males)
have large canines, in spite of huge differences
in diet. Large canines have little role in diet.
They are the weaponry of choice for defence.
Secondly, there was no major change in diet
from chimps to early hominids. Humans still
eat 'chimp food'.
Hominids have much harder teeth probably
because (a) they began to use digging sticks
and became able to exploit the 'baboon diet'
of roots -- meaning that small pebbles got into
their diet -- destroying soft teeth; and
(b) they no longer needed the razor-sharp
edge on their canines that softer teeth allow
chimps to possess.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> Most modern PA people believe that early hominids
>> did not use tools. Did Leakey have a different view?
>> (I'd be surprised if he did.) His 'handy man' was far
>> from early.
>
> Please name some of those "most modern PA people" who believe
> this.
As I say in a parallel post, it is almost impossible
to find a clear statement of belief in anything
from any modern PA. One can only go on
vague impressions from the things that they
don't say.
>> > The discovery that chimps make and use tools shook things up.
>>
>> That's very recent, and not really absorbed.
>> Bipedalism is still explained (insofar as PA
>> people ever pretend to explain it) with a
>> series of idiotic ideas, such as standing
>> tall in the midday sun, or finding the gaps
>> between the trees a bit more each year,
>> or wading in water ( . . . joke).
>
> Not really absorbed? Tool us in chimps goes back to Goodall. It's
> been very well assimilated. Show, with cites/examples. that it
> hasn't been absorbed.
The standard (and unquestioned) belief is
that early hominids spent the first few million
years sleeping in trees -- in the same way as
chimps. Apart from the fact that they would
have thereforefore had an identical life-style
to chimps, and no need to change morphology,
they would also have found it impossible to
retain tools and weapons.
>> >> Darwin also knew that this characteristic was
>> >> the basis of bipedalism. The first 'hominids'
>> >
>> > How did Darwin "know" this?
>>
>> He applied simple logic to simple observations
>> and, with much thought, came to sound
>> conclusions. (PA people have long forgotten
>> how to make simple observations, simple
>> logic has always been beyond them, as has
>> any capacity for thought.)
>
> Darwin's simple observations included chimps in the wild?
Nope. Somehow he managed without.
But then he could think.
>> >> were chimps who stood upright because they
>> >> needed to use their hands for other purposes:
>> >> namely the holding of tools -- or more crucially,
>> >> weapons.
>> >
>> > Kortlandt documented weapons use some time ago.
>>
>> True, but it has not been absorbed into PA
>> thinking. Weapons are nasty things and
>> not politically correct.
>
> Why? Weapons are good archaelogical finds.
I don't think any fossil artefact dating from
before ~15 kya is ever regarded as a weapon.
'Hand axes' are thought to be used for
chopping trees -- or some such.
>> >> Chimpanzees can do this now. But life in the
>> >> trees is not compatible with the retention of
>> >> tools and weapons. It is very hard to keep or
>> >> carry them while climbing or sleeping in a tree.
>> >
>> > Carry tools while sleeping in a tree? How did they carry them while
>> > sleeping on the ground?
>>
>> Err. . . you don't need to carry them when
>> you sleep on the ground. You can lie on
>> them, or even hold on to them all night.
>
> Err. . . you're the one who stated it as carrying them while
> sleeping in a tree. Chimps build nests, the tools could easily
> be placed there.
Nonsense. Have you ever tried to climb a
large tree while carrying something large
or heavy? Can you conceive of doing it in
the dark? Or using a heavy weapon in the
tree (against, say, a leopard) in the dark?
Paul.
Jim McGinn
Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
> As I say in a parallel post, it is almost impossible
> to find a clear statement of belief in anything
> from any modern PA. One can only go on
> vague impressions from the things that they
> don't say.
Yes. Obviously they don't know. And, obviously, they don't want to
admit that they don't know. And then there's the fact that most of
them don't know evolution well enough to know that they don't know.
>
> >> > The discovery that chimps make and use tools shook things up.
> >>
> >> That's very recent, and not really absorbed.
> >> Bipedalism is still explained (insofar as PA
> >> people ever pretend to explain it) with a
> >> series of idiotic ideas, such as standing
> >> tall in the midday sun, or finding the gaps
> >> between the trees a bit more each year,
> >> or wading in water ( . . . joke).
> >
> > Not really absorbed? Tool us in chimps goes back to Goodall. It's
> > been very well assimilated. Show, with cites/examples. that it
> > hasn't been absorbed.
Absorbed? It would appear they spend too much time absorbing and too
little time delineating their thoughts on this issue--assuming they
have any at all. Consequently it's about impossible to say what they
believe--which is the way they like it.
Whatever the case there have been a lot of statements along the lines
that early hominids became bipedal first and that this freed their
hands to *begin* to employ tools.
Jim McGinn
Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:447112E5...@hotmMOVEail.com...
>
> >> > How does it provide that? Show the steps supported by the archaeological
> >> > record...
> >>
> >> There is the rapid diminution in the size of
> >> canines. These are the primary weapon-
> >> systems of large primates. It makes sense to
> >> assume that they had rendered their large
> >> canines largely redundant by the introduction
> >> of other weaponry.
> >
> > Or a change in diet.
>
> Total nonsense.
So, you're saying diet and dentition are unrelated?
> Firstly, all primates and
> many other mammals (especially the males)
> have large canines, in spite of huge differences
> in diet. Large canines have little role in diet.
> They are the weaponry of choice for defence.
Canines tend to be associated with aggressiveness. And aggressiveness
is not conducive to the peaceful coexistence that is necessary for
communalism.
> Secondly, there was no major change in diet
> from chimps to early hominids. Humans still
> eat 'chimp food'.
The ability to consume hard, dry food would have often been the
difference that enabled them, the earliest hominids, to survive the dry
season of their monsoon habitat. In contrast chimpanzees tend to
reside in habitat that lacks a dry season, or, at least, one that is so
severe it could cause death.
It is both these factors, communalism and a shift to dried out food
during the dry season that undelie the disappearance of canines. But
the beginnings of the tendency to employ communal, rock-throwing and
stick wielding as their main approach to maintaining territory may also
have played a role.
Paul Crowley
> Obviously hominid sociality is categorically distinct from that of any
> other species.
It is now, but it was hardly so for the first
bipeds. That kind of thing can evolve only
slowly.
>> > Communalism underlies human origins, you jackass. Tool usage is
>> > coorelated, but not causal. Go figure.
>>
>> The use of bone and muscle underlies human
>> origins. You can state thousands of such
>> tautologies. But when you are looking for the
>> cause of a radical change in morphology, you
>> need a radical change in behaviour. Tool (and
>> weapon) use provides that.
>
> In and of itself, no. And nothing better exemplifies this than the
> gymnastics that you go through to pretend that your scenario makes
> sense.
I have found a solution to the problem;
nothing more. You haven't.
> Human evolution began when the climate suddenly shifted from rainforest
> to a monsoon climate. Communal territorialism--rock-throwing,
> stick-wielding warlike behavior directed against large mammalian
> food-competitor species--was the strategy that evolved to insure that
> they had enough resources in their vicinity to survive the dry season
> of the monsoon habitat. It was the communalism of this scenario that
> provided the context for the emergence of human intelligence,
> communicativeness, and psychological complexity, not tool usage.
> Tool-usage is part of the larger scenario. Tool usage is not and could
> not be the "selective engine" of human intelligence.
Well, it's mostly weapon use that matters.
But why couldn't both have been the
'selective engine' ? Those better at both
survived. For example -- at the initial stages
-- the ones that were better able to maintain
a bipedal stance were therefore better at
using (and retaining) their tools and
weapons.
>> > Nonsense. Paul, you seem incapable of comprehending that, originally,
>> > we are talking about chimps here. If maintaining weapons--carrying
>> > sleeping etc.--was a major requirement (as you claim) then human
>> > evolution would never have happened.
>>
>> Read the evidence. Chimps and other primates
>> are highly intelligent. They CAN plan ahead.
>> Tool use (and retention) was the one thing
>> that allowed our ancestors to begin to make
>> the huge jump.
>
> Dogs too are intelligent but they are disinclined to tool usage.
You do need 'hands' of some sort. If dogs,
or dolphins or elephants had hands, they
could have been the first to specialise in
tool use.
>> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4996942.stm
>> >
>> > Give it up, dimwit. Why don't you specifically address the objections I
>> > had to your scenario. This "evidence" changes nothing.
>>
>> What objections? (I note the care you
>> take not to mention any.)
>
> I note the care you take to pretend I haven't already voiced my
> objections.
I am sure you have voiced thousands of
objections (to, say, the policies of your
elected President). But I have no idea
which ones you have in mind here.
>> You've just lost the only one you had.
>
> Hardly. Why don't you explain to us how your tool-using scenario
> explains the selective origins of language. If nothing else that ought
> to be good for a few laughs.
Complex language took millions of years
to develop. My primary concern is the first
100 Kyr or so after the split from chimps.
Paul.
richard...@yahoo.com
rainforest
to a monsoon climate¨¨. - Jim McGinn
Really ? When was this supposed to have happened? Did the Himalayas
suddenly rise up and produce humanity?
Did chimps, orangs and gorillas only start using tools in the last few
years that we´ve been looking at them? Or could it be possible that
they´ve been using them for aeons?
Did chimps and gorillas suddenly become humans when they became more
social?
If so, why didn´t baboons (more social than either) become a bit more
human?
In short, why don´t you two (Crowley & McGinn) stop insulting each
other as dimwits (you´ve obviously put a deal of thought into your
respective positions) and get together to produce a Grand Theory that
will put PAs (about the only thing on which I agree with both of you)
in their place?
regards
Richard
Jim McGinn
richard...@yahoo.com wrote:
> ¨¨Human evolution began when the climate suddenly shifted from
> rainforest
> to a monsoon climate¨¨. - Jim McGinn
>
> Really ? When was this supposed to have happened?
Google it. I've already discussed it.
Did the Himalayas
> suddenly rise up and produce humanity?
No. (But it is well established that climate change is rapid.)
>
> Did chimps, orangs and gorillas only start using tools in the last few
> years that we´ve been looking at them? Or could it be possible that
> they´ve been using them for aeons?
Relevance?
>
> Did chimps and gorillas suddenly become humans when they became more
> social?
Partly, yes. (Google the rest.)
>
> If so, why didn´t baboons (more social than either) become a bit more
> human?
Google it. There's more to human evolution than sociality (and tool
usage).
>
> In short, why don´t you two (Crowley & McGinn) stop insulting each
> other as dimwits (you´ve obviously put a deal of thought into your
> respective positions) and get together to produce a Grand Theory that
> will put PAs (about the only thing on which I agree with both of you)
> in their place?
Paul's thinking is nonsense. My hypothesis answers all the questions
as good as they can be answered.
Jim McGinn
Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Jim McGinn" <jimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1148244160.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Obviously hominid sociality is categorically distinct from that of any
> > other species.
>
> It is now, but it was hardly so for the first
> bipeds.
Why would you assume this. IOW, why in the world would we not assume
that even the earliest form of hominid (even back to A'piths and the
LCA) sociality should be on the path to our present form of sociality.
They are, afterall, our ancestors, are they not?
> That kind of thing can evolve only
> slowly.
I agree.
>
> >> > Communalism underlies human origins, you jackass. Tool usage is
> >> > coorelated, but not causal. Go figure.
> >>
> >> The use of bone and muscle underlies human
> >> origins. You can state thousands of such
> >> tautologies. But when you are looking for the
> >> cause of a radical change in morphology, you
> >> need a radical change in behaviour. Tool (and
> >> weapon) use provides that.
> >
> > In and of itself, no. And nothing better exemplifies this than the
> > gymnastics that you go through to pretend that your scenario makes
> > sense.
>
> I have found a solution to the problem;
> nothing more. You haven't.
My whole scenario is the solution.
>
> > Human evolution began when the climate suddenly shifted from rainforest
> > to a monsoon climate. Communal territorialism--rock-throwing,
> > stick-wielding warlike behavior directed against large mammalian
> > food-competitor species--was the strategy that evolved to insure that
> > they had enough resources in their vicinity to survive the dry season
> > of the monsoon habitat. It was the communalism of this scenario that
> > provided the context for the emergence of human intelligence,
> > communicativeness, and psychological complexity, not tool usage.
> > Tool-usage is part of the larger scenario. Tool usage is not and could
> > not be the "selective engine" of human intelligence.
>
> Well, it's mostly weapon use that matters.
> But why couldn't both have been the
> 'selective engine' ?
Well, for one thing, the fact that chimps do (and probably have been
for millions of years) use tools kind of pulls the rug out on the
dimwitted tool-usage-leads-to-hominid-like-intelligence notion that
(although they will now deny it) has been the basis of virtually all
hypothetical thinking on the earliest years of hominid evolution. It's
just an idiotic notion. lots of animals can be said to employ tools in
one manner or the other. Birds build nests for example. But we don't
see any trend for increased intelligence in birds.
> Those better at both
> survived. For example -- at the initial stages
> -- the ones that were better able to maintain
> a bipedal stance were therefore better at
> using (and retaining) their tools and
> weapons.
Well, looking beyond it's rather obvious just-so-story aspects, it's
just a simpleminded notion that fails to explain (or lead to a scenario
that explains) so many of the traits that distinguish humans from all
other species. For just one example (as I indicated previously)
there's absolutely no good reason to expect that a tool-using ape would
necessarily develop language. (It couldn't be more obvious that
language is a social adaptation.)
>
> >> > Nonsense. Paul, you seem incapable of comprehending that, originally,
> >> > we are talking about chimps here. If maintaining weapons--carrying
> >> > sleeping etc.--was a major requirement (as you claim) then human
> >> > evolution would never have happened.
> >>
> >> Read the evidence. Chimps and other primates
> >> are highly intelligent. They CAN plan ahead.
> >> Tool use (and retention) was the one thing
> >> that allowed our ancestors to begin to make
> >> the huge jump.
> >
> > Dogs too are intelligent but they are disinclined to tool usage.
>
> You do need 'hands' of some sort. If dogs,
> or dolphins or elephants had hands, they
> could have been the first to specialise in
> tool use.
Chimps have hands (and have had them for millions of years). Why
didn't they benefit from the same just-so-story nonsense that you
propose.
>
> >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4996942.stm
> >> >
> >> > Give it up, dimwit. Why don't you specifically address the objections I
> >> > had to your scenario. This "evidence" changes nothing.
> >>
> >> What objections? (I note the care you
> >> take not to mention any.)
> >
> > I note the care you take to pretend I haven't already voiced my
> > objections.
>
> I am sure you have voiced thousands of
> objections (to, say, the policies of your
> elected President). But I have no idea
> which ones you have in mind here.
>
> >> You've just lost the only one you had.
> >
> > Hardly. Why don't you explain to us how your tool-using scenario
> > explains the selective origins of language. If nothing else that ought
> > to be good for a few laughs.
>
> Complex language took millions of years
> to develop.
Not an explanation. (An excuse. My scenariou needs no excuses.)
My primary concern is the first
> 100 Kyr or so after the split from chimps.
Who cares.
Paul Crowley
>> > Obviously hominid sociality is categorically distinct from that of any
>> > other species.
>>
>> It is now, but it was hardly so for the first
>> bipeds.
>
> Why would you assume this. IOW, why in the world would we not assume
> that even the earliest form of hominid (even back to A'piths and the
> LCA) sociality should be on the path to our present form of sociality.
> They are, afterall, our ancestors, are they not?
The parsimonious assumption is that the
first bipeds were identical in all other
respects to their chimp cousins. Of course,
as we examine the detail we will adjust that
assumption for particular traits. Clearly they
would have been in a new niche:
(a) They would not have slept in trees;
(b) Sleeping on the ground would have
resulted in nakedness -- especially for
infants;
(c) Subcutaneous fat would have started
-- especially for infants, and therefore
also for females (mothers would need
to be fat to be able to pass it on to
infants);
(d) Infant altriciality would have developed
(e) And so on . . .
But there is no _particular_ reason for a
radical change in 'sociality'.
>> That kind of thing can evolve only slowly.
>
> I agree.
Since a new niche can open up almost
overnight (on an evolutionary timescale)
involving drastic changes in morphology
and behaviour in the species involved.
I can't see how you can maintain that
'sociality' is the driving force.
Not merely is it non-parsimonious.
It just can't work. Nature does not provide
sufficient time. The opportunity will be
gone before it can be exploited.
>> > Tool-usage is part of the larger scenario. Tool usage is not and could
>> > not be the "selective engine" of human intelligence.
>>
>> Well, it's mostly weapon use that matters.
>> But why couldn't both have been the
>> 'selective engine' ?
>
> Well, for one thing, the fact that chimps do (and probably have been
> for millions of years) use tools kind of pulls the rug out on the
> dimwitted tool-usage-leads-to-hominid-like-intelligence notion
It's not occasional use that counts -- its
_specialisation_ in that use. Tool use
is not integral to the life of any other
species. If they lost that ability, no one
would suggest that the species would go
extinct. Whereas tool and weapon use
was crucial to early hominid existence.
They'd have been extinct within a couple
of generations without it.
> that
> (although they will now deny it) has been the basis of virtually all
> hypothetical thinking on the earliest years of hominid evolution. It's
> just an idiotic notion. lots of animals can be said to employ tools in
> one manner or the other. Birds build nests for example. But we don't
> see any trend for increased intelligence in birds.
Nesting by birds is a highly specialised
instinctive behaviour, not unlike that seen
in insects. While a fair amount of hominid
tool-use may have ALSO followed that
pattern, there was always enormous scope
for selection of better (instinctive) methods.
The instinctive nest-building in birds is not
readily adaptable to other purposes.
>> Those better at both
>> survived. For example -- at the initial stages
>> -- the ones that were better able to maintain
>> a bipedal stance were therefore better at
>> using (and retaining) their tools and
>> weapons.
>
> Well, looking beyond it's rather obvious just-so-story aspects,
Eh? You asked how selection could have
worked in tool-usage. I told you. There is
absolutely no 'just-so' involved.
> it's
> just a simpleminded notion that fails to explain (or lead to a scenario
> that explains) so many of the traits that distinguish humans from all
> other species. For just one example (as I indicated previously)
> there's absolutely no good reason to expect that a tool-using ape would
> necessarily develop language.
Did I claim there was? No evolutionary
scenario should make such a claim.
A hominid society without a highly-
developed language is perfectly
conceivable. Do you deny this?
>> >> Read the evidence. Chimps and other primates
>> >> are highly intelligent. They CAN plan ahead.
>> >> Tool use (and retention) was the one thing
>> >> that allowed our ancestors to begin to make
>> >> the huge jump.
>> >
>> > Dogs too are intelligent but they are disinclined to tool usage.
>>
>> You do need 'hands' of some sort. If dogs,
>> or dolphins or elephants had hands, they
>> could have been the first to specialise in
>> tool use.
>
> Chimps have hands (and have had them for millions of years).
You keep goring around in circles.
Surely you know that? There are
several requirements for hominid
evolution; all have to be present.
> Why didn't they benefit from the same just-so-story
> nonsense that you propose.
As I have told you dozens of times. they
sleep in trees and not able to retain tools
and weapons for regular use. They are
not able to start to specialise in their use,
nor rely on their existence. They are
obliged to keep their razor-sharp canines,
and so they only rarely resort to the use
of clubs and stones.
Paul.
Jim McGinn
> Clearly they
> would have been in a new niche:
> (a) They would not have slept in trees;
Paul, the juxtaposition of these two sentences demonstrates what a
complete whacko you are. Normally when people mention niche the next
step is to delineate the environment, climate, competing species.
Instead you fast forward to sleeping in trees!
> But there is no _particular_ reason for a
> radical change in 'sociality'.
There is in my scenario. (You seem to not realize that you just
admitted that you can't describe the selective origins of hominid
sociality.)
> Since a new niche can open up almost
> overnight (on an evolutionary timescale)
> involving drastic changes in morphology
> and behaviour in the species involved.
> I can't see how you can maintain that
> 'sociality' is the driving force.
Well, obviously I can see it.
> Not merely is it non-parsimonious.
> It just can't work. Nature does not provide
> sufficient time. The opportunity will be
> gone before it can be exploited.
Well, if you ever come up with any kind of specific objection I'll be
glad to address it.
> It's not occasional use that counts -- its
> _specialisation_ in that use.
Specifically?
> Tool use
> is not integral to the life of any other
> species. If they lost that ability, no one
> would suggest that the species would go
> extinct. Whereas tool and weapon use
> was crucial to early hominid existence.
> They'd have been extinct within a couple
> of generations without it.
Specifically?
>> that
>> (although they will now deny it) has been the basis of virtually all
>> hypothetical thinking on the earliest years of hominid evolution. It's
>> just an idiotic notion. lots of animals can be said to employ tools in
>> one manner or the other. Birds build nests for example. But we don't
>> see any trend for increased intelligence in birds.
>
> Nesting by birds is a highly specialised
This is an especially stupid comment because you just inferred the
opposite above.
> instinctive behaviour, not unlike that seen
> in insects. While a fair amount of hominid
> tool-use may have ALSO followed that
> pattern, there was always enormous scope
> for selection of better (instinctive) methods.
> The instinctive nest-building in birds is not
> readily adaptable to other purposes.
>
>>> Those better at both
>>> survived. For example -- at the initial stages
>>> -- the ones that were better able to maintain
>>> a bipedal stance were therefore better at
>>> using (and retaining) their tools and
>>> weapons.
>>
>> Well, looking beyond it's rather obvious just-so-story aspects,
>
> Eh? You asked how selection could have
> worked in tool-usage. I told you. There is
> absolutely no 'just-so' involved.
It's the epitome of a just-so story.
>> it's
>> just a simpleminded notion that fails to explain (or lead to a scenario
>> that explains) so many of the traits that distinguish humans from all
>> other species. For just one example (as I indicated previously)
>> there's absolutely no good reason to expect that a tool-using ape would
>> necessarily develop language.
>
> Did I claim there was?
It's funny that you don't seem to realize that you just admitted that
your scenario fails to explain the origins of one of the traits that is
most peculiar to humans.
> No evolutionary
> scenario should make such a claim.
Mine does. And any selective scenario that doesn't is worthless if it
doesn't.
> A hominid society without a highly-
> developed language is perfectly
> conceivable. Do you deny this?
Depends what you mean my hightly developed. Obviously it evolved like
anything else.
>>> >> Read the evidence. Chimps and other primates
>>> >> are highly intelligent. They CAN plan ahead.
>>> >> Tool use (and retention) was the one thing
>>> >> that allowed our ancestors to begin to make
>>> >> the huge jump.
>>> >
>>> > Dogs too are intelligent but they are disinclined to tool usage.
>>>
>>> You do need 'hands' of some sort. If dogs,
>>> or dolphins or elephants had hands, they
>>> could have been the first to specialise in
>>> tool use.
>>
>> Chimps have hands (and have had them for millions of years).
>
> You keep goring around in circles.
> Surely you know that? There are
> several requirements for hominid
> evolution; all have to be present.
Let me guess, in your mind number one on the list is sleeping in trees
with clubs. I honestly don't know how you expect anybody to take your
nonsense seriously. You seem to just have no concept of how evolution
actually works.
>> Why didn't they benefit from the same just-so-story
>> nonsense that you propose.
>
> As I have told you dozens of times. they
> sleep in trees
I called it!
Paul Crowley
>> Clearly they
>> would have been in a new niche:
>> (a) They would not have slept in trees;
>
> Paul, the juxtaposition of these two sentences demonstrates what a
> complete whacko you are. Normally when people mention niche the next
> step is to delineate the environment, climate, competing species.
Those are all important.
> Instead you fast forward to sleeping in trees!
Sure. It's a paraphrase. Getting away from
trees was not possible without isolation and
the prior removal of large predators. But it
marks the enormous distinction between the
chimp line and the homo line.
<Snip of stuff discussed enlessly before>
>> A hominid society without a highly-
>> developed language is perfectly
>> conceivable. Do you deny this?
>
> Depends what you mean my hightly developed.
Actually a hominid society without ANY
language is perfectly conceivable. Do
you deny this?
> Obviously it evolved like anything else.
Yes, but the point is that it does not appear
to be necessary for hominid existence. It is a
'luxury' -- an 'add -on', very slowly developed
and expanded over millions of years. That is
why no one (including you) can explain it,
nor account for it.
Language does not fit into any evolutionary
theory, because it is could not have formed
part of any selective mechanism which
distinguished hominids from other taxa.
Paul.
Jim McGinn
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:JjVcg.9478$j7.3...@news.indigo.ie...
> "Jim McGinn" <jimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1148442045.6...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> Clearly they
>>> would have been in a new niche:
>>> (a) They would not have slept in trees;
>>
>> Paul, the juxtaposition of these two sentences demonstrates what a
>> complete whacko you are. Normally when people mention niche the next
>> step is to delineate the environment, climate, competing species.
>
> Those are all important.
>
>> Instead you fast forward to sleeping in trees!
>
> Sure. It's a paraphrase. Getting away from
> trees
Why would you assume they needed to get away from trees? In my
hypothesis treeless habitat is dominated by large migratory mammals and
large predators. Treed habitat was their haven. Except for occasional
forays to get from one treed location to another there was little
benefit to leaving treed habitat for early hominids (Apith).
> was not possible without isolation and
> the prior removal of large predators.
Exactly the opposite is the case in my scenario. In my scenario
isolation is caused by the patchiness of treed habitat and the fact
that large predators dominate the surrounding treeless habitat--as is
typical of monsoon climate habitat.
> But it
> marks the enormous distinction between the
> chimp line and the homo line.
>
> <Snip of stuff discussed enlessly before>
>
>
>>> A hominid society without a highly-
>>> developed language is perfectly
>>> conceivable. Do you deny this?
>>
>> Depends what you mean my hightly developed.
>
> Actually a hominid society without ANY
> language is perfectly conceivable. Do
> you deny this?
Since even chimps can be said to have some degree of language, yes, I
deny it.
>> Obviously it evolved like anything else.
>
> Yes, but the point is that it does not appear
> to be necessary for hominid existence.
Don't assume that what appears in your imagination appears in everybody
else's imaginations.
> It is a
> 'luxury' -- an 'add -on', very slowly developed
> and expanded over millions of years.
In my hypothesis it is essential. More importantly my hypothesis
provides the selective context from which it can begin to evolve.
> That is
> why no one (including you) can explain it,
> nor account for it.
>
> Language does not fit into any evolutionary
> theory, because it is could not have formed
> part of any selective mechanism which
> distinguished hominids from other taxa.
Any theory of hominid evolution that does not describe the selective
basis for language and any and all hominid peculiarities is worthless.
Paul Crowley
>> Sure. It's a paraphrase. Getting away from
>> trees
>
> Why would you assume they needed to get away from trees?
It's getting away from 'sleeping trees' (as I'm
sure you knew). There are (and were) numerous
areas where hominids could live, which would
not have had such trees. An ability to expand
into them was an enormous selective benefit.
> In my
> hypothesis treeless habitat is dominated by large migratory mammals and
> large predators. Treed habitat was their haven. Except for occasional
> forays to get from one treed location to another there was little
> benefit to leaving treed habitat for early hominids (Apith).
But that's exactly how chimps live.
(a) IF your scenario had any basis, then
hominids would have had a morphology
identical to chimps;
(b) Your 'hominids' would never be able
to avoid continual inter-breeding with
chimps. Speciation would be impossible.
>> <Snip of stuff discussed enlessly before>
>> Actually a hominid society without ANY
>> language is perfectly conceivable. Do
>> you deny this?
>
> Since even chimps can be said to have some degree of language, yes, I
> deny it.
Dodge. Worms could be said to have
"some degree of language".
>>> Obviously it evolved like anything else.
>>
>> Yes, but the point is that it does not appear
>> to be necessary for hominid existence.
>
> Don't assume that what appears in your imagination appears in everybody
> else's imaginations.
Almost everyone who has considered these
issues shares my point of view. No one (as far
as I know) shares yours. Many people have
suggested that (for example) Homo erectus did
not have language . . . on the basis of certain
physiological features. Many others have
thought that language did not develop until
quite late.
>> It is a
>> 'luxury' -- an 'add -on', very slowly developed
>> and expanded over millions of years.
>
> In my hypothesis it is essential. More importantly my hypothesis
> provides the selective context from which it can begin to evolve.
You don't have an hypothesis. You
have one or two exceedingly vague ideas
-- mostly relying upon some huge but
basic misconceptions about human
evolution and evolution in general.
>> That is
>> why no one (including you) can explain it,
>> nor account for it.
>>
>> Language does not fit into any evolutionary
>> theory, because it is could not have formed
>> part of any selective mechanism which
>> distinguished hominids from other taxa.
>
> Any theory of hominid evolution that does not describe the selective
> basis for language and any and all hominid peculiarities is worthless.
Then it's a shame that there are none.
Paul.
Jim McGinn
Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Jim McGinn" <jimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1148468737.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Sure. It's a paraphrase. Getting away from
> >> trees
> >
> > Why would you assume they needed to get away from trees?
>
> It's getting away from 'sleeping trees' (as I'm
> sure you knew). There are (and were) numerous
> areas where hominids could live, which would
> not have had such trees. An ability to expand
> into them was an enormous selective benefit.
In my model these earliest hominids would never have ventured far from
trees.
> > In my
> > hypothesis treeless habitat is dominated by large migratory mammals and
> > large predators. Treed habitat was their haven. Except for occasional
> > forays to get from one treed location to another there was little
> > benefit to leaving treed habitat for early hominids (Apith).
>
> But that's exactly how chimps live.
> (a) IF your scenario had any basis, then
> hominids would have had a morphology
> identical to chimps;
Why identical? Afterall, my model indicates selective factors
(sociality, rock-throwing and stick-wielding, bipedalism) distinct from
chimps. I see no reason to assume that the fact that they are still
residing in treed habitat dictates the chimpanzee morphology. Why you
wish to assume this is a mystery that will never explain.
> (b) Your 'hominids' would never be able
> to avoid continual inter-breeding with
> chimps. Speciation would be impossible.
Why do you assume this? (Keep in mind, I don't have direct access to
your imagination.)
> >> <Snip of stuff discussed enlessly before>
>
> >> Actually a hominid society without ANY
> >> language is perfectly conceivable. Do
> >> you deny this?
> >
> > Since even chimps can be said to have some degree of language, yes, I
> > deny it.
>
> Dodge. Worms could be said to have
> "some degree of language".
Uh? Yeah, so?
> >>> Obviously it evolved like anything else.
> >>
> >> Yes, but the point is that it does not appear
> >> to be necessary for hominid existence.
> >
> > Don't assume that what appears in your imagination appears in everybody
> > else's imaginations.
>
> Almost everyone who has considered these
> issues shares my point of view. No one (as far
> as I know) shares yours.
Five hundred years ago most people believe the earth was the center of
the universe. Fortunately concensus does not determine scientific
truth.
> Many people have
> suggested that (for example) Homo erectus did
> not have language . . . on the basis of certain
> physiological features. Many others have
> thought that language did not develop until
> quite late.
Evidence?
> >> It is a
> >> 'luxury' -- an 'add -on', very slowly developed
> >> and expanded over millions of years.
> >
> > In my hypothesis it is essential. More importantly my hypothesis
> > provides the selective context from which it can begin to evolve.
>
> You don't have an hypothesis. You
> have one or two exceedingly vague ideas
> -- mostly relying upon some huge but
> basic misconceptions about human
> evolution and evolution in general.
Yeah, right.
> >> That is
> >> why no one (including you) can explain it,
> >> nor account for it.
> >>
> >> Language does not fit into any evolutionary
> >> theory, because it is could not have formed
> >> part of any selective mechanism which
> >> distinguished hominids from other taxa.
> >
> > Any theory of hominid evolution that does not describe the selective
> > basis for language and any and all hominid peculiarities is worthless.
>
> Then it's a shame that there are none.
Except mine.
MClark
news:1148394319....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
豕Human evolution began when the climate suddenly shifted from
rainforest
to a monsoon climate豕. - Jim McGinn
Really ? When was this supposed to have happened? Did the Himalayas
suddenly rise up and produce humanity?
Did chimps, orangs and gorillas only start using tools in the last few
years that we扉e been looking at them? Or could it be possible that
they扉e been using them for aeons?
Did chimps and gorillas suddenly become humans when they became more
social?
If so, why didn愒 baboons (more social than either) become a bit more
human?
In short, why don愒 you two (Crowley & McGinn) stop insulting each
other as dimwits (you扉e obviously put a deal of thought into your
respective positions) and get together to produce a Grand Theory that
will put PAs (about the only thing on which I agree with both of you)
in their place?
regards
Richard
Actually, Dickie, I put you in the same gaggle as those other two doofai
--for the the same reasons: arrogance and bigotry. Things a little slow
over at the Verhaegen Mutual Admiration Society?
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
'O, Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."
--Voltaire
Marc Verhaegen
"MClark" <m...@work.com> wrote in message
news:YXPdg.10063$8T4....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
...
> --for the the same reasons: arrogance and bigotry. Things a little slow
> over at the Verhaegen Mutual Admiration Society?
:-D
Still frustrated, my little boy?
Still believing in your savanna nonsense?
Already found 1 little objection to AAT?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
AAT (shoreline adaptations of the genus Homo) is based on the
behavior-anatomy-physiology-DNA of living humans vs. chimps & other animals.
Sea/lake-side ancestors collecting coconuts, fruits, bird eggs, turtles,
shell-, crayfish, algae etc. explains unique Homo traits (not seen in apes
or australopiths) better than plains- or forest-dwelling : brain size,
diving skills, breath control, vocality, small mouth & chewing muscles,
tongue bone descent, longer airway, projecting nose, poor sense of smell,
handiness, tool use, late puberty, long legs, aligned body, poor climbing,
fur loss, fatness, high needs of water, sodium, iodine & poly-unsaturated
fatty acids etc.
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
Homo & Pan split ~6-4 Ma. Most likely, Homo populations dispersed along
coasts & rivers, in savannas & elsewhere : in spite of sea level
fluctuations (difficult fossilisation), Homo tools/fossils 2.5-0.1 Ma are
found near Rift valley lakes, Indian Ocean & African coasts : Mojokerto,
Dungo V Baia Farta, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea etc. (18 km sea crossing
to reach Flores http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:447112E5...@hotmMOVEail.com...
>
> >> > How does it provide that? Show the steps supported by the archaeological
> >> > record...
> >>
> >> There is the rapid diminution in the size of
> >> canines. These are the primary weapon-
> >> systems of large primates. It makes sense to
> >> assume that they had rendered their large
> >> canines largely redundant by the introduction
> >> of other weaponry.
> >
> > Or a change in diet.
>
> Total nonsense. Firstly, all primates and
> many other mammals (especially the males)
> have large canines, in spite of huge differences
> in diet. Large canines have little role in diet.
> They are the weaponry of choice for defence.
>
> Secondly, there was no major change in diet
> from chimps to early hominids. Humans still
> eat 'chimp food'.
And yet, our teeth have changed despite still eating "chimp food". It's
reflected in the fossil evidence.
Rich Travsky
> "Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:4471117F...@hotmMOVEail.com...
>
> >> Most modern PA people believe that early hominids
> >> did not use tools. Did Leakey have a different view?
> >> (I'd be surprised if he did.) His 'handy man' was far
> >> from early.
> >
> > Please name some of those "most modern PA people" who believe
> > this.
>
> As I say in a parallel post, it is almost impossible
> to find a clear statement of belief in anything
> from any modern PA. One can only go on
> vague impressions from the things that they
> don't say.
Name some of these "most modern PA people"... You CAN, can't you?
> >> > The discovery that chimps make and use tools shook things up.
> >>
> >> That's very recent, and not really absorbed.
> >> Bipedalism is still explained (insofar as PA
> >> people ever pretend to explain it) with a
> >> series of idiotic ideas, such as standing
> >> tall in the midday sun, or finding the gaps
> >> between the trees a bit more each year,
> >> or wading in water ( . . . joke).
> >
> > Not really absorbed? Tool us in chimps goes back to Goodall. It's
> > been very well assimilated. Show, with cites/examples. that it
> > hasn't been absorbed.
>
> The standard (and unquestioned) belief is
> that early hominids spent the first few million
> years sleeping in trees -- in the same way as
> chimps. Apart from the fact that they would
> have thereforefore had an identical life-style
> to chimps, and no need to change morphology,
> they would also have found it impossible to
> retain tools and weapons.
? This is supposed to address that the knowledge of tool use in chimps
is "not really absorbed"?????
> >> >> Darwin also knew that this characteristic was
> >> >> the basis of bipedalism. The first 'hominids'
> >> >
> >> > How did Darwin "know" this?
> >>
> >> He applied simple logic to simple observations
> >> and, with much thought, came to sound
> >> conclusions. (PA people have long forgotten
> >> how to make simple observations, simple
> >> logic has always been beyond them, as has
> >> any capacity for thought.)
> >
> > Darwin's simple observations included chimps in the wild?
>
> Nope. Somehow he managed without.
> But then he could think.
Then WHAT did he base his observations on and extend that to humans???? Thinking
alone is insufficient without something to base it on.
> >> >> were chimps who stood upright because they
> >> >> needed to use their hands for other purposes:
> >> >> namely the holding of tools -- or more crucially,
> >> >> weapons.
> >> >
> >> > Kortlandt documented weapons use some time ago.
> >>
> >> True, but it has not been absorbed into PA
> >> thinking. Weapons are nasty things and
> >> not politically correct.
> >
> > Why? Weapons are good archaelogical finds.
>
> I don't think any fossil artefact dating from
> before ~15 kya is ever regarded as a weapon.
> 'Hand axes' are thought to be used for
> chopping trees -- or some such.
Again with the unsupported "not absorbed" claims...
> >> >> Chimpanzees can do this now. But life in the
> >> >> trees is not compatible with the retention of
> >> >> tools and weapons. It is very hard to keep or
> >> >> carry them while climbing or sleeping in a tree.
> >> >
> >> > Carry tools while sleeping in a tree? How did they carry them while
> >> > sleeping on the ground?
> >>
> >> Err. . . you don't need to carry them when
> >> you sleep on the ground. You can lie on
> >> them, or even hold on to them all night.
> >
> > Err. . . you're the one who stated it as carrying them while
> > sleeping in a tree. Chimps build nests, the tools could easily
> > be placed there.
>
> Nonsense. Have you ever tried to climb a
> large tree while carrying something large
> or heavy? Can you conceive of doing it in
> the dark? Or using a heavy weapon in the
> tree (against, say, a leopard) in the dark?
Have you ever watched kids playing on playground equipment? Not a problem.
Paul Crowley
news:44839B01...@hotmMOVEail.com...
>> >> There is the rapid diminution in the size of
>> >> canines. These are the primary weapon-
>> >> systems of large primates. It makes sense to
>> >> assume that they had rendered their large
>> >> canines largely redundant by the introduction
>> >> of other weaponry.
>> >
>> > Or a change in diet.
>>
>> Total nonsense. Firstly, all primates and
>> many other mammals (especially the males)
>> have large canines, in spite of huge differences
>> in diet. Large canines have little role in diet.
>> They are the weaponry of choice for defence.
>>
>> Secondly, there was no major change in diet
>> from chimps to early hominids. Humans still
>> eat 'chimp food'.
>
> And yet, our teeth have changed despite still eating "chimp food". It's
> reflected in the fossil evidence.
Sure, we began to use tools and fire to
'prepare' our food.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> >> Most modern PA people believe that early hominids
>> >> did not use tools. Did Leakey have a different view?
>> >> (I'd be surprised if he did.) His 'handy man' was far
>> >> from early.
>> >
>> > Please name some of those "most modern PA people" who believe
>> > this.
>>
>> As I say in a parallel post, it is almost impossible
>> to find a clear statement of belief in anything
>> from any modern PA. One can only go on
>> vague impressions from the things that they
>> don't say.
>
> Name some of these "most modern PA people"... You CAN, can't you?
List any names. As I say, the problem is to find
out whether they have any opinions on anything
at all. They express doubts and uncertainties,
but are nearly always too useless and too
frightened to say anything positive.
Take a look at Lee Olsen -- as good an example
as any. He SEEMS to believe that since we can't
find fossil evidence for wooden tools before
appearance of the first stone ones then they
could not have existed. Of course, he will never
make a statement as clear as that. But nor will
he ever deny it. Obscurity and vacuity are the
cornerstones of modern PA.
>> >> > The discovery that chimps make and use tools shook things up.
>> >>
>> >> That's very recent, and not really absorbed.
>> >> Bipedalism is still explained (insofar as PA
>> >> people ever pretend to explain it) with a
>> >> series of idiotic ideas, such as standing
>> >> tall in the midday sun, or finding the gaps
>> >> between the trees a bit more each year,
>> >> or wading in water ( . . . joke).
>> >
>> > Not really absorbed? Tool us in chimps goes back to Goodall. It's
>> > been very well assimilated. Show, with cites/examples. that it
>> > hasn't been absorbed.
>>
>> The standard (and unquestioned) belief is
>> that early hominids spent the first few million
>> years sleeping in trees -- in the same way as
>> chimps. Apart from the fact that they would
>> have thereforefore had an identical life-style
>> to chimps, and no need to change morphology,
>> they would also have found it impossible to
>> retain tools and weapons.
>
> ? This is supposed to address that the knowledge of tool use in chimps
> is "not really absorbed"?????
Yep. Standard PA has not yet reached the
stage of joined-up handwriting. Only a
complete fool would want to believe that
a tree-sleeping 'hominid' could retain its
weapons and tools from one day to the
next. So naturally PA has no problem in
thinking that way.
>> >> >> Darwin also knew that this characteristic was
>> >> >> the basis of bipedalism. The first 'hominids'
>> >> >
>> >> > How did Darwin "know" this?
>> >>
>> >> He applied simple logic to simple observations
>> >> and, with much thought, came to sound
>> >> conclusions. (PA people have long forgotten
>> >> how to make simple observations, simple
>> >> logic has always been beyond them, as has
>> >> any capacity for thought.)
>> >
>> > Darwin's simple observations included chimps in the wild?
>>
>> Nope. Somehow he managed without.
>> But then he could think.
>
> Then WHAT did he base his observations on and extend that to humans????
> Thinking alone is insufficient without something to base it on.
He had seen live chimps, and other primates.
It is not too hard to identify the major
differences and the reasons for them.
>> >> >> were chimps who stood upright because they
>> >> >> needed to use their hands for other purposes:
>> >> >> namely the holding of tools -- or more crucially,
>> >> >> weapons.
>> >> >
>> >> > Kortlandt documented weapons use some time ago.
>> >>
>> >> True, but it has not been absorbed into PA
>> >> thinking. Weapons are nasty things and
>> >> not politically correct.
>> >
>> > Why? Weapons are good archaelogical finds.
>>
>> I don't think any fossil artefact dating from
>> before ~15 kya is ever regarded as a weapon.
>> 'Hand axes' are thought to be used for
>> chopping trees -- or some such.
>
> Again with the unsupported "not absorbed" claims...
Eh? I spell it out, yet you cannot manage to
read the words. Or maybe you can read them
but not absorb their meaning. It's pretty much
the same kind of failure as when PA people
read the fossil record. They see HUGE
numbers of weapons, but 'see' them as being
for chopping wood, or sumding.
>> >> >> Chimpanzees can do this now. But life in the
>> >> >> trees is not compatible with the retention of
>> >> >> tools and weapons. It is very hard to keep or
>> >> >> carry them while climbing or sleeping in a tree.
>> >> >
>> >> > Carry tools while sleeping in a tree? How did they carry them while
>> >> > sleeping on the ground?
>> >>
>> >> Err. . . you don't need to carry them when
>> >> you sleep on the ground. You can lie on
>> >> them, or even hold on to them all night.
>> >
>> > Err. . . you're the one who stated it as carrying them while
>> > sleeping in a tree. Chimps build nests, the tools could easily
>> > be placed there.
>>
>> Nonsense. Have you ever tried to climb a
>> large tree while carrying something large
>> or heavy? Can you conceive of doing it in
>> the dark? Or using a heavy weapon in the
>> tree (against, say, a leopard) in the dark?
>
> Have you ever watched kids playing on playground equipment? Not a problem.
One thing you DON'T see in playgrounds is
kids carrying things up on to the equipment.
Occasionally, one mischievous kid might try;
but he (it's always a boy) will be stopped by
the supervisors, because it is dangerous.
Kids occasionally carry things up to their
'tree houses' -- but often with disastrous
results. Our neighbour's kids managed to
strangle their dog.
Paul.
Lee Olsen
<snipping delusional rubbish from the man who has proven he can't
count.......>
For example....
Message-ID: <3Uzfg.9822$j7.3...@news.indigo.ie>
Date: 1 Jun 2006 12:06:00 +0100
Paul Crowley wrote: "Great. You've found ONE sea-side location with
minimal erosion in the past 8,400 years."
Message-ID: <1149169725....@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Date: 1 Jun 2006 06:48:45 -0700
Lee Olsen replied: "ONE? Previously cited examples of raised beach
evidence in this thread by me:
1) Hoxne, England.
2) Boxgrove, England
3) Wadi Hitan, Egypt.
4) Table Bay, South Africa.
5) Morocco, Africa.
6) Butchered whale, Angola, Africa.
Please feel free to return to this debate when 1) you learn how to
count or 2) you learn how to stop telling lies.... "
Rick Wagler
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:44839EDA...@hotmMOVEail.com...
>
>>> >> Most modern PA people believe that early hominids
>>> >> did not use tools. Did Leakey have a different view?
>>> >> (I'd be surprised if he did.) His 'handy man' was far
>>> >> from early.
>>> >
>>> > Please name some of those "most modern PA people" who believe
>>> > this.
>>>
>>> As I say in a parallel post, it is almost impossible
>>> to find a clear statement of belief in anything
>>> from any modern PA. One can only go on
>>> vague impressions from the things that they
>>> don't say.
>>
>> Name some of these "most modern PA people"... You CAN, can't you?
>
> List any names. As I say, the problem is to find
> out whether they have any opinions on anything
> at all. They express doubts and uncertainties,
> but are nearly always too useless and too
> frightened to say anything positive.
>
of PA lit again eh Paul...
> Take a look at Lee Olsen -- as good an example
> as any. He SEEMS to believe that since we can't
> find fossil evidence for wooden tools before
> appearance of the first stone ones then they
> could not have existed. Of course, he will never
> make a statement as clear as that. But nor will
> he ever deny it. Obscurity and vacuity are the
> cornerstones of modern PA.
>
We've all learned over the years that what seems to Paul
Crowley is a short ride to Cloud Cuckoo Land. Since, by
your own admissin, Paul, Lee has not said he believes wooden
tools did not or could not predate stone tools what the hell
does it matter what seems to you? Your just like McGinn.
Refusing to argue beyond the evidence is "being vague"
Of course eschewing vagueness of this sort is necessary
prerequisite to proving dog domestication among the a'piths.
So go ahead, Paul. Why couldn't they? Not the same
as saying they did. But what a priori makes the notion
absurd or impossible?
Rick Wagler
Paul Crowley
>>>> The standard (and unquestioned) belief is
>>>> that early hominids spent the first few million
>>>> years sleeping in trees -- in the same way as
>>>> chimps. Apart from the fact that they would
>>>> have thereforefore had an identical life-style
>>>> to chimps, and no need to change morphology,
>>>> they would also have found it impossible to
>>>> retain tools and weapons.
>>>
>>> ? This is supposed to address that the knowledge of tool use in chimps
>>> is "not really absorbed"?????
>>
>> Yep. Standard PA has not yet reached the
>> stage of joined-up handwriting. Only a
>> complete fool would want to believe that
>> a tree-sleeping 'hominid' could retain its
>> weapons and tools from one day to the
>> next. So naturally PA has no problem in
>> thinking that way.
>>
> So go ahead, Paul. Why couldn't they? Not the same
> as saying they did.
Naturally -- being trained in the PA
tradition, you are now incapable of
saying anything.
> But what a priori makes the notion
> absurd or impossible?
The notion that hominids EVER slept in
trees is ludicrous and absurd -- on
numerous grounds. But the most obvious
is that which Darwin realised around 150
years ago: a quadrupedal animal became
bipedal (and much slower) so that it could
use weapons and tools. That meant that
it _habitually_ used them. We also know
(which Darwin did not) that at the same
time, and very rapidly, the taxon lost its
large canines. A primate cannot become
'permanently attached' to such a weapon
if it retreats every night to trees. It will
discard the weapon as soon as it starts to
climb. So it will never lose its large canines,
and never become bipedal. (Not that a
tree-living animal would become bipedal
in any event.)
Paul.
Day Brown
The Bonobo, not the Chimp, carry herbivore bone shards to use as digging
tools. The Bonobo dig tubers, and because of the grit, evolved the
thickest dentine of all primates but one: the hominids.
Chimp males are 200-300% larger than females.
Bonobo males are 20-30% larger than females, the same as hominids.
Chimp females have an obvious estrus flush and odor.
Bonobo females have no obvious sign of fertility; thus the males dont
try to control the sexual activity of the females. The efforts of the
hominid males havent been very successful either.
Bonobo females engage in lesbian sex, there is only one other primate
which does this: the hominids.
The Chimp males inevitably resort to violence to establish alpha males.
The Bonobo males never resort to violence; hominid practice varies.
Day Brown
use as digging tools, (to extract tubers) its reasonable to assume that
hominds did the same. But since the Bonobo lived in the jungle with very
soft duff, and the Hominids lived on the savannah where the dirt can get
very hard, I'd expect them to prefer longer stout sticks.
The instinctive effect of this can still be seen in the hand of any two
year old just starting to walk. If he finds a stick, he starts whacking
schitt with it. I'm sure that *all* the predators soon passed the word
to watch out for the monkey with the stick. Hominids didnt need sharp
teeth anymore. I think this is also the era when the shoulder joint
evolved to become more effective at throwing sticks and rocks.
With sticks and rocks a group of hominids could go to sleep anywhere on
the savannah as long as they had some nightowls to watch over them.
Which is another instinct that is still with us.
Considering the video I've seen of all other large predators disputing a
kill, I see they routinely stay just outside the range of tooth & claw.
The use of a stick to extend that range to several times longer than the
apparent size of the hominid- must have been a real wake-up call.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Paul Crowley wrote:
> The notion that hominids EVER slept in
> trees is ludicrous and absurd -- on
> numerous grounds.
I don't know why you are so obsessed with something so trivial.
> But the most obvious
> is that which Darwin realised around 150
> years ago: a quadrupedal animal became
> bipedal (and much slower) so that it could
> use weapons and tools.
Paul, your thinking is incredibly simpleminded. Firstly tool/weapon
usage for the original chimplike hominids is only useful (adaptive) in
the context of very large groups with territorialistic ends (they'd
have originally been useless against predators). And under "normal,"
chimpanzee environmental conditions they don't form very large groups
and aren't really all that territorialistic. Therefore there must have
been some kind of shift in environmental conditions (ie. a change in
climate, habitat, and/or competitive species) that would cause them to
have no choice but to begin forming larger groups and to become more
territorialistic. IOW, until you describe a shift in enviornmental
conditions that force them to be more communally territorialistic you
don't have the basis for putting weapons/tools in their hands even on a
temporary basis. In my scenario it is the shift to seasonal
dessication (monsoon forest habitat) that causes the shift in
patchiness of forest, dry season, and competing species (predatory
massacres--feeding frenzies) that gave them no choice but to assume the
communal territorialism that (obviously) underlies the emergence of the
first weapons (rocks and sticks) in the hominid lineage.
You dimwits crack me up because you can't get it through your heads
that hominids are and have always been communal, highly social.
Rick Wagler
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1149796542.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
It's a start....
Rick Wagler
rmacfarl
Rick Wagler wrote:
> <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
...
> > You dimwits crack me up because you can't get it through your heads
> > that hominids are and have always been communal, highly social.
> >
> Congratulations, Jim. You've identified hominids as primates.
>
> It's a start....
LFTPM! Crowley, Jimbo, Mario - Marco, DD & Dickie-boy - even JMH has
been by this month. The loons are back for the summer season...
Now all we need is Algis to make it a full set...
Ross Macfarlane
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Day Brown wrote:
> Since Bonobos have been seen carrying herbivore bone shards around to
> use as digging tools, (to extract tubers) its reasonable to assume that
> hominds did the same. But since the Bonobo lived in the jungle with very
> soft duff, and the Hominids lived on the savannah where the dirt can get
> very hard, I'd expect them to prefer longer stout sticks.
>
> The instinctive effect of this can still be seen in the hand of any two
> year old just starting to walk. If he finds a stick, he starts whacking
> schitt with it. I'm sure that *all* the predators soon passed the word
> to watch out for the monkey with the stick.
incredible nonsense.
Hominids didnt need sharp
> teeth anymore. I think this is also the era when the shoulder joint
> evolved to become more effective at throwing sticks and rocks.
>
> With sticks and rocks a group of hominids could go to sleep anywhere on
> the savannah
The savannah. Savannas are a more recent phenomena. The evidence
indicates that hominids first emerged in monsoon forest habitat, not
savanna.
as long as they had some nightowls to watch over them.
> Which is another instinct that is still with us.
nightowls?
Chapstick
"Day Brown" <dayb...@wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:0Yqhg.162$Pk.1...@news.sisna.com...
> Since Bonobos have been seen carrying herbivore bone shards around to use
> as digging tools, (to extract tubers) its reasonable to assume that
> hominds did the same. But since the Bonobo lived in the jungle with very
> soft duff, and the Hominids lived on the savannah where the dirt can get
> very hard, I'd expect them to prefer longer stout sticks.
>
> The instinctive effect of this can still be seen in the hand of any two
> year old just starting to walk. If he finds a stick, he starts whacking
> schitt with it.
just a mild aside.. not important really to your main point.. but most two
year olds have already been walking for about a year or better... since
walking kicks in at about 9 to 14 months or so. and, the first thing a one
year old does with a stick is put it into their mouth, then whack with it.
only a mild aside... <smile>
--chap
Rich Travsky
Chimps use tools and weapons and haven't shown a similar change...
Rich Travsky
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:44839EDA...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> >> >> Most modern PA people believe that early hominids
> >> >> did not use tools. Did Leakey have a different view?
> >> >> (I'd be surprised if he did.) His 'handy man' was far
> >> >> from early.
> >> >
> >> > Please name some of those "most modern PA people" who believe
> >> > this.
> >>
> >> As I say in a parallel post, it is almost impossible
> >> to find a clear statement of belief in anything
> >> from any modern PA. One can only go on
> >> vague impressions from the things that they
> >> don't say.
> >
> > Name some of these "most modern PA people"... You CAN, can't you?
>
> List any names. As I say, the problem is to find
No, YOU list them, along with supporting quotes. It's YOUR claim,
YOU back it up.
> out whether they have any opinions on anything
> at all. They express doubts and uncertainties,
> but are nearly always too useless and too
> frightened to say anything positive.
>
> Take a look at Lee Olsen -- as good an example
> as any. He SEEMS to believe that since we can't
No, he isn't. Please cite published professional PAs.
You cite NO evidence whatsoever, just a rant on your part. Even humans
can climb while holding something. A chimp even has an advantage in
being able to more easily hold something in their mouth. Chimps hunt
in the trees and they have to hold on to their kill while climbing
about in the trees. In fact, food foraging in the trees is dependent upon
this ability.
> >> >> >> Darwin also knew that this characteristic was
> >> >> >> the basis of bipedalism. The first 'hominids'
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How did Darwin "know" this?
> >> >>
> >> >> He applied simple logic to simple observations
> >> >> and, with much thought, came to sound
> >> >> conclusions. (PA people have long forgotten
> >> >> how to make simple observations, simple
> >> >> logic has always been beyond them, as has
> >> >> any capacity for thought.)
> >> >
> >> > Darwin's simple observations included chimps in the wild?
> >>
> >> Nope. Somehow he managed without.
> >> But then he could think.
> >
> > Then WHAT did he base his observations on and extend that to humans????
> > Thinking alone is insufficient without something to base it on.
>
> He had seen live chimps, and other primates.
> It is not too hard to identify the major
> differences and the reasons for them.
You just said he HADN'T observed chimpanzees in the wild - captive behavior
is going to do it.
> >> >> >> were chimps who stood upright because they
> >> >> >> needed to use their hands for other purposes:
> >> >> >> namely the holding of tools -- or more crucially,
> >> >> >> weapons.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Kortlandt documented weapons use some time ago.
> >> >>
> >> >> True, but it has not been absorbed into PA
> >> >> thinking. Weapons are nasty things and
> >> >> not politically correct.
> >> >
> >> > Why? Weapons are good archaelogical finds.
> >>
> >> I don't think any fossil artefact dating from
> >> before ~15 kya is ever regarded as a weapon.
> >> 'Hand axes' are thought to be used for
> >> chopping trees -- or some such.
> >
> > Again with the unsupported "not absorbed" claims...
>
> Eh? I spell it out, yet you cannot manage to
> read the words. Or maybe you can read them
> but not absorb their meaning. It's pretty much
> the same kind of failure as when PA people
> read the fossil record. They see HUGE
> numbers of weapons, but 'see' them as being
> for chopping wood, or sumding.
Spelling it out doesn't cut it when you can't show or cite any REAL
evidence...
> >> >> >> Chimpanzees can do this now. But life in the
> >> >> >> trees is not compatible with the retention of
> >> >> >> tools and weapons. It is very hard to keep or
> >> >> >> carry them while climbing or sleeping in a tree.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Carry tools while sleeping in a tree? How did they carry them while
> >> >> > sleeping on the ground?
> >> >>
> >> >> Err. . . you don't need to carry them when
> >> >> you sleep on the ground. You can lie on
> >> >> them, or even hold on to them all night.
> >> >
> >> > Err. . . you're the one who stated it as carrying them while
> >> > sleeping in a tree. Chimps build nests, the tools could easily
> >> > be placed there.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. Have you ever tried to climb a
> >> large tree while carrying something large
> >> or heavy? Can you conceive of doing it in
> >> the dark? Or using a heavy weapon in the
> >> tree (against, say, a leopard) in the dark?
> >
> > Have you ever watched kids playing on playground equipment? Not a problem.
>
> One thing you DON'T see in playgrounds is
> kids carrying things up on to the equipment.
Yes, you do. I have a playground on the other side of my fence. They bring toys
up and throw them. Balls, toy planes, etc, even food. Try it yourself.
> Occasionally, one mischievous kid might try;
> but he (it's always a boy) will be stopped by
> the supervisors, because it is dangerous.
>
> Kids occasionally carry things up to their
> 'tree houses' -- but often with disastrous
> results. Our neighbour's kids managed to
> strangle their dog.
A dog will squirm, unlike tools and weapons...
Paul Crowley
Your 'thinking' is as shallow as that of any
wet-aper. The use of weapons has to
become so common and regular that the
natural weapons (the large canines) are,
in effect, redundant. Since they are so
expensive, and so liable to infection, there
will be selection in favour of individuals
with smaller canines.
The chimp use of weapons is both minimal
and irregular. They can never lose their
large canines. Their use of tools for food-
preparation is also trivial, and we would not
expect to see any effect on their dentition.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> >> >> Most modern PA people believe that early hominids
>> >> >> did not use tools. Did Leakey have a different view?
>> >> >> (I'd be surprised if he did.) His 'handy man' was far
>> >> >> from early.
>> >> >
>> >> > Please name some of those "most modern PA people" who believe
>> >> > this.
>> >>
>> >> As I say in a parallel post, it is almost impossible
>> >> to find a clear statement of belief in anything
>> >> from any modern PA. One can only go on
>> >> vague impressions from the things that they
>> >> don't say.
>> >
>> > Name some of these "most modern PA people"... You CAN, can't you?
>>
>> List any names. As I say, the problem is to find
>
> No, YOU list them, along with supporting quotes. It's YOUR claim,
> YOU back it up.
My claim is:
>> >> >> Most modern PA people believe that early hominids
>> >> >> did not use tools.
BUT -- as I have said -- it's virtually impossible
to get a clear statement from any of them. No
one should mind them having beliefs that turn
out to be wrong. What is so appalling is that
they have NO BELIEFS AT ALL. They have
no ideas; their heads are empty vessels. YOU
can prove me wrong by quoting clear statements
from some within, say, the past ten years. But --
be warned. You'll have to search long and hard,
and you'll probably find nothing.
>> Yep. Standard PA has not yet reached the
>> stage of joined-up handwriting. Only a
>> complete fool would want to believe that
>> a tree-sleeping 'hominid' could retain its
>> weapons and tools from one day to the
>> next. So naturally PA has no problem in
>> thinking that way.
>
> You cite NO evidence whatsoever, just a rant on your part. Even humans
> can climb while holding something. A chimp even has an advantage in
> being able to more easily hold something in their mouth. Chimps hunt
> in the trees and they have to hold on to their kill while climbing
> about in the trees. In fact, food foraging in the trees is dependent upon
> this ability.
Chimps CAN do this. Humans CAN do it
as well. But only with difficulty. So they
only do it when absolutely essential. They
will never adopt the inconvenient habit of
taking tools and weapons up into a tree
every night.
THAT is the point.
>> >> >> >> Darwin also knew that this characteristic was
>> >> >> >> the basis of bipedalism. The first 'hominids'
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > How did Darwin "know" this?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> He applied simple logic to simple observations
>> >> >> and, with much thought, came to sound
>> >> >> conclusions. (PA people have long forgotten
>> >> >> how to make simple observations, simple
>> >> >> logic has always been beyond them, as has
>> >> >> any capacity for thought.)
>> >> >
>> >> > Darwin's simple observations included chimps in the wild?
>> >>
>> >> Nope. Somehow he managed without.
>> >> But then he could think.
>> >
>> > Then WHAT did he base his observations on and extend that to humans????
>> > Thinking alone is insufficient without something to base it on.
>>
>> He had seen live chimps, and other primates.
>> It is not too hard to identify the major
>> differences and the reasons for them.
>
> You just said he HADN'T observed chimpanzees in the wild - captive behavior
> is going to do it.
Wild behaviour is much better (and we
have enormous advantages over Darwin
in that respect), but behaviour in captivity
was perfectly adequate for him. But he
had the benefit of intelligence, and was
not brain-dead, like all in modern PA.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
news:1149796542.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> The notion that hominids EVER slept in
>> trees is ludicrous and absurd -- on
>> numerous grounds.
>
> I don't know why you are so obsessed with something so trivial.
It is ordinary day-to-day activity which
determines morphology. Sleep and rest
form a major part of it. There are 12 hours
of darkness in every 24.
>> But the most obvious
>> is that which Darwin realised around 150
>> years ago: a quadrupedal animal became
>> bipedal (and much slower) so that it could
>> use weapons and tools.
>
> Paul, your thinking is incredibly simpleminded.
Thanks. A better compliment could not
be found.
> Firstly tool/weapon
> usage for the original chimplike hominids is only useful (adaptive) in
> the context of very large groups with territorialistic ends
Nope. If I have a weapon and you don't
and there are food (or other) resources
for only one of us, then I will live and
you will die.
> (they'd have originally been useless against predators).
Not really true. While the initial 'descent
from the trees' almost certainly happened
in a location free from predators, the first
hominids would soon have had to confront
them. The hominids could only live in places
where they could achieve a local dominance
over the predators (and the respective
numbers in each place would certainly have
been crucial). But the strength of local
predators would have been THE major
restriction on early hominid habitat.
> And under "normal,"
> chimpanzee environmental conditions they don't form very large groups
> and aren't really all that territorialistic.
Chimps can't afford large groups in places
where the local predators are dominant by
night, and active by day. But chimps are
always territorial.
> Therefore there must have
> been some kind of shift in environmental conditions (ie. a change in
> climate, habitat, and/or competitive species) that would cause them to
> have no choice but to begin forming larger groups and to become more
> territorialistic.
Pure unadulterated crap. If the local
habitat changes (from say forest to, say,
desert or swampland) the forest species
die off. Such changes in habitat happen
all the time.
> IOW, until you describe a shift in enviornmental
> conditions that force them
The 'forcing' error. How bad can you get?
Darwin never made it. Yet it has become
standard in modern PA. It's part of the
vicious circle of ever-increasing stupidity
that has overwhelmed the 'discipline'.
There have been millions of local 'habitat
changes' in the last few hundred (or few
thousand) years. How many new species
have come into existence as a result?
Paul.
Jim McGinn
This is the reason your whole scenario fails. Your scenario requires a
level of consciousness well beyond their abilities. Your scenario
doesn't select for consciousness. It requires it at the outset. Human
evolution is supposed to explain the selective origins of
consciousness. It's not supposed to just assume it. All you're doing
is assuming it.
> Since they are so
> expensive, and so liable to infection, there
> will be selection in favour of individuals
> with smaller canines.
Stupid logic. Loss of canines is a social adaptation.
>
> The chimp use of weapons is both minimal
> and irregular. They can never lose their
> large canines. Their use of tools for food-
> preparation is also trivial, and we would not
> expect to see any effect on their dentition.
Your hypothesis seems to reflect it's author's ignorance about what
hominids/humans are relative to other species (mammals).
Jim McGinn
For tool/weapon usage to have been effective on and individual basis it
would have required the original chimpanzee-like hominids to have had a
level of consciousness and intelligence well beyond their abilties.
Theories on human evolution are about the selective origin of
consciousness and intelligence. They are not about whimsically
pretending that consciousness and intelligence just appeared.
>
> > (they'd have originally been useless against predators).
>
> Not really true.
No. Really true. Consider the evidence.
While the initial 'descent
> from the trees' almost certainly happened
> in a location free from predators,
Why do you assume a, "descent from trees," in the earliest years of
hominid evolution?
the first
> hominids would soon have had to confront
> them. The hominids could only live in places
> where they could achieve a local dominance
> over the predators (and the respective
> numbers in each place would certainly have
> been crucial). But the strength of local
> predators would have been THE major
> restriction on early hominid habitat.
>
> > And under "normal,"
> > chimpanzee environmental conditions they don't form very large groups
> > and aren't really all that territorialistic.
>
> Chimps can't afford large groups in places
> where the local predators are dominant by
> night, and active by day. But chimps are
> always territorial.
The environmental conditions forced large groups. They didn't choose
it.
>
> > Therefore there must have
> > been some kind of shift in environmental conditions (ie. a change in
> > climate, habitat, and/or competitive species) that would cause them to
> > have no choice but to begin forming larger groups and to become more
> > territorialistic.
>
> Pure unadulterated crap.
No. You don't get evolution. Human evolution is, obviously, group
selective. You don't have group selection until you have groups. It's
the geographic factors associated with monsoon habitat (patchiness of
forest) that created the groups and it is the dry season and
competitive implications thereof that created that selection on these
groups.
If the local
> habitat changes (from say forest to, say,
> desert or swampland) the forest species
> die off. Such changes in habitat happen
> all the time.
No. The introduction of monsoon habitat was a unique event.
>
> > IOW, until you describe a shift in enviornmental
> > conditions that force them
>
> The 'forcing' error. How bad can you get?
> Darwin never made it. Yet it has become
> standard in modern PA. It's part of the
> vicious circle of ever-increasing stupidity
> that has overwhelmed the 'discipline'.
>
> There have been millions of local 'habitat
> changes' in the last few hundred (or few
> thousand) years. How many new species
> have come into existence as a result?
The worst part of your thinking is that it starts with your conclusion.
You just jump to the conclusion that chimps would, magically, start
using weapons. You don't even bother to describe the selective origins
of these abilities.
Jim McGinn
Rich Travsky wrote:
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> > >> . . . it is almost impossible
> > >> to find a clear statement of belief in anything
> > >> from any modern PA. One can only go on
> > >> vague impressions from the things that they
> > >> don't say.
> > >
> > > Name some of these "most modern PA people"... You CAN, can't you?
> >
> > List any names.
> > >> As I say, the problem is to find a clear statement of belief in anything
> > >> from any modern PA. One can only go on
> > >> vague impressions from the things that they
> > >> don't say.
> No, YOU list them, along with supporting quotes. It's YOUR claim,
> YOU back it up.
Rich, it's common knowledge that conventional PA has no hypothesis on
the transition from ape to the earliest hominids, with the exception of
a few vague comments about seeing over tall grass (origins of
bipedalism) or other goofier notions like efficiency walking. You
can't quote something that was never stated.
Paul Crowley
>> Your 'thinking' is as shallow as that of any
>> wet-aper. The use of weapons has to
>> become so common and regular that the
>> natural weapons (the large canines) are,
>> in effect, redundant.
>
> This is the reason your whole scenario fails. Your scenario requires a
> level of consciousness well beyond their abilities.
You've forgotten the title of this thread,
and you probably didn't read the original
article. In any case, there is no requirement
for ANY extra 'level of consciousness' for
an ape to become a regular and habitual
user of weapons. Most living chimps could
become so habituated. It merely requires
the right circumstances -- more open ground
and not sleeping in trees. Both would come
about from an absence of large predators in
an isolated location (such as an island).
> Your scenario doesn't select for consciousness.
Yes, it does. There would be selection in
favour of those better at using weapons and
tools, and in favour of those more capable
of improving uses, designs and techniques.
We see much the same process still in
operation today.
> It requires it at the outset.
Quite false.
>> Since they are so
>> expensive, and so liable to infection, there
>> will be selection in favour of individuals
>> with smaller canines.
>
> Stupid logic. Loss of canines is a social adaptation.
So you claim. But you cannot outline
any reasonable selective mechanism, nor
present ANY remotely comparable event
in any other species.
Paul
Jim McGinn
Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Jim McGinn" <jimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1150366921.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Your 'thinking' is as shallow as that of any
> >> wet-aper. The use of weapons has to
> >> become so common and regular that the
> >> natural weapons (the large canines) are,
> >> in effect, redundant.
> >
> > This is the reason your whole scenario fails. Your scenario requires a
> > level of consciousness well beyond their abilities.
>
> You've forgotten the title of this thread,
> and you probably didn't read the original
> article. In any case, there is no requirement
> for ANY extra 'level of consciousness' for
> an ape to become a regular and habitual
> user of weapons. Most living chimps could
> become so habituated. It merely requires
> the right circumstances -- more open ground
> and not sleeping in trees. Both would come
> about from an absence of large predators in
> an isolated location (such as an island).
The selective origins of human consciousness/intelligence have to do
with being members of large groups (communities) that collectively
cooperate toward the end of protecting common territory (city-sized,
town-sized, treed patches of the late miocene monsoon forest habitat)
upon which they depended upon to survive the dry season of their
monsoon habitat. There is no such thing as an ape that will suddenly
start using tools in the relatively sophisticated manner that you
suggest. This is pure nonsense. Moreover, even if they could use
tools/weapons in the manner that you suggest there is no reason for it
to result in a selective scenario that would select for the
intelligence/consciousness that is peculiar to hominids/humans. The
whole paradigm that maintains this nonsense that tool/weapon usage can
lead to the kind of intelligence/consciousness that we see in
hominids/humans is a paradigm that was established by people that are
ignorant of evolutionary theory. It has to do with people that put
labels on early hominids like tool-using and then draw conclusions
based on these labels. Unfortunately this kind of cartoonish approach
to drawing conclusions is well established in this discipline.
See my most recent post in sci.bio.evolution for more details on how
humans actually evolved.
>
> > Your scenario doesn't select for consciousness.
>
> Yes, it does. There would be selection in
> favour of those better at using weapons and
> tools,
Pure nonsense. This kind of selection would select for better
tool-using abilities of the *particular* tool/weapon being used. There
is absolutely no reason to expect it to select for the kind of
consciousness/intelligence peculiar to our species. You have to about
be retarded for this not to be obvious to you.
> and in favour of those more capable
> of improving uses, designs and techniques.
> We see much the same process still in
> operation today.
>
> > It requires it at the outset.
>
> Quite false.
Quite true.
>
> >> Since they are so
> >> expensive, and so liable to infection, there
> >> will be selection in favour of individuals
> >> with smaller canines.
> >
> > Stupid logic. Loss of canines is a social adaptation.
>
> So you claim. But you cannot outline
> any reasonable selective mechanism, nor
> present ANY remotely comparable event
> in any other species.
Human evolution only happened to one species (to the best of our
knowledge).
richard...@yahoo.com
Plonker
John Roth
>
> The selective origins of human consciousness/intelligence have to do
> with being members of large groups (communities) that collectively
> cooperate toward the end of protecting common territory (city-sized,
> town-sized, treed patches of the late miocene monsoon forest habitat)
> upon which they depended upon to survive the dry season of their
> monsoon habitat.
You might want to rethink your position in light of the recent
announcement (yesterday, in fact) that Broca's Area (and the
parallel area on the other side of the brain) is involved in
executive planning.
To put it simply, executive planning (as distinct from being
able to carry out a complex activity) is inextricable linked
with language production. Carrying out a complex activity
is associated with a different brain area.
> There is no such thing as an ape that will suddenly
> start using tools in the relatively sophisticated manner that you
> suggest.
Apes don't have language. They learn by imitation, and accounts
are that they do it better than we do! The research mentioned
above indicates that it should be impossible for an ape to
plan in the same way we do.
John Roth
nickname
information recently announced, I've not heard of it. Do you have a
link or source for this?
DD
Jim McGinn
John Roth wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> >
> > The selective origins of human consciousness/intelligence have to do
> > with being members of large groups (communities) that collectively
> > cooperate toward the end of protecting common territory (city-sized,
> > town-sized, treed patches of the late miocene monsoon forest habitat)
> > upon which they depended upon to survive the dry season of their
> > monsoon habitat.
>
> You might want to rethink your position in light of the recent
> announcement (yesterday, in fact) that Broca's Area (and the
> parallel area on the other side of the brain) is involved in
> executive planning.
Uh, yeah, so? I think you need to explain how this evidence is,
supposedly, inconsistent with my hypothesis. Keep in mind that I don't
have direct access to your imagination.
>
> To put it simply, executive planning (as distinct from being
> able to carry out a complex activity) is inextricable linked
> with language production. Carrying out a complex activity
> is associated with a different brain area.
Okay. But what's your point? How is this supposedly inconsistent with
my hypothesis?
>
> > There is no such thing as an ape that will suddenly
> > start using tools in the relatively sophisticated manner that you
> > suggest.
>
> Apes don't have language. They learn by imitation, and accounts
> are that they do it better than we do! The research mentioned
> above indicates that it should be impossible for an ape to
> plan in the same way we do.
Overlooking the rather idiotic notion that that apes are better at
imitation than humans, I still don't get your point. It seems to me
that this evidence is in agreement that language evolution in the
hominid lineage is a social adaptation that could only emerge as a
result of group selection, like that in my model.
Paul Crowley
>> > This is the reason your whole scenario fails. Your scenario requires a
>> > level of consciousness well beyond their abilities.
>>
>> You've forgotten the title of this thread,
>> and you probably didn't read the original
>> article. In any case, there is no requirement
>> for ANY extra 'level of consciousness' for
>> an ape to become a regular and habitual
>> user of weapons. Most living chimps could
>> become so habituated. It merely requires
>> the right circumstances -- more open ground
>> and not sleeping in trees. Both would come
>> about from an absence of large predators in
>> an isolated location (such as an island).
>
> The selective origins of human consciousness/intelligence have to do
> with being members of large groups (communities) that collectively
> cooperate toward the end of protecting common territory (city-sized,
> town-sized, treed patches of the late miocene monsoon forest habitat)
> upon which they depended upon to survive the dry season of their
> monsoon habitat.
Every part of this fanciful scenario is based
on either plain bad science or extreme
speculation -- or both.
> There is no such thing as an ape that will suddenly
> start using tools in the relatively sophisticated manner that you
> suggest.
There is nothing sophisticated in picking up
a club. In fact chimps go to some trouble to
find and prepare the right kinds when they
are dealing with leopards. The only difference
I propose is that a small population was
sleeping away from trees, allowing each ape
to retain its club on a semi-permanent basis.
> Moreover, even if they could use
> tools/weapons in the manner that you suggest there is no reason for it
> to result in a selective scenario that would select for the
> intelligence/consciousness that is peculiar to hominids/humans.
Give them five or six million years of
working on their weapons and tools,
and it's no problem at all.
> The
> whole paradigm that maintains this nonsense that tool/weapon usage can
> lead to the kind of intelligence/consciousness that we see in
> hominids/humans is a paradigm that was established by people that are
> ignorant of evolutionary theory. It has to do with people that put
> labels on early hominids like tool-using and then draw conclusions
> based on these labels. Unfortunately this kind of cartoonish approach
> to drawing conclusions is well established in this discipline.
Nope. It's not. When did you last see a
remotely intelligent cartoon depicting some
stage in human evolution? Whereas that is
exactly what we should see -- if the science
was working.
It is a fact -- with which you and the crap
standard 'scientists' cannot cope -- that
evolution necessarily works at the level of
the individual. The individual proto-hominids
were obviously doing something quite different
from their individual ancestors -- which brought
about bipedalism. A cartoon could -- and
SHOULD -- show what it was. Any claim that
cannot present itself in such a cartoon format is
NOT scientific. That is one reason (among many)
why your 'theories' are not scientific.
>> > Your scenario doesn't select for consciousness.
>>
>> Yes, it does. There would be selection in
>> favour of those better at using weapons and
>> tools,
>
> Pure nonsense. This kind of selection would select for better
> tool-using abilities of the *particular* tool/weapon being used. There
> is absolutely no reason to expect it to select for the kind of
> consciousness/intelligence peculiar to our species. You have to about
> be retarded for this not to be obvious to you.
There are about 200,000 (5,000,000 / 25)
generations for it to develop. Not a lot
happened in most.
>> > Stupid logic. Loss of canines is a social adaptation.
>>
>> So you claim. But you cannot outline
>> any reasonable selective mechanism, nor
>> present ANY remotely comparable event
>> in any other species.
>
> Human evolution only happened to one species (to the best of our
> knowledge).
Other social species should have lost their
large canines -- if the "reasons" you invented
had any basis. It happened very rapidly at
the origin of the hominid taxon.
Paul.
Jim McGinn
But you have no specific objections, right?
>
> > There is no such thing as an ape that will suddenly
> > start using tools in the relatively sophisticated manner that you
> > suggest.
>
> There is nothing sophisticated in picking up
> a club.
I agree. But you indicated more than just picking one up.
> In fact chimps go to some trouble to
> find and prepare the right kinds when they
> are dealing with leopards. The only difference
> I propose is that a small population was
> sleeping away from trees, allowing each ape
> to retain its club on a semi-permanent basis.
Idiotic. Sleeping away from trees? Why the hell would an ape do such
a thing? They'd be easy pickings for saber-toothed tigers and
bear-sized hyena of the late miocene fauna.
>
> > Moreover, even if they could use
> > tools/weapons in the manner that you suggest there is no reason for it
> > to result in a selective scenario that would select for the
> > intelligence/consciousness that is peculiar to hominids/humans.
>
> Give them five or six million years of
> working on their weapons and tools,
> and it's no problem at all.
Only group selection could produce human intellect. A tool usage
scenario could not possibly explain the selective origins of the
intelligence that underlies all of human behavior, including tool usage
itself.
>
> > The
> > whole paradigm that maintains this nonsense that tool/weapon usage can
> > lead to the kind of intelligence/consciousness that we see in
> > hominids/humans is a paradigm that was established by people that are
> > ignorant of evolutionary theory. It has to do with people that put
> > labels on early hominids like tool-using and then draw conclusions
> > based on these labels. Unfortunately this kind of cartoonish approach
> > to drawing conclusions is well established in this discipline.
>
> Nope. It's not. When did you last see a
> remotely intelligent cartoon depicting some
> stage in human evolution? Whereas that is
> exactly what we should see -- if the science
> was working.
It's ironic for somebody as deluded as yourself about the way evolution
actually works to be lecturing anybody on this.
>
> It is a fact -- with which you and the crap
> standard 'scientists' cannot cope -- that
> evolution necessarily works at the level of
> the individual.
Nah. There is no law/principle that evolution necessarily favors one
level over another. Firstly, evolution actually happens on all levels
simultaneously. Secondly, situational factors dictate upon which
level the most change takes place.
> The individual proto-hominids
> were obviously doing something quite different
> from their individual ancestors -- which brought
> about bipedalism. A cartoon could -- and
> SHOULD -- show what it was. Any claim that
> cannot present itself in such a cartoon format is
> NOT scientific. That is one reason (among many)
> why your 'theories' are not scientific.
Your scenario is a cartoon in that it requires us to believe that apes
would successfully behave in a manner that we know they could/would
not.
>
> >> > Your scenario doesn't select for consciousness.
> >>
> >> Yes, it does. There would be selection in
> >> favour of those better at using weapons and
> >> tools,
> >
> > Pure nonsense. This kind of selection would select for better
> > tool-using abilities of the *particular* tool/weapon being used. There
> > is absolutely no reason to expect it to select for the kind of
> > consciousness/intelligence peculiar to our species. You have to about
> > be retarded for this not to be obvious to you.
>
> There are about 200,000 (5,000,000 / 25)
> generations for it to develop. Not a lot
> happened in most.
Give it billion generations, it still won't select for consciousness.
>
>
> >> > Stupid logic. Loss of canines is a social adaptation.
> >>
> >> So you claim. But you cannot outline
> >> any reasonable selective mechanism, nor
> >> present ANY remotely comparable event
> >> in any other species.
> >
> > Human evolution only happened to one species (to the best of our
> > knowledge).
>
> Other social species should have lost their
> large canines -- if the "reasons" you invented
> had any basis. It happened very rapidly at
> the origin of the hominid taxon.
What other species has the communal territorialism of our species?
None.
Rich Travsky
Good luck with that!
Rich Travsky
No clear statement eh? So, you CAN'T really quote something!
Just as I thought. You're making it up.
> >> Yep. Standard PA has not yet reached the
> >> stage of joined-up handwriting. Only a
> >> complete fool would want to believe that
> >> a tree-sleeping 'hominid' could retain its
> >> weapons and tools from one day to the
> >> next. So naturally PA has no problem in
> >> thinking that way.
> >
> > You cite NO evidence whatsoever, just a rant on your part. Even humans
> > can climb while holding something. A chimp even has an advantage in
> > being able to more easily hold something in their mouth. Chimps hunt
> > in the trees and they have to hold on to their kill while climbing
> > about in the trees. In fact, food foraging in the trees is dependent upon
> > this ability.
>
> Chimps CAN do this. Humans CAN do it
> as well. But only with difficulty. So they
> only do it when absolutely essential. They
> will never adopt the inconvenient habit of
> taking tools and weapons up into a tree
> every night.
>
> THAT is the point.
First you claim "Only a complete fool would want to believe that a tree-sleeping
'hominid' could retain its weapons and tools from one day to the next", now you
say they can. Make up your mind.
You're really floundering here. Please cite where Darwin recorded tool
and weapon use in captive chimps...
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky wrote:
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> > > >> . . . it is almost impossible
> > > >> to find a clear statement of belief in anything
> > > >> from any modern PA. One can only go on
> > > >> vague impressions from the things that they
> > > >> don't say.
> > > >
> > > > Name some of these "most modern PA people"... You CAN, can't you?
> > >
> > > List any names.
>
> > > >> As I say, the problem is to find a clear statement of belief in anything
> > > >> from any modern PA. One can only go on
> > > >> vague impressions from the things that they
> > > >> don't say.
>
> > No, YOU list them, along with supporting quotes. It's YOUR claim,
> > YOU back it up.
>
> Rich, it's common knowledge that conventional PA has no hypothesis on
See Kingdon's "Lowly Origins" where this is indeed covered.
Claudius Denk
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
>> YOU
>> can prove me wrong by quoting clear statements
>> from some within, say, the past ten years. But --
>> be warned. You'll have to search long and hard,
>> and you'll probably find nothing.
>
> No clear statement eh? So, you CAN'T really quote something!
The point is that you can't.
Claudius Denk
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
>> Rich, it's common knowledge that conventional PA has no hypothesis on
>
> See Kingdon's "Lowly Origins" where this is indeed covered.
I have. It's even emptier than your head.
Paul Crowley
>> >> Sure, we began to use tools and fire to
>> >> 'prepare' our food.
>> >
>> > Chimps use tools and weapons and haven't shown a similar change...
>>
>> Your 'thinking' is as shallow as that of any
>> wet-aper. The use of weapons has to
>> become so common and regular that the
>> natural weapons (the large canines) are,
>> in effect, redundant. Since they are so
>> expensive, and so liable to infection, there
>> will be selection in favour of individuals
>> with smaller canines.
>>
>> The chimp use of weapons is both minimal
>> and irregular. They can never lose their
>> large canines. Their use of tools for food-
>> preparation is also trivial, and we would not
>> expect to see any effect on their dentition.
>
> All you need is some evidence to show this association.
Err . . . how about contemporanity?
Can you think of any evidence that would
contradict it?
Your seem to believe that a science should
work according to this model: it starts with
crude primitive thinking, but should only
advance to more sophisticated reasoning
when it finds 'hard evidence'.
That is not so. It can abandon crude primitive
beliefs by seeing their inherent faults.
So, for example, the /savanna theory' was not
abandoned just because of work on fossils,
but because the idea was daft from the start.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
> First you claim "Only a complete fool would want to believe that a tree-sleeping
> 'hominid' could retain its weapons and tools from one day to the next", now you
> say they can. Make up your mind.
You have to be able to read for context -- so
there's no hope for you.
When I say they can, I mean that it is theoretically
possible for an individual to do it -- and perhaps,
once every 5,000 nights, a chimp might take a
weapon up into a tree. This is in the sense that
humans might, once in a while, walk on their hands.
BUT only a total fool would claim that the SPECIES
as a whole would do it as a matter of routine.
Yet that is the belief of standard PA. (Actually,
it isn't. They are not intelligent enough to even
begin to consider the problem. But, if they ever
reach that stage, that is the logically necessary
conclusion of what (in other circumstances)
would be called their beliefs and assumptions.)
>> >> > Then WHAT did he base his observations on and extend that to humans????
>> >> > Thinking alone is insufficient without something to base it on.
>> >>
>> >> He had seen live chimps, and other primates.
>> >> It is not too hard to identify the major
>> >> differences and the reasons for them.
>> >
>> > You just said he HADN'T observed chimpanzees in the wild - captive behavior
>> > is going to do it.
>>
>> Wild behaviour is much better (and we
>> have enormous advantages over Darwin
>> in that respect), but behaviour in captivity
>> was perfectly adequate for him. But he
>> had the benefit of intelligence, and was
>> not brain-dead, like all in modern PA.
>
> You're really floundering here. Please cite where Darwin recorded tool
> and weapon use in captive chimps...
It's most unlikely that he ever saw it.
But it is not too hard to see the differences
between the taxa, and work out the likely
reasons for the major ones.
Paul.
Chip Flintknapper
> Day Brown wrote:
>
>>Since Bonobos have been seen carrying herbivore bone shards around to
>>use as digging tools, (to extract tubers) its reasonable to assume that
>>hominds did the same. But since the Bonobo lived in the jungle with very
>>soft duff, and the Hominids lived on the savannah where the dirt can get
>>very hard, I'd expect them to prefer longer stout sticks.
>>
>>The instinctive effect of this can still be seen in the hand of any two
>>year old just starting to walk. If he finds a stick, he starts whacking
>>schitt with it. I'm sure that *all* the predators soon passed the word
>>to watch out for the monkey with the stick.
>
>
> incredible nonsense.
>
Not really. The dog certainly notices when I am carrying a rod, and her
behavioral change is indeed instantaneous.
MClark
news:Z0pmg.48793$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
Claud = Dimmy
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
'O, Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."
--Voltaire
Marc Verhaegen
> >>use as digging tools, (to extract tubers) its reasonable to assume that
> >>hominds did the same. But since the Bonobo lived in the jungle with very
> >>soft duff, and the Hominids lived on the savannah where the dirt can get
Apparently the savanna ideas are still very much alive...
I suggest the writer of this nonsense reads
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:449A0DF6...@hotmMOVEail.com...
>
> >> >> Sure, we began to use tools and fire to
> >> >> 'prepare' our food.
> >> >
> >> > Chimps use tools and weapons and haven't shown a similar change...
> >>
> >> Your 'thinking' is as shallow as that of any
> >> wet-aper. The use of weapons has to
> >> become so common and regular that the
> >> natural weapons (the large canines) are,
> >> in effect, redundant. Since they are so
> >> expensive, and so liable to infection, there
> >> will be selection in favour of individuals
> >> with smaller canines.
> >>
> >> The chimp use of weapons is both minimal
> >> and irregular. They can never lose their
> >> large canines. Their use of tools for food-
> >> preparation is also trivial, and we would not
> >> expect to see any effect on their dentition.
> >
> > All you need is some evidence to show this association.
>
> Err . . . how about contemporanity?
Specifics, please. Cites, research, etc. Hand waving insufficient.
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:449A0F52...@hotmMOVEail.com...
>
> > First you claim "Only a complete fool would want to believe that a tree-sleeping
> > 'hominid' could retain its weapons and tools from one day to the next", now you
> > say they can. Make up your mind.
>
> You have to be able to read for context -- so
> there's no hope for you.
You make blanket statements - that kinda blows context away, don't it ;)
> When I say they can, I mean that it is theoretically
> possible for an individual to do it -- and perhaps,
> once every 5,000 nights, a chimp might take a
> weapon up into a tree. This is in the sense that
> humans might, once in a while, walk on their hands.
> BUT only a total fool would claim that the SPECIES
> as a whole would do it as a matter of routine.
Flip... flop...
"unlikely that he ever saw it" ;)
Rich Travsky
>
> claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > Day Brown wrote:
> >
> >>Since Bonobos have been seen carrying herbivore bone shards around to
> >>use as digging tools, (to extract tubers) its reasonable to assume that
> >>hominds did the same. But since the Bonobo lived in the jungle with very
> >>soft duff, and the Hominids lived on the savannah where the dirt can get
> >>very hard, I'd expect them to prefer longer stout sticks.
> >>
> >>The instinctive effect of this can still be seen in the hand of any two
> >>year old just starting to walk. If he finds a stick, he starts whacking
> >>schitt with it. I'm sure that *all* the predators soon passed the word
> >>to watch out for the monkey with the stick.
> >
> >
> > incredible nonsense.
> >
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Not really. The dog certainly notices when I am carrying a rod, and her
> behavioral change is indeed instantaneous.
drop-down-to-pick-up-something
motion.
Rich Travsky
SO you admit it's covered.
Rich Travsky
No, the point is YOU can't.
Rich Travsky
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9403/9403.ch01.html
...
Meanwhile, in the arid region of Tongo (in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo),
chimpanzees carry around with them the water-filled roots of a Clematis plant,
which they use and sometimes share in the style of a water bottle.
...
Paul Crowley
> Chip Flintknapper wrote:
>>
>> > Day Brown wrote:
>> >
>> >>Since Bonobos have been seen carrying herbivore bone shards around to
>> >>use as digging tools, (to extract tubers) its reasonable to assume that
>> >>hominds did the same. But since the Bonobo lived in the jungle with very
>> >>soft duff, and the Hominids lived on the savannah where the dirt can get
>> >>very hard, I'd expect them to prefer longer stout sticks.
>> >>
>> >>The instinctive effect of this can still be seen in the hand of any two
>> >>year old just starting to walk. If he finds a stick, he starts whacking
>> >>schitt with it. I'm sure that *all* the predators soon passed the word
>> >>to watch out for the monkey with the stick.
>> >
>> > incredible nonsense.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Not really. The dog certainly notices when I am carrying a rod, and her
>> behavioral change is indeed instantaneous.
>
> Dogs that have had rocks thrown at them also recognize the
> drop-down-to-pick-up-something motion.
That would take time to learn. Most animals
don't have the luxury of such time (i.e. they'll
be injured -- and then dead -- before they work
it out and adapt).
This behaviour (the reaction to the owner holding
a STICK) is clearly quite instinctive -- as are many
others that dogs exhibit (such their reaction to a
possibly hostile human picking up a rock).
Paul.
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Yes, to be expected for ex-aquarboreals, see our paper M.Verhaegen,
P-F.Puech & S.Munro 2002 "Aquarboreal ancestors?" Trends in Ecology &
Evolution 17: 212-217
http://reviews.bmn.com/journals/atoz/latest?pii=S0169534702024904&node=TOC%4
0%40TREE%40017%4005%40017_05
Thanks, Travsky.
UC
Is that something new?
We used to plan behind, in my day.
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:44AB1C95...@hotmMOVEail.com...
>
> > Chip Flintknapper wrote:
> >>
> >> > Day Brown wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Since Bonobos have been seen carrying herbivore bone shards around to
> >> >>use as digging tools, (to extract tubers) its reasonable to assume that
> >> >>hominds did the same. But since the Bonobo lived in the jungle with very
> >> >>soft duff, and the Hominids lived on the savannah where the dirt can get
> >> >>very hard, I'd expect them to prefer longer stout sticks.
> >> >>
> >> >>The instinctive effect of this can still be seen in the hand of any two
> >> >>year old just starting to walk. If he finds a stick, he starts whacking
> >> >>schitt with it. I'm sure that *all* the predators soon passed the word
> >> >>to watch out for the monkey with the stick.
> >> >
> >> > incredible nonsense.
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >> Not really. The dog certainly notices when I am carrying a rod, and her
> >> behavioral change is indeed instantaneous.
> >
> > Dogs that have had rocks thrown at them also recognize the
> > drop-down-to-pick-up-something motion.
>
> That would take time to learn. Most animals
Uh, no. A smack or two is enough.
Rich Travsky
Expected of savanna dwellers? That they would carry roots with them?
Explain. (this ought to be funny!)
> P-F.Puech & S.Munro 2002 "Aquarboreal ancestors?" Trends in Ecology &
> Evolution 17: 212-217
> http://reviews.bmn.com/journals/atoz/latest?pii=S0169534702024904&node=TOC%4
> 0%40TREE%40017%4005%40017_05
>
> Thanks, Travsky.
For making a fool of you again? You're welcome.
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Explain why do you believe that ex-aquarboreals don't need water? (this
ought to be funny!)
> > P-F.Puech & S.Munro 2002 "Aquarboreal ancestors?" Trends in Ecology &
> > Evolution 17: 212-217
> >
http://reviews.bmn.com/journals/atoz/latest?pii=S0169534702024904&node=TOC%4
> > 0%40TREE%40017%4005%40017_05
> > Thanks, Travsky.
> For making a fool of you again? You're welcome.
The usual "argument" of somebody who has nothing to say... ;)
Jim McGinn
Rich, you're so afraid to engage me in any kind of conversation. What
is it you're afraid to discuss now Rich? What exactly is it about
Kingdon's thinking that you are, at this instance. pretending to stand
behind--despite the obvious pretentiousness of your approach?
Science begins and ends with facts and details thereof. If you ever
come across any you should feel free to present them to this newsgroup.
In the meantime I think it best that you make more of an effort to
refrain from the dimwit banter.
Remember what happened to Dieteker. Who knows whatever happened to
that poor bastard. Talk about certifiable.
Rich Travsky
Since aquaboreals never existed, no problem. But feel free to explain
why that would lead to carrying roots...
> > > P-F.Puech & S.Munro 2002 "Aquarboreal ancestors?" Trends in Ecology &
> > > Evolution 17: 212-217
> > >
> http://reviews.bmn.com/journals/atoz/latest?pii=S0169534702024904&node=TOC%4
> > > 0%40TREE%40017%4005%40017_05
>
> > > Thanks, Travsky.
>
> > For making a fool of you again? You're welcome.
>
> The usual "argument" of somebody who has nothing to say... ;)
I'm not the one believing in the fantasy of aquaboreal humans
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky wrote:
> > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
> > >
> > > >> Rich, it's common knowledge that conventional PA has no hypothesis on
> > > >
> > > > See Kingdon's "Lowly Origins" where this is indeed covered.
> > >
> > > I have. It's even emptier than your head.
> >
> > SO you admit it's covered.
>
> Rich, you're so afraid to engage me in any kind of conversation. What
> is it you're afraid to discuss now Rich? What exactly is it about
> Kingdon's thinking that you are, at this instance. pretending to stand
> behind--despite the obvious pretentiousness of your approach?
Can you follow along? You claimed there is no hypothesis... then you
had to retract after such was pointed out to you.
> Science begins and ends with facts and details thereof. If you ever
> come across any you should feel free to present them to this newsgroup.
> In the meantime I think it best that you make more of an effort to
> refrain from the dimwit banter.
>
> Remember what happened to Dieteker. Who knows whatever happened to
> that poor bastard. Talk about certifiable.
The irony meter just pegged...
Jim McGinn
Rich Travsky wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:
> >
> > Rich Travsky wrote:
> > > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
> > > >
> > > > >> Rich, it's common knowledge that conventional PA has no hypothesis on
> > > > >
> > > > > See Kingdon's "Lowly Origins" where this is indeed covered.
> > > >
> > > > I have. It's even emptier than your head.
> > >
> > > SO you admit it's covered.
> >
> > Rich, you're so afraid to engage me in any kind of conversation. What
> > is it you're afraid to discuss now Rich? What exactly is it about
> > Kingdon's thinking that you are, at this instance. pretending to stand
> > behind--despite the obvious pretentiousness of your approach?
>
> Can you follow along?
Sure, I recognize an evasive twit when I see one.
> You claimed there is no hypothesis...
There isn't.
> then you
> had to retract after such was pointed out to you.
I retracted nothing. You did nothing but make reference to the title
of a book, retard. Get a clue.
>
> > Science begins and ends with facts and details thereof. If you ever
> > come across any you should feel free to present them to this newsgroup.
> > In the meantime I think it best that you make more of an effort to
> > refrain from the dimwit banter.
> >
> > Remember what happened to Dieteker. Who knows whatever happened to
> > that poor bastard. Talk about certifiable.
>
> The irony meter just pegged...
Go to hell you desperate fool.
MClark
news:1155417257.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rich Travsky wrote:
[...]
> Sure, I recognize an evasive twit when I see one.
"Sure, I recognize an evasive twit when I see one."
Dimmy --08/12/2006
[...]
> Go to hell you desperate fool.
"Go to hell you desperate fool."
Dimmy --08/12/2006
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
...
> Since aquaboreals never existed,
...
Don't be ridiculous, my boy:
1) Systematic misspellings of the word "aquarboreal"... Says enough.
Apparently you don' t you even understand the word itself, Travsky. Sad...
FYI:
- Aqua=water. You know what water is, do you? as in marshes, lakes, rivers,
okidoki? Lucy lay amid crab claws & crocodile eggs (most crabs live in
water as you might perhaps know), the "First Family" lay in what the
researchers call "swales" (use your dictionary), Kromdraai was a "streaside
or marsh vegetation" (Brain 1981) etc.etc.
- Arbor=tree. You know what that is? It's where most primates live, as you
might know. Lucy, eg, had curved phalanges, for climbing arms overhead,
okidoki?
2) If you are so fanatically convinced that aquarboreal ancestors never
existed (this is what you meant, no?), why are you so miserably unable to
give 1 single argument??
3) Why don't you inform a bit, Travsky, before trying to say something on a
subject you don't know anything about? Ever read M.Verhaegen, P-F.Puech &
S.Munro 2002 "Aquarboreal ancestors?" Trends in Ecology & Evolution
17:212-217? Apparently not. Or perhaps R.Wrangham 2005 "The Delta
Hypothesis: Hominoid Ecology and Hominin Origins" in D.Lieberman cs.eds
"Interpreting the Past: Essays on Human, Primate and Mammal Evolution in
Honor of David Pilbeam" Boston, Brill Academic Publishers: 231-242, which
refers several times to our paper? Apparently not.
--Marc Verhaegen
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky wrote:
> > Jim McGinn wrote:
> > > Rich Travsky wrote:
> > > > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > > > "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > >> Rich, it's common knowledge that conventional PA has no hypothesis on
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See Kingdon's "Lowly Origins" where this is indeed covered.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have. It's even emptier than your head.
> > > >
> > > > SO you admit it's covered.
> > >
> > > Rich, you're so afraid to engage me in any kind of conversation. What
> > > is it you're afraid to discuss now Rich? What exactly is it about
> > > Kingdon's thinking that you are, at this instance. pretending to stand
> > > behind--despite the obvious pretentiousness of your approach?
> >
> > Can you follow along?
>
> Sure, I recognize an evasive twit when I see one.
Ah, looked in the mirror I see.
> > You claimed there is no hypothesis...
>
> There isn't.
But above you admit it's in Kingdon's book.
> > then you
> > had to retract after such was pointed out to you.
>
> I retracted nothing. You did nothing but make reference to the title
> of a book, retard. Get a clue.
Yes, you did. Kingdon's book discusses this despite your unfounded claim
otherwise.
> > > Science begins and ends with facts and details thereof. If you ever
> > > come across any you should feel free to present them to this newsgroup.
> > > In the meantime I think it best that you make more of an effort to
> > > refrain from the dimwit banter.
> > >
> > > Remember what happened to Dieteker. Who knows whatever happened to
> > > that poor bastard. Talk about certifiable.
> >
> > The irony meter just pegged...
>
> Go to hell you desperate fool.
Don't be such a baby.
Rich Travsky
Aqua is water too! How about that!
> okidoki? Lucy lay amid crab claws & crocodile eggs (most crabs live in
> water as you might perhaps know), the "First Family" lay in what the
> researchers call "swales" (use your dictionary), Kromdraai was a "streaside
> or marsh vegetation" (Brain 1981) etc.etc.
> - Arbor=tree. You know what that is? It's where most primates live, as you
Ah, and not the water! Thanks Marc!
> might know. Lucy, eg, had curved phalanges, for climbing arms overhead,
> okidoki?
>
> 2) If you are so fanatically convinced that aquarboreal ancestors never
> existed (this is what you meant, no?), why are you so miserably unable to
> give 1 single argument??
Why are you so unable to to show one?
Marc Verhaegen
Zeresenay Alemseged: "I believe we should just put the savannah theory
aside. I think they basically became biped while they were living in a
wooded, covered environment. The savannah could explain two other things.
Actually, we should say grassland, because savanna is a more complicated
term. But the relatively open environment was out there to be tried--be it
later with Homo, when it was very dominant, or be it before, with the
earliest hominins. Hominins were experimenting with all sorts of
environments. But at some point they had some preferences. It's very hard to
do, but only when we are able to [identify] their preferences can we talk
about the mechanisms behind what triggered bipedalism, what triggered
megadontia, what triggered brain expansion."
My biggest problem with the paper is that IMO Salem & other afarensis are no
ancestors of us. My impression
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html is
that they might be nearer to the ancestors of gorillas or perhaps chimps
than to ours (no wonder your fossil is full of gorilla-like features
(incipient IMO, not rudimentary!)). The bipedal features in Salem might be
wading adaptations (no wonder it might have died in a flood). A.afarensis
AFAICS (see my paper with P-F.Puech & S.Munro 2002 "Aquarboreal ancestors?"
TREE 17:212-7) were parttime wading-climbing hominids ("hominids" sensu
relatives of Pan-Homo-Gorilla, versus "pongids") that fed mostly on aquatic
& waterside foods, I guess mostly (at least in the poor season) hard plants
&/or calorie-poor plants (I'm thinking of reed sedges, bamboo, papyrus...).
Ndoki lowland gorillas also feed on AHV (aquatic herbaceous vegetation), but
have much thinner enamel (more vegetables instead of hard plants?), they
regularly wade in forest swamps, and climb arms overhead (the young & the
females more than the adult males), but spend much more time on land than
IMO afarensis did. Your Salem seems to fit perfectly in what we thought was
the lifestyle of the apiths.
- I think we should put the ST completely & definitely aside: humans don't
have any of the adaptations that are seen in savanna mammmals (eg, we need
lots of drinking water, our naked skin is vulnerable to sunbeams, sweating
requires lots of water + salt, fat people easily overheat in open hot
environments, bipedality is slower than quadrupedality, unlike typical
savanna mammals we can't tolerate body temperatures of 40°C, etc.). If some
hominid populations ever lived there (not impossible a priori), it was at
the watersides there. H.erectus, whatever some recent papers want us to
believe ("endurance running", "Savannasthan"...), was no savanna dweller:
they were much too heavy (eg, pachyostosis & medullar stenosis), and they
were no good runners (short tibiae, very broad pelvis, very long femoral
necks etc.). This whole savanna idea goes back to an unfortunate mistake of
Dart, who believed that the Taung child had lived in a dry + hot environment
(it was later found out that the climate then was much wetter).
- Yes, our ancestors (& those of the Afr.apes) became basically bipedal in a
wooded environment. Climbing was an essential part (more specifically
vertical climbing IMO) of this evolution IMO.
- Megadontia is seen in apiths (esp. in robusts) for very hard &/or
calorie-poor foods. But IMO this has nothing to do with our ancestors
(=Homo, not apiths). Our ancestors seem to have been absent from Africa
between 4 & 3 Ma (lived at the Indian Ocean coasts then??): CT Yohn et al.
2005 "Lineage-Specific Expansions of Retroviral Insertions within the
Genomes of African Great Apes but Not Humans and Orangutans" PLoS
Biol.3:1-11: ... Comparison of human & other primate genomes provides
evidence for a retroviral infection that bombarded the genomes of P & G 3-4
Ma. ...
- Brain expansion might have made possible by seafood (poly-unsaturated
fatty acids etc., cf. dispersal of Homo along coasts (eg, Mojokerto) & up
rivers), but then we have the problem: if seafood is necessary for large
brains, how come inland human populations also have much larger brains than
apiths & apes?
--Marc Verhaegen
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
_________
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:451611D6...@hotmMOVEail.com...