Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Thermoregulation in Homo, and persistence hunting
126 views
Skip to first unread message
Tom McDonald
May 19, 2012, 9:33:16 AM5/19/12
to
<cribbed from a post on T.O.>
I find this interesting, as an overview of what the author (unknown, but
posted on T.O., and possibly written by, marc.tessera) has pulled
together about thermoregulation and hairlessness, with a dip into the
persistence hunting pool. Submitted for your consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The thermoregulatory hypothesis was first proposed by Darwin in 1871
and later developed by Dr. Peter Wheeler (Wheeler 1984; 1985).
1. Benefits stemming from the loss of human body hair:
�In order to comprehend why humans are essentially hairless, it is
essential to understand that mammalian body hair is not merely an
aesthetic characteristic; it protects the skin from wounds, bites,
heat, cold, and UV radiation. Additionally, it can be used as a
communication tool and as a camouflage. To this end, it can be
concluded that benefits stemming from the loss of human body hair must
be great enough to outweigh the loss of these protective functions by
nakedness� (Wikipedia 2012).
�Humans are the only primate species that has mostly naked skin. Loss
of fur was an adaptation to changing environmental conditions that
forced our ancestors to travel longer distances for food and water.
Analyses of fossils and genes hint at when this transformation
occurred. The evolution of hairlessness helped to set the stage for
the emergence of large brains and symbolic thought� (Jablonski 2010).
2. When can we date the loss of hair among our ancestors?
�Studies conducted independently by Lieberman and Christopher Ruff of
Johns Hopkins University have shown that by about 1.6 million years
ago an early member of our genus called Homo ergaster had evolved
essentially modern body proportions, which would have permitted
prolonged walking and running. Homo ergaster had to travel far in
search of sustenance�including meat. This species, which arose by 1.6
million years ago, was probably the first to possess naked skin and
eccrine sweat, which would have offset the body heat generated by such
elevated activity levels� (Jablonski 2010).
Moreover �humans, unlike other apes, have, not one, but two types of
hair lice, one living in head hair and the other living in pubic hair.
Chimps and gorillas on the other hand, have only one. The reason that
humans have two types of hair lice arises from our nakedness over most
of our bodies, and thus the two colonies of lice are isolated and have
evolved separately. The argument then is that when we lost our hair
before our hair lice split into two species� (Jogalekar 2011). �Thus,
the origin of body lice provides a minimum estimate for the dawn of
hominid garb. By comparing gene sequences of organisms, investigators
can learn roughly when the species arose. Such analyses in lice
indicate that whereas head lice have plagued humans from the start,
body lice evolved much later. The timing of their appearance hints
that humans went naked for more than a million years before getting
dressed� (Jablonski 2010).
3. Change in diet:
�After diverging from their chimpanzee-lineage, our ancestors became
omnivorous in order to maximize calorie intake, an important
distinction in a nutrient-scarce environment. Prey, however, are
moving targets, and though early humans changed the traditionally ape-
like appearance of the australopithecines and adapted long, strong
legs to facilitate sustained running, dense, hairy coats still posed a
potentially fatal risk of causing overheating during the chase. It is
posited that thick hair got in the way of the sweat evaporating, so
humans evolved a sparser coat of fur� (Jablonski 2006).
4. Persistence hunting to ate meat:
�Persistence hunting is an ancient method of hunting. It is carried
out by Kalahari bushmen (Australian aboriginal tribes). Persistence
hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
several hours of continuous running at roughly marathon pace. Although
slow over short distances, humans are actually quite efficient runners
over long distances. Hunting occurs by chasing a animal and not
letting it rest, so after several hours, the animal collapses
exhaustion. That�s when our Running Ape can get close enough to
basically stab the animal to death with a crude spear head. The skill
in persistence hunting lies in the stamina required for the long-
distance running and the ability tracking the prey over a vast area.
The reason that humans can outrun four-legged ruminants over a long
distance turns out to be due to a surprising reason: sweating. Humans
are one of the few mammals that sweat for cooling, and this turns out
to be incredibly advantageous for long-distance running in hot
scorched conditions. Most mammals cool by panting, which is
incompatible with running. They overheat if they run long distances
without stopping. In contrast, our Running Ape ancestor could maintain
a steady pace whilst the liquid glistening on their naked skins keeps
their bodies from overheating. Finally, the hunted mammal overheats,
and collapses from exhaustion� (Jogalekar 2011).
References:
Jablonski, NG. (2006). Skin: a natural history. Berkley, CA:
University of California Press.
Jablonski, NG. (2010). The naked truth. Scientific American February
2010.
Jogalekar A. (2011) Swimming, Running, Hunting, And Meditating: The
Evolutionary Origin Of Mystical States.
boscoh.com 10 October 2011.
Wheeler, P (1984). The evolution of bipedality and loss of functional
body hair in hominids. Journal of Human Evolution 13: 91.doi:10.1016/
S0047-2484(84)80079-2.
Wheeler, PE. (1985). The loss of functional body hair in man: the
influence of thermal environment, body form and bipedality. Journal of
Human Evolution 14: 23. doi:10.1016/S0047-2484(85)80091-9.
Wikipedia.(2012). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair#Human_hair_growth.
I find this interesting, as an overview of what the author (unknown, but
posted on T.O., and possibly written by, marc.tessera) has pulled
together about thermoregulation and hairlessness, with a dip into the
persistence hunting pool. Submitted for your consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The thermoregulatory hypothesis was first proposed by Darwin in 1871
and later developed by Dr. Peter Wheeler (Wheeler 1984; 1985).
1. Benefits stemming from the loss of human body hair:
�In order to comprehend why humans are essentially hairless, it is
essential to understand that mammalian body hair is not merely an
aesthetic characteristic; it protects the skin from wounds, bites,
heat, cold, and UV radiation. Additionally, it can be used as a
communication tool and as a camouflage. To this end, it can be
concluded that benefits stemming from the loss of human body hair must
be great enough to outweigh the loss of these protective functions by
nakedness� (Wikipedia 2012).
�Humans are the only primate species that has mostly naked skin. Loss
of fur was an adaptation to changing environmental conditions that
forced our ancestors to travel longer distances for food and water.
Analyses of fossils and genes hint at when this transformation
occurred. The evolution of hairlessness helped to set the stage for
the emergence of large brains and symbolic thought� (Jablonski 2010).
2. When can we date the loss of hair among our ancestors?
�Studies conducted independently by Lieberman and Christopher Ruff of
Johns Hopkins University have shown that by about 1.6 million years
ago an early member of our genus called Homo ergaster had evolved
essentially modern body proportions, which would have permitted
prolonged walking and running. Homo ergaster had to travel far in
search of sustenance�including meat. This species, which arose by 1.6
million years ago, was probably the first to possess naked skin and
eccrine sweat, which would have offset the body heat generated by such
elevated activity levels� (Jablonski 2010).
Moreover �humans, unlike other apes, have, not one, but two types of
hair lice, one living in head hair and the other living in pubic hair.
Chimps and gorillas on the other hand, have only one. The reason that
humans have two types of hair lice arises from our nakedness over most
of our bodies, and thus the two colonies of lice are isolated and have
evolved separately. The argument then is that when we lost our hair
before our hair lice split into two species� (Jogalekar 2011). �Thus,
the origin of body lice provides a minimum estimate for the dawn of
hominid garb. By comparing gene sequences of organisms, investigators
can learn roughly when the species arose. Such analyses in lice
indicate that whereas head lice have plagued humans from the start,
body lice evolved much later. The timing of their appearance hints
that humans went naked for more than a million years before getting
dressed� (Jablonski 2010).
3. Change in diet:
�After diverging from their chimpanzee-lineage, our ancestors became
omnivorous in order to maximize calorie intake, an important
distinction in a nutrient-scarce environment. Prey, however, are
moving targets, and though early humans changed the traditionally ape-
like appearance of the australopithecines and adapted long, strong
legs to facilitate sustained running, dense, hairy coats still posed a
potentially fatal risk of causing overheating during the chase. It is
posited that thick hair got in the way of the sweat evaporating, so
humans evolved a sparser coat of fur� (Jablonski 2006).
4. Persistence hunting to ate meat:
�Persistence hunting is an ancient method of hunting. It is carried
out by Kalahari bushmen (Australian aboriginal tribes). Persistence
hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
several hours of continuous running at roughly marathon pace. Although
slow over short distances, humans are actually quite efficient runners
over long distances. Hunting occurs by chasing a animal and not
letting it rest, so after several hours, the animal collapses
exhaustion. That�s when our Running Ape can get close enough to
basically stab the animal to death with a crude spear head. The skill
in persistence hunting lies in the stamina required for the long-
distance running and the ability tracking the prey over a vast area.
The reason that humans can outrun four-legged ruminants over a long
distance turns out to be due to a surprising reason: sweating. Humans
are one of the few mammals that sweat for cooling, and this turns out
to be incredibly advantageous for long-distance running in hot
scorched conditions. Most mammals cool by panting, which is
incompatible with running. They overheat if they run long distances
without stopping. In contrast, our Running Ape ancestor could maintain
a steady pace whilst the liquid glistening on their naked skins keeps
their bodies from overheating. Finally, the hunted mammal overheats,
and collapses from exhaustion� (Jogalekar 2011).
References:
Jablonski, NG. (2006). Skin: a natural history. Berkley, CA:
University of California Press.
Jablonski, NG. (2010). The naked truth. Scientific American February
2010.
Jogalekar A. (2011) Swimming, Running, Hunting, And Meditating: The
Evolutionary Origin Of Mystical States.
boscoh.com 10 October 2011.
Wheeler, P (1984). The evolution of bipedality and loss of functional
body hair in hominids. Journal of Human Evolution 13: 91.doi:10.1016/
S0047-2484(84)80079-2.
Wheeler, PE. (1985). The loss of functional body hair in man: the
influence of thermal environment, body form and bipedality. Journal of
Human Evolution 14: 23. doi:10.1016/S0047-2484(85)80091-9.
Wikipedia.(2012). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair#Human_hair_growth.
Claudius Denk
May 20, 2012, 1:50:43 AM5/20/12
to
On May 19, 6:33 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> Loss of fur was an adaptation to changing
> environmental conditions that forced our
> ancestors to travel longer distances for food and water.
Most migrational species maintain their fur. Hominids were not
> Loss of fur was an adaptation to changing
> environmental conditions that forced our
> ancestors to travel longer distances for food and water.
migrational.
> hairlessness helped to set the stage for
Speculative nonsense.
early member of our genus called Homo ergaster had evolved
> prolonged walking and running. Homo ergaster had to travel far in
> search of sustenance including meat. This species, which arose by 1.6
> million years ago, was probably the first to possess naked skin and
> eccrine sweat, which would have
Who cares.
> eccrine sweat, which would have
> offset the body heat generated by such
our ancestors became
> omnivorous in order to maximize calorie intake, an important
> distinction in a nutrient-scarce environment.
season.
adapted long, strong
> legs to facilitate sustained running, dense, hairy coats still posed a
> potentially fatal risk of causing overheating during the chase. It is
> posited that thick hair got in the way of the sweat evaporating, so
Speculative.
> Persistence hunting is <snip> carried
> out by Kalahari bushmen (Australian aboriginal tribes). Persistence
> hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
> several hours of continuous running at roughly marathon pace.
Who cares.
> hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
> several hours of continuous running at roughly marathon pace.
> fhe reason that humans can outrun four-legged ruminants over a long
> distance turns out to be due to a surprising reason: sweating.
Pure silliness.
RichTravsky
May 21, 2012, 12:41:22 AM5/21/12
to
Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> <cribbed from a post on T.O.>
>
> I find this interesting, as an overview of what the author (unknown, but
> posted on T.O., and possibly written by, marc.tessera) has pulled
> together about thermoregulation and hairlessness, with a dip into the
> persistence hunting pool. Submitted for your consideration.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The thermoregulatory hypothesis was first proposed by Darwin in 1871
> and later developed by Dr. Peter Wheeler (Wheeler 1984; 1985).
> 1. Benefits stemming from the loss of human body hair:
> “In order to comprehend why humans are essentially hairless, it is
>
> <cribbed from a post on T.O.>
>
> I find this interesting, as an overview of what the author (unknown, but
> posted on T.O., and possibly written by, marc.tessera) has pulled
> together about thermoregulation and hairlessness, with a dip into the
> persistence hunting pool. Submitted for your consideration.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The thermoregulatory hypothesis was first proposed by Darwin in 1871
> and later developed by Dr. Peter Wheeler (Wheeler 1984; 1985).
> 1. Benefits stemming from the loss of human body hair:
> essential to understand that mammalian body hair is not merely an
> aesthetic characteristic; it protects the skin from wounds, bites,
> heat, cold, and UV radiation. Additionally, it can be used as a
> communication tool and as a camouflage. To this end, it can be
> concluded that benefits stemming from the loss of human body hair must
> be great enough to outweigh the loss of these protective functions by
> nakedness” (Wikipedia 2012).
> aesthetic characteristic; it protects the skin from wounds, bites,
> heat, cold, and UV radiation. Additionally, it can be used as a
> communication tool and as a camouflage. To this end, it can be
> concluded that benefits stemming from the loss of human body hair must
> be great enough to outweigh the loss of these protective functions by
> “Humans are the only primate species that has mostly naked skin. Loss
> of fur was an adaptation to changing environmental conditions that
> forced our ancestors to travel longer distances for food and water.
> Analyses of fossils and genes hint at when this transformation
> occurred. The evolution of hairlessness helped to set the stage for
> the emergence of large brains and symbolic thought” (Jablonski 2010).
> forced our ancestors to travel longer distances for food and water.
> Analyses of fossils and genes hint at when this transformation
> occurred. The evolution of hairlessness helped to set the stage for
> 2. When can we date the loss of hair among our ancestors?
> “Studies conducted independently by Lieberman and Christopher Ruff of
> Johns Hopkins University have shown that by about 1.6 million years
> ago an early member of our genus called Homo ergaster had evolved
> essentially modern body proportions, which would have permitted
> prolonged walking and running. Homo ergaster had to travel far in
> search of sustenance—including meat. This species, which arose by 1.6
> ago an early member of our genus called Homo ergaster had evolved
> essentially modern body proportions, which would have permitted
> prolonged walking and running. Homo ergaster had to travel far in
> million years ago, was probably the first to possess naked skin and
> eccrine sweat, which would have offset the body heat generated by such
> elevated activity levels” (Jablonski 2010).
> eccrine sweat, which would have offset the body heat generated by such
> Moreover “humans, unlike other apes, have, not one, but two types of
> hair lice, one living in head hair and the other living in pubic hair.
> Chimps and gorillas on the other hand, have only one. The reason that
> humans have two types of hair lice arises from our nakedness over most
> of our bodies, and thus the two colonies of lice are isolated and have
> evolved separately. The argument then is that when we lost our hair
> before our hair lice split into two species” (Jogalekar 2011). “Thus,
> Chimps and gorillas on the other hand, have only one. The reason that
> humans have two types of hair lice arises from our nakedness over most
> of our bodies, and thus the two colonies of lice are isolated and have
> evolved separately. The argument then is that when we lost our hair
> the origin of body lice provides a minimum estimate for the dawn of
> hominid garb. By comparing gene sequences of organisms, investigators
> can learn roughly when the species arose. Such analyses in lice
> indicate that whereas head lice have plagued humans from the start,
> body lice evolved much later. The timing of their appearance hints
> that humans went naked for more than a million years before getting
> dressed” (Jablonski 2010).
> hominid garb. By comparing gene sequences of organisms, investigators
> can learn roughly when the species arose. Such analyses in lice
> indicate that whereas head lice have plagued humans from the start,
> body lice evolved much later. The timing of their appearance hints
> that humans went naked for more than a million years before getting
> 3. Change in diet:
> “After diverging from their chimpanzee-lineage, our ancestors became
> omnivorous in order to maximize calorie intake, an important
> distinction in a nutrient-scarce environment. Prey, however, are
> moving targets, and though early humans changed the traditionally ape-
> like appearance of the australopithecines and adapted long, strong
> legs to facilitate sustained running, dense, hairy coats still posed a
> potentially fatal risk of causing overheating during the chase. It is
> posited that thick hair got in the way of the sweat evaporating, so
> humans evolved a sparser coat of fur” (Jablonski 2006).
> distinction in a nutrient-scarce environment. Prey, however, are
> moving targets, and though early humans changed the traditionally ape-
> like appearance of the australopithecines and adapted long, strong
> legs to facilitate sustained running, dense, hairy coats still posed a
> potentially fatal risk of causing overheating during the chase. It is
> posited that thick hair got in the way of the sweat evaporating, so
> 4. Persistence hunting to ate meat:
> “Persistence hunting is an ancient method of hunting. It is carried
> out by Kalahari bushmen (Australian aboriginal tribes). Persistence
> hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
> several hours of continuous running at roughly marathon pace. Although
> slow over short distances, humans are actually quite efficient runners
> over long distances. Hunting occurs by chasing a animal and not
> letting it rest, so after several hours, the animal collapses
> exhaustion. That’s when our Running Ape can get close enough to
> hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
> several hours of continuous running at roughly marathon pace. Although
> slow over short distances, humans are actually quite efficient runners
> over long distances. Hunting occurs by chasing a animal and not
> letting it rest, so after several hours, the animal collapses
> basically stab the animal to death with a crude spear head. The skill
> in persistence hunting lies in the stamina required for the long-
> distance running and the ability tracking the prey over a vast area.
> The reason that humans can outrun four-legged ruminants over a long
> distance turns out to be due to a surprising reason: sweating. Humans
> are one of the few mammals that sweat for cooling, and this turns out
> to be incredibly advantageous for long-distance running in hot
> scorched conditions. Most mammals cool by panting, which is
> incompatible with running. They overheat if they run long distances
> without stopping. In contrast, our Running Ape ancestor could maintain
> a steady pace whilst the liquid glistening on their naked skins keeps
> their bodies from overheating. Finally, the hunted mammal overheats,
> and collapses from exhaustion” (Jogalekar 2011).
> in persistence hunting lies in the stamina required for the long-
> distance running and the ability tracking the prey over a vast area.
> The reason that humans can outrun four-legged ruminants over a long
> distance turns out to be due to a surprising reason: sweating. Humans
> are one of the few mammals that sweat for cooling, and this turns out
> to be incredibly advantageous for long-distance running in hot
> scorched conditions. Most mammals cool by panting, which is
> incompatible with running. They overheat if they run long distances
> without stopping. In contrast, our Running Ape ancestor could maintain
> a steady pace whilst the liquid glistening on their naked skins keeps
> their bodies from overheating. Finally, the hunted mammal overheats,
>
> References:
> Jablonski, NG. (2006). Skin: a natural history. Berkley, CA:
> University of California Press.
> Jablonski, NG. (2010). The naked truth. Scientific American February
> 2010.
> Jogalekar A. (2011) Swimming, Running, Hunting, And Meditating: The
> Evolutionary Origin Of Mystical States.
> boscoh.com 10 October 2011.
> Wheeler, P (1984). The evolution of bipedality and loss of functional
> body hair in hominids. Journal of Human Evolution 13: 91.doi:10.1016/
> S0047-2484(84)80079-2.
> Wheeler, PE. (1985). The loss of functional body hair in man: the
> influence of thermal environment, body form and bipedality. Journal of
> Human Evolution 14: 23. doi:10.1016/S0047-2484(85)80091-9.
> Wikipedia.(2012). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair#Human_hair_growth.
Hair reduction, really, rather than hair loss.
> References:
> Jablonski, NG. (2006). Skin: a natural history. Berkley, CA:
> University of California Press.
> Jablonski, NG. (2010). The naked truth. Scientific American February
> 2010.
> Jogalekar A. (2011) Swimming, Running, Hunting, And Meditating: The
> Evolutionary Origin Of Mystical States.
> boscoh.com 10 October 2011.
> Wheeler, P (1984). The evolution of bipedality and loss of functional
> body hair in hominids. Journal of Human Evolution 13: 91.doi:10.1016/
> S0047-2484(84)80079-2.
> Wheeler, PE. (1985). The loss of functional body hair in man: the
> influence of thermal environment, body form and bipedality. Journal of
> Human Evolution 14: 23. doi:10.1016/S0047-2484(85)80091-9.
> Wikipedia.(2012). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair#Human_hair_growth.
There may well have been sexual selection at work. The hair we have has
social functions.
RichTravsky
May 21, 2012, 12:52:00 AM5/21/12
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On May 19, 6:33 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > Loss of fur was an adaptation to changing
> > environmental conditions that forced our
> > ancestors to travel longer distances for food and water.
>
> Most migrational species maintain their fur. Hominids were not
> migrational.
Non sequitur. Humans are all over the globe. You might as well say that
>
> On May 19, 6:33 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > Loss of fur was an adaptation to changing
> > environmental conditions that forced our
> > ancestors to travel longer distances for food and water.
>
> Most migrational species maintain their fur. Hominids were not
> migrational.
most migrational species do so on four legs.
> > hairlessness helped to set the stage for
> > the emergence of large brains and symbolic thought (Jablonski 2010).
>
> Speculative nonsense.
> early member of our genus called Homo ergaster had evolved
>
> > prolonged walking and running. Homo ergaster had to travel far in
> > search of sustenance including meat. This species, which arose by 1.6
> > million years ago, was probably the first to possess naked skin and
> > eccrine sweat, which would have
>
> Who cares.
> > offset the body heat generated by such
> > elevated activity levels (Jablonski 2010).
>
> our ancestors became
> > omnivorous in order to maximize calorie intake, an important
> > distinction in a nutrient-scarce environment.
>
> In a sense you're right. It was a survival strategy to survive the dry
> season.
>
> adapted long, strong
> > legs to facilitate sustained running, dense, hairy coats still posed a
> > potentially fatal risk of causing overheating during the chase. It is
> > posited that thick hair got in the way of the sweat evaporating, so
> > humans evolved a sparser coat of fur (Jablonski 2006).
>
> Speculative.
> > Persistence hunting is <snip> carried
> > out by Kalahari bushmen (Australian aboriginal tribes). Persistence
> > hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
> > several hours of continuous running at roughly marathon pace.
>
> Who cares.
> > fhe reason that humans can outrun four-legged ruminants over a long
> > distance turns out to be due to a surprising reason: sweating.
>
> Pure silliness.
Walter Bortz has an interesting paper (JHE (1985) 14, 145-155)
entitled "Physical Exercise as an Evolutionary Force". He notes
humans' incredible ability to run, and run for long distances.
(He ties this in with hair loss and our ability to shed heat.)
He cites contemporary examples (from other authors) such as:
- Bushmen can run down an unwounded springbok in the hottest
part of the day
- the !Kung can run down antelope
- Bushmen run down eland, kudu, and hartebeest
- Pygmies relentlessly chase prey
- the "extraordinary" running capabilities of American Indians
are noted
http://www.livescience.com/98-runner-high-jogging-separated-humans-apes.html
...
"We are very confident that strong selection for running -- which came at the
expense of the historical ability to live in trees -- was instrumental in the
origin of the modern human body form," said University of Utah biologist
Dennis Bramble.
...
Tom McDonald
May 21, 2012, 2:23:56 PM5/21/12
to
> There may well have been sexual selection at work. The hair we have has
> social functions.
of the lesser-haired Homo folks to function better in open, where the
improvement of cooling via perspiration would made such lesser-haired
individuals better adapted to prolonged sun exposure, whether or not
running was involved.
Claudius Denk
May 21, 2012, 9:25:38 PM5/21/12
to
On May 20, 9:52 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 6:33 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > Loss of fur was an adaptation to changing
> > > environmental conditions that forced our
> > > ancestors to travel longer distances for food and water.
>
> > Most migrational species maintain their fur. Hominids were not
> > migrational.
>
> Non sequitur. Humans are all over the globe. You might as well say that
> most migrational species do so on four legs.
All you have is silly speculation based on conventional notions that
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 6:33 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > Loss of fur was an adaptation to changing
> > > environmental conditions that forced our
> > > ancestors to travel longer distances for food and water.
>
> > Most migrational species maintain their fur. Hominids were not
> > migrational.
>
> Non sequitur. Humans are all over the globe. You might as well say that
> most migrational species do so on four legs.
have long since been rejected.
>
> > > hairlessness helped to set the stage for
> > > the emergence of large brains and symbolic thought (Jablonski 2010).
>
> > Speculative nonsense.
>
> No. Heat dissipation.
>
> > early member of our genus called Homo ergaster had evolved
>
> > > prolonged walking and running. Homo ergaster had to travel far in
> > > search of sustenance including meat. This species, which arose by 1.6
> > > million years ago, was probably the first to possess naked skin and
> > > eccrine sweat, which would have
>
> > Who cares.
>
> Why wouldn't you? This is a timeline being fleshed out.
migrated often.
> > > offset the body heat generated by such
> > > elevated activity levels (Jablonski 2010).
>
> > our ancestors became
> > > omnivorous in order to maximize calorie intake, an important
> > > distinction in a nutrient-scarce environment.
>
> > In a sense you're right. It was a survival strategy to survive the dry
> > season.
>
> > adapted long, strong
> > > legs to facilitate sustained running, dense, hairy coats still posed a
> > > potentially fatal risk of causing overheating during the chase. It is
> > > posited that thick hair got in the way of the sweat evaporating, so
> > > humans evolved a sparser coat of fur (Jablonski 2006).
>
> > Speculative.
>
> Put on a coat and going running in the noon day sun in summer. Report back.
>
> > > Persistence hunting is <snip> carried
> > > out by Kalahari bushmen (Australian aboriginal tribes). Persistence
> > > hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
> > > several hours of continuous running at roughly marathon pace.
>
> > Who cares.
>
> Early lifestyles may be reflected by this.
picture of a person swimming.
> > > fhe reason that humans can outrun four-legged ruminants over a long
> > > distance turns out to be due to a surprising reason: sweating.
>
> > Pure silliness.
>
> No. Dinner. Ever heard of relay hunting? That too.
>
> Walter Bortz has an interesting paper (JHE (1985) 14, 145-155)
> entitled "Physical Exercise as an Evolutionary Force". He notes
> humans' incredible ability to run, and run for long distances.
> (He ties this in with hair loss and our ability to shed heat.)
socially complex species ever known to exist?
> He cites contemporary examples (from other authors) such as:
>
> - Bushmen can run down an unwounded springbok in the hottest
> part of the day
>
> - the !Kung can run down antelope
>
> - Bushmen run down eland, kudu, and hartebeest
>
> - Pygmies relentlessly chase prey
>
> - the "extraordinary" running capabilities of American Indians
> are noted
>
> http://www.livescience.com/98-runner-high-jogging-separated-humans-ap...
> ...
> "We are very confident that strong selection for running -- which came at the
> expense of the historical ability to live in trees -- was instrumental in the
> origin of the modern human body form," said University of Utah biologist
> Dennis Bramble.
> ...
Explaining the origins of a skill that us humans aren't very good at
> "We are very confident that strong selection for running -- which came at the
> expense of the historical ability to live in trees -- was instrumental in the
> origin of the modern human body form," said University of Utah biologist
> Dennis Bramble.
> ...
isn't something to crow about.
JTEM
May 27, 2012, 3:36:42 AM5/27/12
to
Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> I suspect that part of the sexual selection had to do with the fitness
> of the lesser-haired Homo folks to function better in open, where the
> improvement of cooling via perspiration would made such lesser-haired
> individuals better adapted to prolonged sun exposure, whether or not
> running was involved.
Neonatal traits.
> I suspect that part of the sexual selection had to do with the fitness
> of the lesser-haired Homo folks to function better in open, where the
> improvement of cooling via perspiration would made such lesser-haired
> individuals better adapted to prolonged sun exposure, whether or not
> running was involved.
It is often argued that humans are evolutionarily programmed to
be attracted towards neonatal traits. This, it is reasoned, ensures
empathy for children -- the next generation -- and explains not
only why people coo over how "Adorable" each others children are,
but why even today our concept of beauty is a child with public
hair and breasts.
Even attractive men, as far back as we can go, are usually
depicted without body hair (the lack there of being a neonatal trait).
If sexual selection does indeed favor neonatal traits in adults,
this would explain hairlessness alone.
Tom McDonald
May 27, 2012, 6:10:18 AM5/27/12
to
It certainly isn't for the mammals I can think of at the moment. If you
want to postulate this, I think you'd have to assume that some mid-range
level of hairlessness evolved for other reasons, and was then sexually
selected for on the basis of neonatal trait selection.
Otherwise, selection for the neonatal condition wrt hair would have
meant cooing over how adorable each others' hairy little angels were;
and we'd still be frankly and obviously furred today.
Claudius Denk
May 27, 2012, 1:02:08 PM5/27/12
to
how it originated.
When it comes to human origins, it's the origins of sociality,
communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality, that are the issues
that matter. Hairlessness is incidental. It's the bastion of AAT
theorists and other science illiterates.
Answering questions about hairlessness is no substitute for not being
able to answer questions about the origins of sociality,
communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality and the other
attributes that so thoroughly distinguish hominids for all other
species.
Tom McDonald
May 27, 2012, 1:15:17 PM5/27/12
to
been breed for hairlessness by us humans.
> It's not that big of a deal.
> Who cares
> how it originated.
> When it comes to human origins, it's the origins of sociality,
> communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality, that are the issues
> that matter. Hairlessness is incidental. It's the bastion of AAT
> theorists and other science illiterates.
don't make the mistake of thinking no paleoanthropologist cares. It is
part of the discussion about how we got to be us, and it's a question
whose answer will provide significant information about that discussion.
> Answering questions about hairlessness is no substitute for not being
> able to answer questions about the origins of sociality,
> communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality and the other
> attributes that so thoroughly distinguish hominids for all other
> species.
pete
May 27, 2012, 2:34:21 PM5/27/12
to
social, communicative, intelligent, and territorial.
I get the impression from his writings,
that he might be hairy.
--
pete
Claudius Denk
May 27, 2012, 3:02:35 PM5/27/12
to
> > It's not that big of a deal.
>
> It is to real evolutionary theoreticians.
> > Who cares
> > how it originated.
>
> Real evolutionary theoreticians.
>
> > When it comes to human origins, it's the origins of sociality,
> > communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality, that are the issues
> > that matter. Hairlessness is incidental. It's the bastion of AAT
> > theorists and other science illiterates.
>
> Because you don't care, and because it complicates your 'hypothesis',
> don't make the mistake of thinking no .
Don't make the mistake of thinking that it matters what
paleoanthropologists care about.
> It is
> part of the discussion about how we got to be us, and it's a question
> whose answer will provide significant information about that discussion.
> > Answering questions about hairlessness is no substitute for not being
> > able to answer questions about the origins of sociality,
> > communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality and the other
> > attributes that so thoroughly distinguish hominids for all other
> > species.
>
> Not everything has to directly relate to your monomania, Jimmy.
discipline. For example, what strategy did early hominids employ to
survive the dry season (and it's dramatic predatory implications) of
their savanna habitat? This is a question that matters. Hairlessness
is incidental and can quite easily be associated with the fact that
humans began wearing clothes.
Tom McDonald
May 27, 2012, 4:21:54 PM5/27/12
to
>>> It's not that big of a deal.
>>
>> It is to real evolutionary theoreticians.
>
> Ha!
>>> Who cares
>>> how it originated.
>>
>> Real evolutionary theoreticians.
>>
>>> When it comes to human origins, it's the origins of sociality,
>>> communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality, that are the issues
>>> that matter. Hairlessness is incidental. It's the bastion of AAT
>>> theorists and other science illiterates.
>>
>> Because you don't care, and because it complicates your 'hypothesis',
>
> It doesn't complicate my hypothesis at all.
you need to think deeper and harder.
>> don't make the mistake of thinking no .
>
> Don't make the mistake of thinking that it matters what
> paleoanthropologists care about.
>> It is
>> part of the discussion about how we got to be us, and it's a question
>> whose answer will provide significant information about that discussion.
>
> Or not.
>
>>> Answering questions about hairlessness is no substitute for not being
>>> able to answer questions about the origins of sociality,
>>> communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality and the other
>>> attributes that so thoroughly distinguish hominids for all other
>>> species.
>>
>> Not everything has to directly relate to your monomania, Jimmy.
>
> Why don't you turn your attention to something that matters in this
> discipline. For example, what strategy did early hominids employ to
> survive the dry season (and it's dramatic predatory implications) of
> their savanna habitat? This is a question that matters.
'hypothesis'.
> Hairlessness
> is incidental and can quite easily be associated with the fact that
> humans began wearing clothes.
differentiation of mammalian body lice into head lice and pubic lice.
That should give you some idea about when relative hairlessness evolved
in Homo.
BTW, what morphological change do you posit to suggest clothing preceded
relative hairlessness? And, if you really think clothes are associated
with relative hairlessness, why would body lice differentiate into head
and pubic lice?
And, of course, you need to tell the group why clothes were needed in
the heat of Africa. Can you?
JTEM
May 27, 2012, 4:42:27 PM5/27/12
to
Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> When it comes to human origins, it's the origins of sociality,
> communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality, that are the issues
> that matter.
Everything matters. Anything could have been a major step
> When it comes to human origins, it's the origins of sociality,
> communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality, that are the issues
> that matter.
in the direction of us -- today -- and so everything is important.
You're introducing a rather fine point: Where do you start.
This is usually a rather large and unspoken issue in history.
And example would be Giwer and the origins of Jews -- do
Jews "Start" with the name? With the development of a set
of beliefs? With the arrival of the people who would eventually
assume the name or develop the beliefs? Depending on where
precisely you begin you get an all together different answer to
the question of "What was the origin of the Jews?"
Where I say you're mistaken is in trying to apply such arbitrary
lines on human origins. Unlike in most history scenarios, it's
almost always understood that human origins is a continuum
and not an event. It's punctuated by events where were significant,
yes, but human origins is a continuum.
> Answering questions about hairlessness is no substitute for not being
> able to answer questions about the origins of sociality,
higher population densities. This meant that our species had to
learn to get along.
Google it. It's a fact: They could easily support a greater
population
density living off the ocean than the land.
Hunter gatherers were extremely limited in population density,
extremely limited in how big a group could be and how important
social skills were.
You don't need a lot of social skills to navigate a family group.
You've
known them your whole life. They've known you. Social skills are at
their most critical when dealing with people who don't know you.
They're the ones who can misread you. They're the threat.
> communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality and the other
> attributes that so thoroughly distinguish hominids for all other
> species.
Claudius Denk
May 27, 2012, 5:09:39 PM5/27/12
to
> Nice of you to admit it.
with common sense, not literature. Humans are the only species that
have language, that have comprehensive collective conciousness. It is
the origins of these behaviors/abilities (and their associated
intelligence) that are of primary concern in any discussion of hominid
evolution.
It's that simple.
Why would you waste any time at all explaining the origins of
something that can be so easily explained by the adoption of clothing
and/or reproductive practices (of a newly communal species)?
> >>> Who cares
> >>> how it originated.
>
> >> Real evolutionary theoreticians.
>
> >>> When it comes to human origins, it's the origins of sociality,
> >>> communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality, that are the issues
> >>> that matter. Hairlessness is incidental. It's the bastion of AAT
> >>> theorists and other science illiterates.
>
> >> Because you don't care, and because it complicates your 'hypothesis',
>
> > It doesn't complicate my hypothesis at all.
>
> If your observation below is an example of your thinking on the matter,
> you need to think deeper and harder.
instrumental in, let's say, the origins of hominid agriculturalism?
If nothing else, your response should be good for a few laughs.
> >> don't make the mistake of thinking no .
>
> > Don't make the mistake of thinking that it matters what
> > paleoanthropologists care about.
>
> Well, it does, if you want to discuss paleoanthropology.
then you have lost the argument.
> >> It is
> >> part of the discussion about how we got to be us, and it's a question
> >> whose answer will provide significant information about that discussion.
>
> > Or not.
>
> >>> Answering questions about hairlessness is no substitute for not being
> >>> able to answer questions about the origins of sociality,
> >>> communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality and the other
> >>> attributes that so thoroughly distinguish hominids for all other
> >>> species.
>
> >> Not everything has to directly relate to your monomania, Jimmy.
>
> > Why don't you turn your attention to something that matters in this
> > discipline. For example, what strategy did early hominids employ to
> > survive the dry season (and it's dramatic predatory implications) of
> > their savanna habitat? This is a question that matters.
>
> And you admit you have no evidence-based argument to support your
> 'hypothesis'.
What strategy did early hominids employ to survive the dry season (and
it's dramatic predatory implications)? I've answered this question.
You haven't.
Answer the question or concede the argument.
> > Hairlessness
> > is incidental and can quite easily be associated with the fact that
> > humans began wearing clothes.
>
> Evidence? I'm interested on your take as to the time-depth of the
> differentiation of mammalian body lice into head lice and pubic lice.
> That should give you some idea about when relative hairlessness evolved
> in Homo.
>
> BTW, what morphological change do you posit to suggest clothing preceded
> relative hairlessness? And, if you really think clothes are associated
> with relative hairlessness, why would body lice differentiate into head
> and pubic lice?
>
> And, of course, you need to tell the group why clothes were needed in
> the heat of Africa. Can you?
Tom McDonald
May 27, 2012, 5:22:30 PM5/27/12
to
engaging in subjects you don't care about?
Claudius Denk
May 30, 2012, 12:33:03 PM5/30/12
to
On May 27, 1:42 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > When it comes to human origins, it's the origins of sociality,
> > communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality, that are the issues
> > that matter.
>
> Everything matters.
No, everything doesn't matter. Humans have distinctive
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > When it comes to human origins, it's the origins of sociality,
> > communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality, that are the issues
> > that matter.
>
> Everything matters.
characteristics, especially in comparison to our chimpanzee-like LCA.
> Anything could have been a major step
> in the direction of us -- today -- and so everything is important.
statement is true, but inane.
> You're introducing a rather fine point: Where do you start.
> This is usually a rather large and unspoken issue in history.
> And example would be Giwer and the origins of Jews -- do
> Jews "Start" with the name? With the development of a set
> of beliefs? With the arrival of the people who would eventually
> assume the name or develop the beliefs? Depending on where
> precisely you begin you get an all together different answer to
> the question of "What was the origin of the Jews?"
>
> Where I say you're mistaken is in trying to apply such arbitrary
> lines on human origins. Unlike in most history scenarios, it's
> almost always understood that human origins is a continuum
> and not an event. It's punctuated by events where were significant,
> yes, but human origins is a continuum.
>
> > Answering questions about hairlessness is no substitute for not being
> > able to answer questions about the origins of sociality,
>
> Aquatic ape: Aquatic groups were (are) able to sustain much
> higher population densities. This meant that our species had to
> learn to get along.
>
> Google it. It's a fact: They could easily support a greater
> population
> density living off the ocean than the land.
>
> Hunter gatherers were extremely limited in population density,
> extremely limited in how big a group could be and how important
> social skills were.
>
> You don't need a lot of social skills to navigate a family group.
> You've
> known them your whole life. They've known you. Social skills are at
> their most critical when dealing with people who don't know you.
> They're the ones who can misread you. They're the threat.
>
> > communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality and the other
> > attributes that so thoroughly distinguish hominids for all other
> > species.
>
> All easily explained by aquaitic ape.
Claudius Denk
May 30, 2012, 12:36:06 PM5/30/12
to
discussion group on that subject?
Tom McDonald
May 30, 2012, 12:44:15 PM5/30/12
to
Claudius Denk
May 30, 2012, 12:53:06 PM5/30/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Tom McDonald
May 30, 2012, 3:27:42 PM5/30/12
to
the topic at hand, or piss off, troll.
Claudius Denk
May 31, 2012, 11:06:23 AM5/31/12
to
Tom McDonald
May 31, 2012, 11:48:27 AM5/31/12
to
On 5/31/2012 10:06 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
<snip>
> Answering questions about hairlessness is no substitute
> for not being able to answer questions about the origins of
> sociality, communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality and
> the other attributes that so thoroughly distinguish hominids
> for all other species.
>
Answering questions about the origins of sociality, communicativeness,
intelligence, and territoriality is no substitute for discussing a real
question in human evolution--our relative hairlessness, thermoregulation
and persistence hunting.
If you don't want to discuss the subject, why post here? Is it that you
can't play outside your very limited comfort zone? I think you are a phoney.
<snip>
> Answering questions about hairlessness is no substitute
> for not being able to answer questions about the origins of
> sociality, communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality and
> the other attributes that so thoroughly distinguish hominids
> for all other species.
>
intelligence, and territoriality is no substitute for discussing a real
question in human evolution--our relative hairlessness, thermoregulation
and persistence hunting.
If you don't want to discuss the subject, why post here? Is it that you
can't play outside your very limited comfort zone? I think you are a phoney.
Claudius Denk
May 31, 2012, 12:15:42 PM5/31/12
to
On May 31, 8:48 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 5/31/2012 10:06 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Answering questions about hairlessness is no substitute
> > for not being able to answer questions about the origins of
> > sociality, communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality and
> > the other attributes that so thoroughly distinguish hominids
> > for all other species.
>
> Answering questions about the origins of sociality, communicativeness,
> intelligence, and territoriality is no substitute for discussing a real
> question in human evolution--our relative hairlessness, thermoregulation
> and persistence hunting.
Really? (laughing)
> On 5/31/2012 10:06 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Answering questions about hairlessness is no substitute
> > for not being able to answer questions about the origins of
> > sociality, communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality and
> > the other attributes that so thoroughly distinguish hominids
> > for all other species.
>
> Answering questions about the origins of sociality, communicativeness,
> intelligence, and territoriality is no substitute for discussing a real
> question in human evolution--our relative hairlessness, thermoregulation
> and persistence hunting.
> If you don't want to discuss the subject, why post here? Is it that you
> can't play outside your very limited comfort zone? I think you are a phoney.
notice the attributes that so thoroughly and indisputably distinguish
hominids from all other species.
VtSkier
May 31, 2012, 1:17:41 PM5/31/12
to
and other attributes" are not found solely among humans. The origins of
all of these lie in their origins in so called lower animals.
VtSkier
May 31, 2012, 1:18:20 PM5/31/12
to
Claudius Denk
May 31, 2012, 1:28:38 PM5/31/12
to
found in other species.
> The origins of
> all of these lie in their origins in so called lower animals.
subject is the origin of hominids/humans that have dramatically
increase their employment of these attributes over the last 4 to 7
million years.
Claudius Denk
May 31, 2012, 1:44:38 PM5/31/12
to
VtSkier
May 31, 2012, 2:14:12 PM5/31/12
to
Claudius Denk
May 31, 2012, 2:55:28 PM5/31/12
to
mentality.
Tom McDonald
May 31, 2012, 3:18:12 PM5/31/12
to
On 5/31/2012 12:28 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On May 31, 10:17 am, VtSkier<VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
<snip>
> On May 31, 10:17 am, VtSkier<VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> Trouble is "sociality, communicativeness, intelligence, territoriality
>> and other attributes" are not found solely among humans.
>
> So what? Surely you're not suggesting hairlessness and running aren't
> found in other species.
>> The origins of
>> all of these lie in their origins in so called lower animals.
>
> So what? The subject isn't the origin of these attributes.
Why are you so dim?
> The
> subject is the origin of hominids/humans that have dramatically
> increase their employment of these attributes over the last 4 to 7
> million years.
>
not start your own thread to jerk off over your fantasies?
VtSkier
May 31, 2012, 4:16:23 PM5/31/12
to
Humans are generalists. They combine the use of those attributes
probably better than most other animals, but each individual trait can
be and is surpassed on its own by a particular species. Isn't it true
that ants and bees are far more social than humans? Aren't they FAR more
apt to behave in ways that are advantageous to their community at the
expense of self than even humans are? Isn't it true that cetaceans
communicate as well as humans and can communicate over greater distances
than humans can (at least prior to the discovery of EM)? And I'll tell
you what, I wouldn't want to argue territorial rights with a grizzly.
Intelligence? Well maybe you've got me there but I'm not so sure
considering the state of the US Congress at the moment.
I'm thinking that hairlessness is a valid discussion point in the
evolution of humans, especially as a hunting/meat eating species. I
think that initially hairlessness allowed humans to exploit an
ecological niche that most other large predators don't. That is the
daylight hours. The hairlessness then became a come-on and was sexually
selected for.
All other "higher" primates are mainly foragers and are not hairless.
Chimps seem to be beginning to hunt some, but not as much as early
humans and hominids did. Chimps, for instance, do not have a toolkit for
butchering as did H. erectus and probably even Austrolopithecus (sp) did
as Leakey showed us with the Oldwan artifacts.
I'm thinking that hominids became hunters at a fairly early point. I'm
thinking that your "garden habitat" with its fairly good supply of trees
was a good place to spend the night and then come down during the day
after the the other predators were fed and sleepy and do some predation
(and foraging) on their own. Oh, and you don't have to kill an antelope
every day, ground squirrels and the like make pretty good eating,
especially when combined with foraged vegies.
Except for the existence of very early stone tools that could have been
used for butchering, I have as much evidence for this scenario as you
have for yours. I generally agree with you that the home of early
hominids was the vast savannas of tropical Africa including East Africa
and the Sahel.
Another point. You don't need edge tools for foraging, a digging stick
will do and these won't survive in the fossil record. So, what survives
points to butchering. What we don't know is whether the humans who did
the butchering were actually hunting or were living off the kills of
others, something, again, that suits a diurnal life style. Remember this
discussion was at least partly about hairlessness.
Claudius Denk
May 31, 2012, 4:21:31 PM5/31/12
to
They combine the use of those attributes
> probably better than most other animals, but each individual trait can
> be and is surpassed on its own by a particular species. Isn't it true
> that ants and bees are far more social than humans? Aren't they FAR more
> apt to behave in ways that are advantageous to their community at the
> expense of self than even humans are? Isn't it true that cetaceans
> communicate as well as humans and can communicate over greater distances
> than humans can (at least prior to the discovery of EM)? And I'll tell
> you what, I wouldn't want to argue territorial rights with a grizzly.
Typical evasiveness.
Focus on what is distinctive about hominids and put forth a hypothesis
in regards to the selective origins of these distinctions or go away.
Stop looking for excuses to ignore these distinctions.
VtSkier
May 31, 2012, 5:04:48 PM5/31/12
to
On 5/31/2012 4:21 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On May 31, 1:16 pm, VtSkier<VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> On 5/31/2012 2:55 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
(this has gotten WAY too long, so snipperoo)
> On May 31, 1:16 pm, VtSkier<VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> On 5/31/2012 2:55 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>
>>>>>> The origins of
>>>>>> all of these lie in their origins in so called lower animals.
>>
>>>>> So what? The subject isn't the origin of these attributes. The
>>>>> subject is the origin of hominids/humans that have dramatically
>>>>> increase their employment of these attributes over the last 4 to 7
>>>>> million years.
>>
>>>> But that's not true.
>>
>>> It's true. And your inability to accept it is evidence of your cult
>>> mentality.
>>
>> What cult mentality? I'm not a member of any cult, religious or otherwise.
>>
>> Humans are generalists.
>
> Nonsense terminology.
appendage. Humans are physically more generalized than most other
animals and are behaviorally generalists rather than specialists.
Otherwise, if we were specialized to any ecological niche we couldn't
inhabit any others except the one we are specialized to. For instance if
we are creatures of the African savanna and specialized to that
ecosystem, we couldn't possibly inhabit the polar regions and that's
demonstrably not the case.
> They combine the use of those attributes
>> probably better than most other animals, but each individual trait can
>> be and is surpassed on its own by a particular species. Isn't it true
>> that ants and bees are far more social than humans? Aren't they FAR more
>> apt to behave in ways that are advantageous to their community at the
>> expense of self than even humans are? Isn't it true that cetaceans
>> communicate as well as humans and can communicate over greater distances
>> than humans can (at least prior to the discovery of EM)? And I'll tell
>> you what, I wouldn't want to argue territorial rights with a grizzly.
>> Intelligence? Well ...
>
> Typical evasiveness.
> Focus on what is distinctive about hominids and put forth a hypothesis
> in regards to the selective origins of these distinctions or go away.
> Stop looking for excuses to ignore these distinctions.
your list. Other species do the features on your list at least as well
as humans/hominids, some do them better.
Lessee, my list: HAIRLESSNESS! UPRIGHT POSTURE! LIKES DAYLIGHT TO
DARKNESS! LARGE BRAIN!
That's about all I can think of that's distinctive about humans/hominids
as opposed to, oh say, other large predators.
Once we have a list established we can go forward, but first we need a
list that we can agree on.
Or are you just going to insist, like a 19th century schoolmaster, that
we discuss only your list? If so fugetaboudit.
Claudius Denk
May 31, 2012, 5:26:32 PM5/31/12
to
On May 31, 2:04 pm, VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> On 5/31/2012 4:21 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > Focus on what is distinctive about hominids and put forth a hypothesis
> > in regards to the selective origins of these distinctions or go away.
> > Stop looking for excuses to ignore these distinctions.
> On 5/31/2012 4:21 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > Focus on what is distinctive about hominids and put forth a hypothesis
> > in regards to the selective origins of these distinctions or go away.
> > Stop looking for excuses to ignore these distinctions.
> my list: HAIRLESSNESS! UPRIGHT POSTURE! LIKES DAYLIGHT TO
> DARKNESS! LARGE BRAIN!
>
> That's about all I can think of
Well then, you're an idiot.
> DARKNESS! LARGE BRAIN!
>
> That's about all I can think of
Tom McDonald
May 31, 2012, 7:20:14 PM5/31/12
to
snipper.
What's'a'matta? You can't make an argument? All you got is abuse?
Ah, the Jimmy Death Spiral. It's a wonder to behold.
VtSkier
May 31, 2012, 7:27:27 PM5/31/12
to
You're just an asshole!
Claudius Denk
May 31, 2012, 8:59:04 PM5/31/12
to
On May 31, 4:20 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 5/31/2012 4:26 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:> On May 31, 2:04 pm, VtSkier<VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/31/2012 4:21 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> >>> Focus on what is distinctive about hominids and put forth a hypothesis
> >>> in regards to the selective origins of these distinctions or go away.
> >>> Stop looking for excuses to ignore these distinctions.
>
> >> my list: HAIRLESSNESS! UPRIGHT POSTURE! LIKES DAYLIGHT TO
> >> DARKNESS! LARGE BRAIN!
>
> >> That's about all I can think of
>
> > Well then, you're an idiot.
>
> No, he's not; but you are an evasive twit and a coward of an unmarked
> snipper.
Actually I don't think he's an idiot. I just think that you both are
> On 5/31/2012 4:26 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:> On May 31, 2:04 pm, VtSkier<VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/31/2012 4:21 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> >>> Focus on what is distinctive about hominids and put forth a hypothesis
> >>> in regards to the selective origins of these distinctions or go away.
> >>> Stop looking for excuses to ignore these distinctions.
>
> >> my list: HAIRLESSNESS! UPRIGHT POSTURE! LIKES DAYLIGHT TO
> >> DARKNESS! LARGE BRAIN!
>
> >> That's about all I can think of
>
> > Well then, you're an idiot.
>
> No, he's not; but you are an evasive twit and a coward of an unmarked
> snipper.
representative of the cult mentality associated with the current
paradigm.
What's interesting about your response is that you don't support or
dispute his (all caps, see upthread) assertions. Nor do you express
any kind of opinion whatsoever about the subject under discussion.
This is what is distinctive about your response. It's posturing.
Why the posturing, Tom? And why the commitment to vagueness in
general? It's like you're hiding something. It's like you talk to
your lawyer before every post.
> What's'a'matta? You can't make an argument? All you got is abuse?
>
> Ah, the Jimmy Death Spiral. It's a wonder to behold.
everything we need to know about what you truly think about your
hypothesis of human origins in comparison to my Ecological Gatekeeper
Hypothesis.
Tom McDonald
May 31, 2012, 9:10:42 PM5/31/12
to
Claudius Denk
May 31, 2012, 9:16:19 PM5/31/12
to
about how you envision early hominids living a life of long distance
running (naked?) to become the most social, communicative, conscious,
territorial, communal and agricultural species ever know to exist on
this planet?
Tom McDonald
May 31, 2012, 9:35:55 PM5/31/12
to
hairlessness in your hypothesis? Be specific, you evasive jackass.
Claudius Denk
May 31, 2012, 9:10:52 PM5/31/12
to
you lost the argument, you lost the argument.
All you cultists got left is playing dumb when the real issues come up.
VtSkier
Jun 1, 2012, 7:15:21 AM6/1/12
to
that you apparently believe is the end-all be-all of hominid evolution
theory. You hammer on your assertions without even considering that
another scenario might be right or even able to be merged with your theory.
Oh, and humans are not the only agricultural species. Consider
leaf-cutter ants.
If you were to offer evidence for your theory instead of trying to
hammer it in you might get a better response. If you gently poked holes
in other people's theories instead of insulting them, you might get a
better response.
Trouble with both (or all) arguments is that there is very little
evidence to support any of it. I am making the argument that hominids
were hunters or at least scavengers on the savanna at a very early point
in evolution. I support this with the physical evidence of probable
cutting tools which aren't necessary for a foraging lifestyle.
What is the physical evidence for your scenario?
I haven't lost anything.
Claudius Denk
Jun 1, 2012, 9:26:59 AM6/1/12
to
On Jun 1, 4:15 am, VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> On 5/31/2012 9:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >>>>> Focus on what is distinctive about hominids and put forth a hypothesis
> >>>>> in regards to the selective origins of these distinctions or go away.
> >>>>> Stop looking for excuses to ignore these distinctions.
>
> >>>> my list: HAIRLESSNESS! UPRIGHT POSTURE! LIKES DAYLIGHT TO
> >>>> DARKNESS! LARGE BRAIN!
>
> >>>> That's about all I can think of
>
> >>> Well then, you're an idiot.
>
> >> And I'm trying to be polite and kind.
> >> You're just an asshole!
>
> > When you employ playing dumb as a strategy to conceal the fact that
> > you lost the argument, you lost the argument.
>
> > All you cultists got left is playing dumb when the real issues come up.
>
> You haven't made your argument.
Your only dispute with it involves some romantic notions of the old
> On 5/31/2012 9:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >>>>> Focus on what is distinctive about hominids and put forth a hypothesis
> >>>>> in regards to the selective origins of these distinctions or go away.
> >>>>> Stop looking for excuses to ignore these distinctions.
>
> >>>> my list: HAIRLESSNESS! UPRIGHT POSTURE! LIKES DAYLIGHT TO
> >>>> DARKNESS! LARGE BRAIN!
>
> >>>> That's about all I can think of
>
> >>> Well then, you're an idiot.
>
> >> And I'm trying to be polite and kind.
> >> You're just an asshole!
>
> > When you employ playing dumb as a strategy to conceal the fact that
> > you lost the argument, you lost the argument.
>
> > All you cultists got left is playing dumb when the real issues come up.
>
> You haven't made your argument.
savanna hypothesis that you must keep vague to avoid looking stupid.
You essentially have nothing that even begins to compete with my
hypothesis.
> All you have is a series of assertions
> that you apparently believe is the end-all be-all of hominid evolution
> theory. You hammer on your assertions without even considering that
> another scenario might be right or even able to be merged with your theory.
yet?
> Oh, and humans are not the only agricultural species. Consider
> leaf-cutter ants.
> If you were to offer evidence for your theory instead of trying to
> hammer it in you might get a better response. If you gently poked holes
> in other people's theories instead of insulting them, you might get a
> better response.
evidence. I just need to explain the evidence that already exists,
which I've done.
> Trouble with both (or all) arguments is that there is very little
> evidence to support any of it.
are so many people like you that want to force the evidence to
indicate something that simply isn't the case. You've taken a
scientific discipline and turned it into a cult.
> I am making the argument that hominids
> were hunters or at least scavengers on the savanna at a very early point
> in evolution. I support this with the physical evidence of probable
> cutting tools which aren't necessary for a foraging lifestyle.
use of deliberately fashioned stone tools. So you have a huge gap of
time, logic, and common sense. And you will never do anything but
pave over that gap with vagueness and other intellectually dishonest
tactics.
> What is the physical evidence for your scenario?
> I haven't lost anything.
RichTravsky
Jun 1, 2012, 11:53:45 PM6/1/12
to
Tom McDonald wrote:
> On 5/20/2012 11:41 PM, RichTravsky wrote:
> > Tom McDonald wrote:
> >> I find this interesting, as an overview of what the author (unknown, but
> >> posted on T.O., and possibly written by, marc.tessera) has pulled
> >> together about thermoregulation and hairlessness, with a dip into the
> >> persistence hunting pool. Submitted for your consideration.
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> The thermoregulatory hypothesis was first proposed by Darwin in 1871
> >> and later developed by Dr. Peter Wheeler (Wheeler 1984; 1985).
> >> 1. Benefits stemming from the loss of human body hair:
> >> “In order to comprehend why humans are essentially hairless, it is
> >> essential to understand that mammalian body hair is not merely an
> >> aesthetic characteristic; it protects the skin from wounds, bites,
> >> heat, cold, and UV radiation. Additionally, it can be used as a
> >> communication tool and as a camouflage. To this end, it can be
> >> concluded that benefits stemming from the loss of human body hair must
> >> be great enough to outweigh the loss of these protective functions by
> >> nakedness” (Wikipedia 2012).
> >> “Humans are the only primate species that has mostly naked skin. Loss
> >> of fur was an adaptation to changing environmental conditions that
> >> forced our ancestors to travel longer distances for food and water.
> >> Analyses of fossils and genes hint at when this transformation
> >> occurred. The evolution of hairlessness helped to set the stage for
> >> the emergence of large brains and symbolic thought” (Jablonski 2010).
> >> 2. When can we date the loss of hair among our ancestors?
> >> “Studies conducted independently by Lieberman and Christopher Ruff of
> >> Johns Hopkins University have shown that by about 1.6 million years
> >> ago an early member of our genus called Homo ergaster had evolved
> >> essentially modern body proportions, which would have permitted
> >> prolonged walking and running. Homo ergaster had to travel far in
> >> search of sustenance—including meat. This species, which arose by 1.6
> >> million years ago, was probably the first to possess naked skin and
> >> eccrine sweat, which would have offset the body heat generated by such
> >> elevated activity levels” (Jablonski 2010).
> >> Moreover “humans, unlike other apes, have, not one, but two types of
> >> hair lice, one living in head hair and the other living in pubic hair.
> >> Chimps and gorillas on the other hand, have only one. The reason that
> >> humans have two types of hair lice arises from our nakedness over most
> >> of our bodies, and thus the two colonies of lice are isolated and have
> >> evolved separately. The argument then is that when we lost our hair
> >> before our hair lice split into two species” (Jogalekar 2011). “Thus,
> >> the origin of body lice provides a minimum estimate for the dawn of
> >> hominid garb. By comparing gene sequences of organisms, investigators
> >> can learn roughly when the species arose. Such analyses in lice
> >> indicate that whereas head lice have plagued humans from the start,
> >> body lice evolved much later. The timing of their appearance hints
> >> that humans went naked for more than a million years before getting
> >> dressed” (Jablonski 2010).
> >> 3. Change in diet:
> >> “After diverging from their chimpanzee-lineage, our ancestors became
> >> omnivorous in order to maximize calorie intake, an important
> >> distinction in a nutrient-scarce environment. Prey, however, are
> >> moving targets, and though early humans changed the traditionally ape-
> >> like appearance of the australopithecines and adapted long, strong
> >> legs to facilitate sustained running, dense, hairy coats still posed a
> >> potentially fatal risk of causing overheating during the chase. It is
> >> posited that thick hair got in the way of the sweat evaporating, so
> >> humans evolved a sparser coat of fur” (Jablonski 2006).
> >> 4. Persistence hunting to ate meat:
> >> “Persistence hunting is an ancient method of hunting. It is carried
> >> out by Kalahari bushmen (Australian aboriginal tribes). Persistence
> >> hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
> >> several hours of continuous running at roughly marathon pace. Although
> >> slow over short distances, humans are actually quite efficient runners
> >> over long distances. Hunting occurs by chasing a animal and not
> >> letting it rest, so after several hours, the animal collapses
> >> exhaustion. That’s when our Running Ape can get close enough to
> >> basically stab the animal to death with a crude spear head. The skill
> >> in persistence hunting lies in the stamina required for the long-
> >> distance running and the ability tracking the prey over a vast area.
> >> The reason that humans can outrun four-legged ruminants over a long
> >> distance turns out to be due to a surprising reason: sweating. Humans
> >> are one of the few mammals that sweat for cooling, and this turns out
> >> to be incredibly advantageous for long-distance running in hot
> >> scorched conditions. Most mammals cool by panting, which is
> >> incompatible with running. They overheat if they run long distances
> >> without stopping. In contrast, our Running Ape ancestor could maintain
> >> a steady pace whilst the liquid glistening on their naked skins keeps
> >> their bodies from overheating. Finally, the hunted mammal overheats,
> >> and collapses from exhaustion” (Jogalekar 2011).
> >
> > Hair reduction, really, rather than hair loss.
>
> That's right. Should have been more precise.
>
> > There may well have been sexual selection at work. The hair we have has
> > social functions.
what was left was probably sexual selection. For example, we have eyebrows,
probably the only primates with them, and they are important social
indicators. Pubic hair, armpit hair, beards, etc signals sexual maturity.
> On 5/20/2012 11:41 PM, RichTravsky wrote:
> > Tom McDonald wrote:
> >> I find this interesting, as an overview of what the author (unknown, but
> >> posted on T.O., and possibly written by, marc.tessera) has pulled
> >> together about thermoregulation and hairlessness, with a dip into the
> >> persistence hunting pool. Submitted for your consideration.
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> The thermoregulatory hypothesis was first proposed by Darwin in 1871
> >> and later developed by Dr. Peter Wheeler (Wheeler 1984; 1985).
> >> 1. Benefits stemming from the loss of human body hair:
> >> “In order to comprehend why humans are essentially hairless, it is
> >> essential to understand that mammalian body hair is not merely an
> >> aesthetic characteristic; it protects the skin from wounds, bites,
> >> heat, cold, and UV radiation. Additionally, it can be used as a
> >> communication tool and as a camouflage. To this end, it can be
> >> concluded that benefits stemming from the loss of human body hair must
> >> be great enough to outweigh the loss of these protective functions by
> >> nakedness” (Wikipedia 2012).
> >> “Humans are the only primate species that has mostly naked skin. Loss
> >> of fur was an adaptation to changing environmental conditions that
> >> forced our ancestors to travel longer distances for food and water.
> >> Analyses of fossils and genes hint at when this transformation
> >> occurred. The evolution of hairlessness helped to set the stage for
> >> the emergence of large brains and symbolic thought” (Jablonski 2010).
> >> 2. When can we date the loss of hair among our ancestors?
> >> “Studies conducted independently by Lieberman and Christopher Ruff of
> >> Johns Hopkins University have shown that by about 1.6 million years
> >> ago an early member of our genus called Homo ergaster had evolved
> >> essentially modern body proportions, which would have permitted
> >> prolonged walking and running. Homo ergaster had to travel far in
> >> search of sustenance—including meat. This species, which arose by 1.6
> >> million years ago, was probably the first to possess naked skin and
> >> eccrine sweat, which would have offset the body heat generated by such
> >> elevated activity levels” (Jablonski 2010).
> >> Moreover “humans, unlike other apes, have, not one, but two types of
> >> hair lice, one living in head hair and the other living in pubic hair.
> >> Chimps and gorillas on the other hand, have only one. The reason that
> >> humans have two types of hair lice arises from our nakedness over most
> >> of our bodies, and thus the two colonies of lice are isolated and have
> >> evolved separately. The argument then is that when we lost our hair
> >> before our hair lice split into two species” (Jogalekar 2011). “Thus,
> >> the origin of body lice provides a minimum estimate for the dawn of
> >> hominid garb. By comparing gene sequences of organisms, investigators
> >> can learn roughly when the species arose. Such analyses in lice
> >> indicate that whereas head lice have plagued humans from the start,
> >> body lice evolved much later. The timing of their appearance hints
> >> that humans went naked for more than a million years before getting
> >> dressed” (Jablonski 2010).
> >> 3. Change in diet:
> >> “After diverging from their chimpanzee-lineage, our ancestors became
> >> omnivorous in order to maximize calorie intake, an important
> >> distinction in a nutrient-scarce environment. Prey, however, are
> >> moving targets, and though early humans changed the traditionally ape-
> >> like appearance of the australopithecines and adapted long, strong
> >> legs to facilitate sustained running, dense, hairy coats still posed a
> >> potentially fatal risk of causing overheating during the chase. It is
> >> posited that thick hair got in the way of the sweat evaporating, so
> >> humans evolved a sparser coat of fur” (Jablonski 2006).
> >> 4. Persistence hunting to ate meat:
> >> “Persistence hunting is an ancient method of hunting. It is carried
> >> out by Kalahari bushmen (Australian aboriginal tribes). Persistence
> >> hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
> >> several hours of continuous running at roughly marathon pace. Although
> >> slow over short distances, humans are actually quite efficient runners
> >> over long distances. Hunting occurs by chasing a animal and not
> >> letting it rest, so after several hours, the animal collapses
> >> exhaustion. That’s when our Running Ape can get close enough to
> >> basically stab the animal to death with a crude spear head. The skill
> >> in persistence hunting lies in the stamina required for the long-
> >> distance running and the ability tracking the prey over a vast area.
> >> The reason that humans can outrun four-legged ruminants over a long
> >> distance turns out to be due to a surprising reason: sweating. Humans
> >> are one of the few mammals that sweat for cooling, and this turns out
> >> to be incredibly advantageous for long-distance running in hot
> >> scorched conditions. Most mammals cool by panting, which is
> >> incompatible with running. They overheat if they run long distances
> >> without stopping. In contrast, our Running Ape ancestor could maintain
> >> a steady pace whilst the liquid glistening on their naked skins keeps
> >> their bodies from overheating. Finally, the hunted mammal overheats,
> >> and collapses from exhaustion” (Jogalekar 2011).
> >
> > Hair reduction, really, rather than hair loss.
>
> That's right. Should have been more precise.
>
> > There may well have been sexual selection at work. The hair we have has
> > social functions.
>
> I suspect that part of the sexual selection had to do with the fitness
> of the lesser-haired Homo folks to function better in open, where the
> improvement of cooling via perspiration would made such lesser-haired
> individuals better adapted to prolonged sun exposure, whether or not
> running was involved.
At a gross level, I suspect, but after most of the hair had been reduced
> I suspect that part of the sexual selection had to do with the fitness
> of the lesser-haired Homo folks to function better in open, where the
> improvement of cooling via perspiration would made such lesser-haired
> individuals better adapted to prolonged sun exposure, whether or not
> running was involved.
what was left was probably sexual selection. For example, we have eyebrows,
probably the only primates with them, and they are important social
indicators. Pubic hair, armpit hair, beards, etc signals sexual maturity.
Claudius Denk
Jun 2, 2012, 12:04:49 AM6/2/12
to
evolution.
RichTravsky
Jun 2, 2012, 12:11:43 AM6/2/12
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > migrational.
> >
> > Non sequitur. Humans are all over the globe. You might as well say that
> > most migrational species do so on four legs.
>
> All you have is silly speculation based on conventional notions that
> have long since been rejected.
Humans didn't spread all over the globe? Wow.
> > > > hairlessness helped to set the stage for
> > > > the emergence of large brains and symbolic thought (Jablonski 2010).
> >
> > > Speculative nonsense.
> >
> > No. Heat dissipation.
>
> I wonder why other species that sweat don't have large brains?
Heat dissipation for the whole body.
> > > early member of our genus called Homo ergaster had evolved
> >
> >
> > Why wouldn't you? This is a timeline being fleshed out.
>
> Silly speculation. There's no evidence that Homo ergaster travelled/
> migrated often.
The earliest Dmanisi finds have been attributed to ergaster.
> > > > offset the body heat generated by such
> > > > elevated activity levels (Jablonski 2010).
> >
> > > season.
> >
> > Put on a coat and going running in the noon day sun in summer. Report back.
Well? Did you try it?
> > > > Persistence hunting is <snip> carried
> >
> > Early lifestyles may be reflected by this.
>
> That's the same thing Marc Verhaegen would say after showing you a
> picture of a person swimming.
People don't live in water. They live on land.
> > > > fhe reason that humans can outrun four-legged ruminants over a long
> >
> > No. Dinner. Ever heard of relay hunting? That too.
> >
> > Walter Bortz has an interesting paper (JHE (1985) 14, 145-155)
> > entitled "Physical Exercise as an Evolutionary Force". He notes
> > humans' incredible ability to run, and run for long distances.
> > (He ties this in with hair loss and our ability to shed heat.)
>
> Can Bortz explain how running turned our species into the most
> socially complex species ever known to exist?
You mean like how hunting is a cooperative endeavor? Even chimps do that.
> > He cites contemporary examples (from other authors) such as:
> >
> > - Bushmen can run down an unwounded springbok in the hottest
> > part of the day
> >
> > - the !Kung can run down antelope
> >
> > - Bushmen run down eland, kudu, and hartebeest
> >
> > - Pygmies relentlessly chase prey
> >
> > - the "extraordinary" running capabilities of American Indians
> > are noted
>
> Can you explain the selective origins of agriculture?
Agriculture, as humans practice it, is an intellectual accomplishment.
> > http://www.livescience.com/98-runner-high-jogging-separated-humans-ap...
> > ...
> > "We are very confident that strong selection for running -- which came at the
> > expense of the historical ability to live in trees -- was instrumental in the
> > origin of the modern human body form," said University of Utah biologist
> > Dennis Bramble.
> > ...
>
> Explaining the origins of a skill that us humans aren't very good at
> isn't something to crow about.
You mean like swimming?
>
> On May 20, 9:52 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> On May 20, 9:52 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> > > On May 19, 6:33 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > Loss of fur was an adaptation to changing
> > > > environmental conditions that forced our
> > > > ancestors to travel longer distances for food and water.
> >
> > > Most migrational species maintain their fur. Hominids were not
> >
> > > > Loss of fur was an adaptation to changing
> > > > environmental conditions that forced our
> > > > ancestors to travel longer distances for food and water.
> >
> > > migrational.
> >
> > Non sequitur. Humans are all over the globe. You might as well say that
> > most migrational species do so on four legs.
>
> All you have is silly speculation based on conventional notions that
> have long since been rejected.
Humans didn't spread all over the globe? Wow.
> > > > hairlessness helped to set the stage for
> > > > the emergence of large brains and symbolic thought (Jablonski 2010).
> >
> >
> > No. Heat dissipation.
>
> I wonder why other species that sweat don't have large brains?
Heat dissipation for the whole body.
> > > early member of our genus called Homo ergaster had evolved
> >
> > > > prolonged walking and running. Homo ergaster had to travel far in
> > > > search of sustenance including meat. This species, which arose by 1.6
> > > > million years ago, was probably the first to possess naked skin and
> > > > eccrine sweat, which would have
> >
> > > Who cares.
> > > > search of sustenance including meat. This species, which arose by 1.6
> > > > million years ago, was probably the first to possess naked skin and
> > > > eccrine sweat, which would have
> >
> >
> > Why wouldn't you? This is a timeline being fleshed out.
>
> Silly speculation. There's no evidence that Homo ergaster travelled/
> migrated often.
The earliest Dmanisi finds have been attributed to ergaster.
> > > > offset the body heat generated by such
> > > > elevated activity levels (Jablonski 2010).
> >
> > > our ancestors became
> > > > omnivorous in order to maximize calorie intake, an important
> > > > distinction in a nutrient-scarce environment.
> >
> > > In a sense you're right. It was a survival strategy to survive the dry
> > > > omnivorous in order to maximize calorie intake, an important
> > > > distinction in a nutrient-scarce environment.
> >
> > > season.
> >
> > > adapted long, strong
> > > > legs to facilitate sustained running, dense, hairy coats still posed a
> > > > potentially fatal risk of causing overheating during the chase. It is
> > > > posited that thick hair got in the way of the sweat evaporating, so
> > > > humans evolved a sparser coat of fur (Jablonski 2006).
> >
> > > Speculative.
> > > adapted long, strong
> > > > legs to facilitate sustained running, dense, hairy coats still posed a
> > > > potentially fatal risk of causing overheating during the chase. It is
> > > > posited that thick hair got in the way of the sweat evaporating, so
> > > > humans evolved a sparser coat of fur (Jablonski 2006).
> >
> >
> > Put on a coat and going running in the noon day sun in summer. Report back.
Well? Did you try it?
> > > > Persistence hunting is <snip> carried
> > > > out by Kalahari bushmen (Australian aboriginal tribes). Persistence
> > > > hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
> > > > several hours of continuous running at roughly marathon pace.
> >
> > > Who cares.
> > > > hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
> > > > several hours of continuous running at roughly marathon pace.
> >
> >
> > Early lifestyles may be reflected by this.
>
> That's the same thing Marc Verhaegen would say after showing you a
> picture of a person swimming.
People don't live in water. They live on land.
> > > > fhe reason that humans can outrun four-legged ruminants over a long
> > > > distance turns out to be due to a surprising reason: sweating.
> >
> > > Pure silliness.
> >
> >
> > No. Dinner. Ever heard of relay hunting? That too.
> >
> > Walter Bortz has an interesting paper (JHE (1985) 14, 145-155)
> > entitled "Physical Exercise as an Evolutionary Force". He notes
> > humans' incredible ability to run, and run for long distances.
> > (He ties this in with hair loss and our ability to shed heat.)
>
> Can Bortz explain how running turned our species into the most
> socially complex species ever known to exist?
You mean like how hunting is a cooperative endeavor? Even chimps do that.
> > He cites contemporary examples (from other authors) such as:
> >
> > - Bushmen can run down an unwounded springbok in the hottest
> > part of the day
> >
> > - the !Kung can run down antelope
> >
> > - Bushmen run down eland, kudu, and hartebeest
> >
> > - Pygmies relentlessly chase prey
> >
> > - the "extraordinary" running capabilities of American Indians
> > are noted
>
> Can you explain the selective origins of agriculture?
Agriculture, as humans practice it, is an intellectual accomplishment.
> > http://www.livescience.com/98-runner-high-jogging-separated-humans-ap...
> > ...
> > "We are very confident that strong selection for running -- which came at the
> > expense of the historical ability to live in trees -- was instrumental in the
> > origin of the modern human body form," said University of Utah biologist
> > Dennis Bramble.
> > ...
>
> Explaining the origins of a skill that us humans aren't very good at
> isn't something to crow about.
You mean like swimming?
RichTravsky
Jun 2, 2012, 12:12:16 AM6/2/12
to
Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> On 5/27/2012 2:36 AM, JTEM wrote:
>
> On 5/27/2012 2:36 AM, JTEM wrote:
> > Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I suspect that part of the sexual selection had to do with the fitness
> >> of the lesser-haired Homo folks to function better in open, where the
> >> improvement of cooling via perspiration would made such lesser-haired
> >> individuals better adapted to prolonged sun exposure, whether or not
> >> running was involved.
> >
> >
> >> I suspect that part of the sexual selection had to do with the fitness
> >> of the lesser-haired Homo folks to function better in open, where the
> >> improvement of cooling via perspiration would made such lesser-haired
> >> individuals better adapted to prolonged sun exposure, whether or not
> >> running was involved.
> >
> > Neonatal traits.
> >
> > It is often argued that humans are evolutionarily programmed to
> > be attracted towards neonatal traits. This, it is reasoned, ensures
> > empathy for children -- the next generation -- and explains not
> > only why people coo over how "Adorable" each others children are,
> > but why even today our concept of beauty is a child with public
> > hair and breasts.
> >
> > Even attractive men, as far back as we can go, are usually
> > depicted without body hair (the lack there of being a neonatal trait).
> >
> > If sexual selection does indeed favor neonatal traits in adults,
> > this would explain hairlessness alone.
> >
> I don't think that hairlessness is a neonatal trait in the great apes.
Neoteny.
> >
> > It is often argued that humans are evolutionarily programmed to
> > be attracted towards neonatal traits. This, it is reasoned, ensures
> > empathy for children -- the next generation -- and explains not
> > only why people coo over how "Adorable" each others children are,
> > but why even today our concept of beauty is a child with public
> > hair and breasts.
> >
> > Even attractive men, as far back as we can go, are usually
> > depicted without body hair (the lack there of being a neonatal trait).
> >
> > If sexual selection does indeed favor neonatal traits in adults,
> > this would explain hairlessness alone.
> >
> I don't think that hairlessness is a neonatal trait in the great apes.
RichTravsky
Jun 2, 2012, 1:27:03 AM6/2/12
to
Tom McDonald wrote:
> On 5/31/2012 8:16 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On May 31, 6:10 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/31/2012 7:59 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >>> On May 31, 4:20 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 5/31/2012 8:16 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On May 31, 6:10 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/31/2012 7:59 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >>> On May 31, 4:20 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
Claudius Denk
Jun 2, 2012, 2:46:48 AM6/2/12
to
On Jun 1, 9:11 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Persistence hunting is <snip> carried
> > > > > out by Kalahari bushmen (Australian aboriginal tribes). Persistence
> > > > > hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
> > > > > several hours of continuous running at roughly marathon pace.
>
> > > > Who cares.
>
> > > Early lifestyles may be reflected by this.
>
> > That's the same thing Marc Verhaegen would say after showing you a
> > picture of a person swimming.
>
> People don't live in water. They live on land.
Millions of people swim. Only a handful chase animals down over long
> > > > > Persistence hunting is <snip> carried
> > > > > out by Kalahari bushmen (Australian aboriginal tribes). Persistence
> > > > > hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
> > > > > several hours of continuous running at roughly marathon pace.
>
> > > > Who cares.
>
> > > Early lifestyles may be reflected by this.
>
> > That's the same thing Marc Verhaegen would say after showing you a
> > picture of a person swimming.
>
> People don't live in water. They live on land.
distance.
>
> > > > > fhe reason that humans can outrun four-legged ruminants over a long
> > > > > distance turns out to be due to a surprising reason: sweating.
>
> > > > Pure silliness.
>
> > > No. Dinner. Ever heard of relay hunting? That too.
>
> > > Walter Bortz has an interesting paper (JHE (1985) 14, 145-155)
> > > entitled "Physical Exercise as an Evolutionary Force". He notes
> > > humans' incredible ability to run, and run for long distances.
> > > (He ties this in with hair loss and our ability to shed heat.)
>
> > Can Bortz explain how running turned our species into the most
> > socially complex species ever known to exist?
>
> You mean like how hunting is a cooperative endeavor? Even chimps do that.
humans have, right?
> > > He cites contemporary examples (from other authors) such as:
>
> > > - Bushmen can run down an unwounded springbok in the hottest
> > > part of the day
>
> > > - the !Kung can run down antelope
>
> > > - Bushmen run down eland, kudu, and hartebeest
>
> > > - Pygmies relentlessly chase prey
>
> > > - the "extraordinary" running capabilities of American Indians
> > > are noted
>
> > Can you explain the selective origins of agriculture?
>
> Agriculture, as humans practice it, is an intellectual accomplishment.
> > >http://www.livescience.com/98-runner-high-jogging-separated-humans-ap...
> > > ...
> > > "We are very confident that strong selection for running -- which came at the
> > > expense of the historical ability to live in trees -- was instrumental in the
> > > origin of the modern human body form," said University of Utah biologist
> > > Dennis Bramble.
> > > ...
>
> > Explaining the origins of a skill that us humans aren't very good at
> > isn't something to crow about.
>
> You mean like swimming?
Claudius Denk
Jun 2, 2012, 2:48:12 AM6/2/12
to
Tom McDonald
Jun 2, 2012, 7:19:50 AM6/2/12
to
theorist, and don't even know that sexual selection is key to nearly all
animals' evolution (most fish and some other sea creatures excepted).
If you doubt this, please start educating yourself. Google will give you
a start; when you have exhausted the supply of good info on regular
Google searches, try Google Scholar.
Then hit the library, you ignorant twit.
Tom McDonald
Jun 2, 2012, 7:28:03 AM6/2/12
to
maturity is sort of a first screening characteristic for sexual
selection. An animal has to pass this bar to even enter the gene pool.
Then come things like physical health, symmetrical features, success in
resource provision, ability to protect young and other members of the
group, and probably others I can't think of now.
In another post, Jim says that sexual selection is mostly found among
birds. Sometimes the boy astounds me with his ignorance!
VtSkier
Jun 2, 2012, 9:14:37 AM6/2/12
to
Tom McDonald
Jun 2, 2012, 11:18:14 AM6/2/12
to
On 6/2/2012 8:14 AM, VtSkier wrote:
> On 6/2/2012 12:04 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
<snip>
> On 6/2/2012 12:04 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>> Sexual selection if for birds (mostly). It has no relevance to human
>> evolution.
>
> Bullshit
industry, and the standards of beauty that men expect women to meet?
And the fact that the mousy, timid, out-of-shape, dim, socially-awkward
guys generally have trouble getting the girl?
george152
Jun 2, 2012, 4:17:57 PM6/2/12
to
Tom McDonald wrote:
> And the fact that the mousy, timid, out-of-shape, dim, socially-awkward
> guys generally have trouble getting the girl?
But then he'd know that from experience :)
> And the fact that the mousy, timid, out-of-shape, dim, socially-awkward
> guys generally have trouble getting the girl?
Claudius Denk
Jun 3, 2012, 11:14:02 AM6/3/12
to
explain anything and, therefore, it explains nothing. Pseudo-
scientists tend to borrow notions from other aspects of a discipline
to suggest that they are applicable where they are not. One of the
words to look for when pseudo-scientists go off on a tangent is the
word, "key". The statement, "sexual selection is *key* to nearly all
animals' evolution," is a perfect example of this kind of pseudo-
science. Like weighing moonbeams, you can basically come to any
conclusion you want with this kind of silly logic.
The concept of sexual selection was originally theorize to explain
adaptations that *appear* to be maladaptive. A peacocks tail, for
example, can only make it easier for it's predators to find it and
harder for it to capture its prey.
As the world's greatest evolutionary theorist I suppose I have some
reponsibility to educate you. Here's some links that will, hopefully,
help you overcome your severe naivete about this aspect of the process
of natural selection:
http://goo.gl/Po0lb
Here is something I cut and pasted from a post (see link below) on
this topic that I presented way back in 2001:
http://goo.gl/2s1vc
*** Begin Cut and Paste ***
Sexual selection, IMO, is a population level adaptation. It allows
two
populations (of closely related species) to remain separate despite
the fact
that they have not fully achieved geographic separation. It is a
very
useful adaptation for species that normally are wide ranging (and
therefore
do not as easily achieve geographic separation)--such as birds--and in
rich
ecosystems that offer many niches to potentially speciate into. It
also
seems to be amplified by island isolation. This is why this phenomena
is
mostly found in birds (being far ranging--and, therefore, not easily
able to
achieve geographic isolation), in tropical habitat, and on islands.
I don't think it; can be applied to hominids, who were coming out of
a
tropical habitat to one that was now more highly seasonal (extremely
seasonal) and that, if anything, offered less potential for speciation
into
niches, and our ancestors were not far ranging species, and they were
not on
islands. Moreover sexual selection is more of an identification
thing. It
can't be mistaken for the rich context of human cultural experiences.
Once
a species identifies that an individual is not part of their group
they
don't go on paying attention to them. There is no other information
to
impart than that. Human culture, on the otherhand, involves a lot
more
information.
*** End Cut and Paste ***
> If you doubt this, please start educating yourself. Google will give you
> a start; when you have exhausted the supply of good info on regular
> Google searches, try Google Scholar.
>
> Then hit the library, you ignorant twit.
library.
Tom McDonald
Jun 3, 2012, 11:49:04 AM6/3/12
to
think you need to hit the library.
>> If you doubt this, please start educating yourself. Google will give you
>> a start; when you have exhausted the supply of good info on regular
>> Google searches, try Google Scholar.
>>
>> Then hit the library, you ignorant twit.
>
> Well, my expertise is beyond anything you are going to find in a
> library.
Claudius Denk
Jun 3, 2012, 12:05:27 PM6/3/12
to
claim that there is some information out there somewhere in some
library that will substantiate their stupidity. And, supposedly, it's
their opponents responsibility to go out and find it.
Tom McDonald
Jun 3, 2012, 12:41:04 PM6/3/12
to
Claudius Denk
Jun 4, 2012, 1:31:23 AM6/4/12
to
On Jun 3, 8:49 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> Reference to posts you have made about this issue are not evidence. I
> think you need to hit the library.
Well, I'm just trying to suggest that you are using the phrase,
> Reference to posts you have made about this issue are not evidence. I
> think you need to hit the library.
"sexual selection" in a manner that it wasn't intended when the
concept was formulated by evolutionary theorists many years ago. The
concept you were discussing can be more accurately labelled, "sexual
mate preference." These are two different concepts that you are,
mistakenly IMO, mixing into one.
I think you should do some research and get more of a historical
understanding of the phrase, "sexual selection." I think if you do
you'll see why I say it is for the birds.
JTEM
Jun 4, 2012, 3:05:47 AM6/4/12
to
Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> No, everything doesn't matter. Humans have distinctive
> characteristics, especially in comparison to our chimpanzee-like LCA.
There's no reason to believe that the LCA was particularly
Chimp like. In fact, the "Molecular Clock" people insist it had
to live at the time of Ardi, while the Wiki article on Ardi insists
that it couldn't possibly be the LCA (I just read it).
Their argument is retarded, by the way. Effectively it's insisting
that there's no such thing as evolution, and because Ardi's
feet are different it can't be the LCA...
Dumb. Really, really, dumb.
> No, everything doesn't matter. Humans have distinctive
> characteristics, especially in comparison to our chimpanzee-like LCA.
There's no reason to believe that the LCA was particularly
Chimp like. In fact, the "Molecular Clock" people insist it had
to live at the time of Ardi, while the Wiki article on Ardi insists
that it couldn't possibly be the LCA (I just read it).
Their argument is retarded, by the way. Effectively it's insisting
that there's no such thing as evolution, and because Ardi's
feet are different it can't be the LCA...
Dumb. Really, really, dumb.
JTEM
Jun 4, 2012, 2:57:37 AM6/4/12
to
Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> > Neonatal traits.
>
> > It is often argued that humans are evolutionarily programmed to
> > be attracted towards neonatal traits. This, it is reasoned, ensures
> > empathy for children -- the next generation -- and explains not
> > only why people coo over how "Adorable" each others children are,
> > but why even today our concept of beauty is a child with public
> > hair and breasts.
> I don't think that hairlessness is a neonatal trait in the great apes.
But it very well could have been in the LCA, or just plain
developed afterwards.
Hairlessness has to either be a sexually selected for trait, or a
direct result of "Aquatic Ape." They are the only two theories
that fit the evidence, which includes the fact that body hair seems
to be more prevalent in the northern hemisphere, or at least
amongst europeans. Native Americans are recent-arrivals (in the
grand scheme of things) from Asia, which explains their apparent
contradiction...
Gerrit Hanenburg
Jun 4, 2012, 5:11:50 AM6/4/12
to
another one, and it applies to all sexually reproducing species.
You shoulda known that, Darwin published a big book on the subject
already in 1871, "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to
Sex".
Claudius Denk
Jun 4, 2012, 10:30:10 AM6/4/12
to
On Jun 4, 12:05 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > No, everything doesn't matter. Humans have distinctive
> > characteristics, especially in comparison to our chimpanzee-like LCA.
>
> There's no reason to believe that the LCA was particularly
> Chimp like.
Arguments based on lack of data don't impress me much.
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > No, everything doesn't matter. Humans have distinctive
> > characteristics, especially in comparison to our chimpanzee-like LCA.
>
> There's no reason to believe that the LCA was particularly
> Chimp like.
> In fact, the "Molecular Clock" people insist it had
> to live at the time of Ardi, while the Wiki article on Ardi insists
> that it couldn't possibly be the LCA (I just read it).
> Their argument is retarded, by the way. Effectively it's insisting
> that there's no such thing as evolution, and because Ardi's
> feet are different it can't be the LCA...
>
> Dumb. Really, really, dumb.
when monsoon climate first appeared). Or it may have been around 5 to
6 mya. And/or it may have been around 3.5 mya as there was a reversal
in the climate during the pliocene when, possibly, the rainforest
reemerged until about 3.5.
Claudius Denk
Jun 4, 2012, 10:52:21 AM6/4/12
to
On Jun 4, 2:11 am, Gerrit Hanenburg <g.hanenb...@inter.nl.nomail.net>
wrote:
selection just like a wheel is part of a bike. But a wheel and a bike
are two different things.
> You shoulda known that, Darwin published a big book on the subject
> already in 1871, "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to
> Sex".
The point, you pedantic twerp, is that McDonald
didn't seem to realize that the term sexual selection
has a different meaning than the one he was assuming:
Sexual selection is a population level adaptation.
It allows two populations of closely related species to
a lot more information.
wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 22:31:23 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
> >> Reference to posts you have made about this issue are not evidence. I
> >> think you need to hit the library.
>
> >Well, I'm just trying to suggest that you are using the phrase,
> >"sexual selection" in a manner that it wasn't intended when the
> >concept was formulated by evolutionary theorists many years ago. The
> >concept you were discussing can be more accurately labelled, "sexual
> >mate preference." These are two different concepts that you are,
> >mistakenly IMO, mixing into one.
>
> >I think you should do some research and get more of a historical
> >understanding of the phrase, "sexual selection." I think if you do
> >you'll see why I say it is for the birds.
>
> Mate preference is one aspect of sexual selection, male competition
> another one, and it applies to all sexually reproducing species.
Is this not obvious? Certainly mate preference is part of sexual
> >> think you need to hit the library.
>
> >Well, I'm just trying to suggest that you are using the phrase,
> >"sexual selection" in a manner that it wasn't intended when the
> >concept was formulated by evolutionary theorists many years ago. The
> >concept you were discussing can be more accurately labelled, "sexual
> >mate preference." These are two different concepts that you are,
> >mistakenly IMO, mixing into one.
>
> >I think you should do some research and get more of a historical
> >understanding of the phrase, "sexual selection." I think if you do
> >you'll see why I say it is for the birds.
>
> Mate preference is one aspect of sexual selection, male competition
> another one, and it applies to all sexually reproducing species.
selection just like a wheel is part of a bike. But a wheel and a bike
are two different things.
> You shoulda known that, Darwin published a big book on the subject
> already in 1871, "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to
> Sex".
didn't seem to realize that the term sexual selection
has a different meaning than the one he was assuming:
Sexual selection is a population level adaptation.
It allows two populations of closely related species to
remain separate despite the fact that they have not
fully achieved geographic separation. It is a very useful
adaptation for populations of a species that normally
fully achieved geographic separation. It is a very useful
are wide ranging (and therefore do not as easily achieve
geographic separation)--such as birds--and in rich
ecosystems that offer many niches to potentially
speciate into. It also seems to be amplified by island
isolation. This is why this phenomena is mostly found
in birds (being far ranging--and, therefore, not easily
able to achieve geographic isolation), in tropical habitat,
and on islands. I don't think it; can be applied to
hominids, who were coming out of a tropical habitat to
one that was now more highly seasonal (extremely
seasonal) and that, if anything, offered less potential for
speciation into niches, and our ancestors were not far
ranging species, and they were not on islands.
Moreover sexual selection is more of an identification
thing. It can't be mistaken for the rich context of human
cultural experiences. Once a species identifies that an
individual is not part of their group they don't go on
paying attention to them. There is no other information
to impart. Human culture, on the other hand, involves
geographic separation)--such as birds--and in rich
ecosystems that offer many niches to potentially
speciate into. It also seems to be amplified by island
isolation. This is why this phenomena is mostly found
in birds (being far ranging--and, therefore, not easily
able to achieve geographic isolation), in tropical habitat,
and on islands. I don't think it; can be applied to
hominids, who were coming out of a tropical habitat to
one that was now more highly seasonal (extremely
seasonal) and that, if anything, offered less potential for
speciation into niches, and our ancestors were not far
ranging species, and they were not on islands.
Moreover sexual selection is more of an identification
thing. It can't be mistaken for the rich context of human
cultural experiences. Once a species identifies that an
individual is not part of their group they don't go on
paying attention to them. There is no other information
a lot more information.
Tom McDonald
Jun 4, 2012, 10:54:38 AM6/4/12
to
On 6/4/2012 9:30 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Jun 4, 12:05 am, JTEM<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Claudius Denk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> No, everything doesn't matter. Humans have distinctive
>>> characteristics, especially in comparison to our chimpanzee-like LCA.
>>
>> There's no reason to believe that the LCA was particularly
>> Chimp like.
>
> Arguments based on lack of data don't impress me much.
I've seen a reconstruction of a pre-LCA primate that may have been
> On Jun 4, 12:05 am, JTEM<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Claudius Denk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> No, everything doesn't matter. Humans have distinctive
>>> characteristics, especially in comparison to our chimpanzee-like LCA.
>>
>> There's no reason to believe that the LCA was particularly
>> Chimp like.
>
> Arguments based on lack of data don't impress me much.
typical of the populations of primates at that time. It was a paligrade
walker--palm walker, not a knuckle-walker.
Not persuasive, certainly; but it gives some reason to doubt that we
know enough to consider our ancestors as knuckle-walkers.
>> In fact, the "Molecular Clock" people insist it had
>> to live at the time of Ardi, while the Wiki article on Ardi insists
>> that it couldn't possibly be the LCA (I just read it).
>
> Let's just say the evidence is inconclusive.
you say, the evidence is inconclusive. But it does seem to suggest that
the populations that gave rise to creatures that became us were not
knuckle-walkers, and that increasingly facilitative bipedality superior
to chimps and gorillas was happening was likely present before ca. 4.4 mya.
VtSkier
Jun 4, 2012, 11:21:45 AM6/4/12
to
On 6/4/2012 10:52 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2:11 am, Gerrit Hanenburg<g.hanenb...@inter.nl.nomail.net>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 22:31:23 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
>
>>>> Reference to posts you have made about this issue are not evidence. I
>>>> think you need to hit the library.
>>
>>> Well, I'm just trying to suggest that you are using the phrase,
>>> "sexual selection" in a manner that it wasn't intended when the
>>> concept was formulated by evolutionary theorists many years ago. The
>>> concept you were discussing can be more accurately labelled, "sexual
>>> mate preference." These are two different concepts that you are,
>>> mistakenly IMO, mixing into one.
>>
>>> I think you should do some research and get more of a historical
>>> understanding of the phrase, "sexual selection." I think if you do
>>> you'll see why I say it is for the birds.
>>
>> Mate preference is one aspect of sexual selection, male competition
>> another one, and it applies to all sexually reproducing species.
>
> Is this not obvious? Certainly mate preference is part of sexual
> selection just like a wheel is part of a bike. But a wheel and a bike
> are two different things.
Yes, yes. Now back to your hypothesis for a moment and your explanation
> On Jun 4, 2:11 am, Gerrit Hanenburg<g.hanenb...@inter.nl.nomail.net>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 22:31:23 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
>
>>>> Reference to posts you have made about this issue are not evidence. I
>>>> think you need to hit the library.
>>
>>> Well, I'm just trying to suggest that you are using the phrase,
>>> "sexual selection" in a manner that it wasn't intended when the
>>> concept was formulated by evolutionary theorists many years ago. The
>>> concept you were discussing can be more accurately labelled, "sexual
>>> mate preference." These are two different concepts that you are,
>>> mistakenly IMO, mixing into one.
>>
>>> I think you should do some research and get more of a historical
>>> understanding of the phrase, "sexual selection." I think if you do
>>> you'll see why I say it is for the birds.
>>
>> Mate preference is one aspect of sexual selection, male competition
>> another one, and it applies to all sexually reproducing species.
>
> Is this not obvious? Certainly mate preference is part of sexual
> selection just like a wheel is part of a bike. But a wheel and a bike
> are two different things.
of it.
You have said that territoriality and "pest control" are agriculture, or
at least agricultural behavior in hominids. We have agreed that those
behaviors are part of Agriculture and required parts at that. However,
neither one of these behaviors can be termed "agriculture". Also these
behaviors are not restricted to hominids/humans.
So, the terms "sexual selection" and "mate preference" are related but
mate selection isn't, of iteself, sexual selection. No problem here,
just pointing out that you have made a similar mistake and have insisted
that your mistaken definition is correct.
I'm not arguing against your hypothesis here, I'm saying that your
presentation of it may leave a little to be desired. I'm also saying
that even in your world, accepted definitions of terms are important
despite what you have written to the contrary.
Claudius Denk
Jun 4, 2012, 1:38:30 PM6/4/12
to
On Jun 4, 8:21 am, VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> On 6/4/2012 10:52 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >>>> Reference to posts you have made about this issue are not evidence. I
> >>>> think you need to hit the library.
>
> >>> Well, I'm just trying to suggest that you are using the phrase,
> >>> "sexual selection" in a manner that it wasn't intended when the
> >>> concept was formulated by evolutionary theorists many years ago. The
> >>> concept you were discussing can be more accurately labelled, "sexual
> >>> mate preference." These are two different concepts that you are,
> >>> mistakenly IMO, mixing into one.
>
> >>> I think you should do some research and get more of a historical
> >>> understanding of the phrase, "sexual selection." I think if you do
> >>> you'll see why I say it is for the birds.
>
> >> Mate preference is one aspect of sexual selection, male competition
> >> another one, and it applies to all sexually reproducing species.
>
> > Is this not obvious? Certainly mate preference is part of sexual
> > selection just like a wheel is part of a bike. But a wheel and a bike
> > are two different things.
>
> Yes, yes. Now back to your hypothesis for a moment and your explanation
> of it.
>
> You have said that territoriality and "pest control" are agriculture, or
> at least agricultural behavior in hominids. We have agreed that those
> behaviors are part of Agriculture and required parts at that. However,
> neither one of these behaviors can be termed "agriculture".
Obviously I disagree.
> On 6/4/2012 10:52 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >>>> Reference to posts you have made about this issue are not evidence. I
> >>>> think you need to hit the library.
>
> >>> Well, I'm just trying to suggest that you are using the phrase,
> >>> "sexual selection" in a manner that it wasn't intended when the
> >>> concept was formulated by evolutionary theorists many years ago. The
> >>> concept you were discussing can be more accurately labelled, "sexual
> >>> mate preference." These are two different concepts that you are,
> >>> mistakenly IMO, mixing into one.
>
> >>> I think you should do some research and get more of a historical
> >>> understanding of the phrase, "sexual selection." I think if you do
> >>> you'll see why I say it is for the birds.
>
> >> Mate preference is one aspect of sexual selection, male competition
> >> another one, and it applies to all sexually reproducing species.
>
> > Is this not obvious? Certainly mate preference is part of sexual
> > selection just like a wheel is part of a bike. But a wheel and a bike
> > are two different things.
>
> Yes, yes. Now back to your hypothesis for a moment and your explanation
> of it.
>
> You have said that territoriality and "pest control" are agriculture, or
> at least agricultural behavior in hominids. We have agreed that those
> behaviors are part of Agriculture and required parts at that. However,
> neither one of these behaviors can be termed "agriculture".
> Also these
> behaviors are not restricted to hominids/humans.
so kind as to explain why you mentioned it?)
> So, the terms "sexual selection" and "mate preference" are related but
> just pointing out that you have made a similar mistake and have insisted
> that your mistaken definition is correct.
>
> I'm not arguing against your hypothesis here, I'm saying that your
> presentation of it may leave a little to be desired. I'm also saying
> that even in your world, accepted definitions of terms are important
> despite what you have written to the contrary.
You are just being argumentative to no good effect. Conceptual
> that your mistaken definition is correct.
>
> I'm not arguing against your hypothesis here, I'm saying that your
> presentation of it may leave a little to be desired. I'm also saying
> that even in your world, accepted definitions of terms are important
> despite what you have written to the contrary.
clarity is what is important. Are either "sexual selection" or "mate
preference" a subset of the other? I don't think so. (Or, more
specifically, it depends on which connotation you intend.)
Consequently using these two phrases interchangeably might be a source
of confusion. (And, if fact, Tom appeared confused with respect to
what conclusions he was drawing--which was my main point.) The pest
control agriculture of my hypothesis, on the other hand, is a subset
of agriculture, IMO. Moreover, I've made it clear that the adoption
of this earliest form of agriculture is/was the precursor to more
sophisticated forms of agriculture. Thus is would be confusing if I
did not use the term "agriculture" to describe it.
VtSkier
Jun 4, 2012, 5:31:54 PM6/4/12
to
included these.
>> So, the terms "sexual selection" and "mate preference" are related but
>> mate selection isn't, of itself, sexual selection. No problem here,
>> just pointing out that you have made a similar mistake and have insisted
>> that your mistaken definition is correct.
>>
>> I'm not arguing against your hypothesis here, I'm saying that your
>> presentation of it may leave a little to be desired. I'm also saying
>> that even in your world, accepted definitions of terms are important
>> despite what you have written to the contrary.
>
> You are just being argumentative to no good effect. Conceptual
> clarity is what is important. Are either "sexual selection" or "mate
> preference" a subset of the other? I don't think so. (Or, more
> specifically, it depends on which connotation you intend.)
> Consequently using these two phrases interchangeably might be a source
> of confusion. (And, if fact, Tom appeared confused with respect to
> what conclusions he was drawing--which was my main point.) The pest
> control agriculture of my hypothesis, on the other hand, is a subset
> of agriculture, IMO. Moreover, I've made it clear that the adoption
> of this earliest form of agriculture is/was the precursor to more
> sophisticated forms of agriculture. Thus is would be confusing if I
> did not use the term "agriculture" to describe it.
before or at least much before humans had a stake or time invested in
the planting part of agriculture. The archaic lifestyle (at least as its
described in and for North America) involved the harvesting part of
agriculture. The harvest was a wild crop that people harvested on a
regular rotating schedule. The same crop in the same place at the same
time every year. In fact many of the crops needed specialized tools to
make them work for food as in cereal grasses and other seed crops.
<if this is boring you, jump to the bottom of the post>
The way this was done was for the "tribe" to go to where the harvest was
to be found each year when it was ready, and normally not before. In
other words, they didn't shoo deer away while the crop was growing. What
they did do when such a crop was growing was to be harvesting another
crop which was ready before the one we are discussing was ready. What
they did was harvest, eat, move to the next crop/food source. Rinse
repeat. They didn't store a harvest, they didn't plant for next year,
they didn't shoo competing animals away from their food sources. They
weren't there when the crop was growing so they couldn't weed or drive
off competition.
Now some areas were rich enough so that a more settled way of life could
develop. The oak groves of California and the salmon fishery of the
Northwest Coast come to mind. Here, I'm sure at least in the case of the
oaks, there was considerable pruning of undesirable species and driving
away of competing animals (and people?). The fisheries were so rich that
this wasn't necessary. Yet the NW coast people needed something other
than protein and fat for nutrition. One tribe made a several hundred
mile trek yearly to harvest camas lilies for just that need. They went
for the harvest and a feast and that was all.
Even after planting developed, pest control didn't appear everywhere at
the same time. The Iroquois were great agriculturalist and tended their
fields on a regular basis in way that we can only describe as
"agriculture" including pest control/weeding. A little way to the east,
the Algonquin tribes had favorite places to plant their corn but when
they did so, they did it in the spring, made little hills and put a fish
in each one with a few corn kernels (seeds), as described by the
earliest European settlers of Massachusetts, /and then they went off for
the summer to hunt and fish elsewhere/ to return in the fall in hope
that their planting had borne fruit. Little to no pest control there but
certainly would be called "agriculture" if an expert were asked.
I've written something like this before but with different examples. My
point being that you haven't convinced me that "pest control" behavior
(call it agriculture if you want to) was practiced by early humans much
less non-human hominids. I don't see it in non-agricultural humans and
so I don't see it in non-human hominids. The "pest control" you describe
can only be done with a reasonably sedentary population, and, except in
extremely rich environments, a sedentary lifestyle is not possible
without agriculture, it's full meaning, not just one or two parts.
Claudius Denk
Jun 5, 2012, 1:35:37 AM6/5/12
to
> > control agriculture of my hypothesis is a subset
This is the issue/question you should be attempting to solve, in your
own mind.
Well, we've already discussed this to death.
You need to answer the question for yourself: What was the dry season
survival strategy of the earliest (chimpanzee-like) hominids?
Until you answer that question it's pointless to go on.
> > of agriculture, IMO. Moreover, I've made it clear that the adoption
> > of this earliest form of agriculture is/was the precursor to more
> > sophisticated forms of agriculture. Thus is would be confusing if I
> > did not use the term "agriculture" to describe it.
>
> First of all I don't believe that "pest control agriculture" existed
> before or at least much before humans had a stake or time invested in
> the planting part of agriculture.
What was the dry season survival strategy of the earliest hominids?
> > of this earliest form of agriculture is/was the precursor to more
> > sophisticated forms of agriculture. Thus is would be confusing if I
> > did not use the term "agriculture" to describe it.
>
> First of all I don't believe that "pest control agriculture" existed
> before or at least much before humans had a stake or time invested in
> the planting part of agriculture.
This is the issue/question you should be attempting to solve, in your
own mind.
You need to answer the question for yourself: What was the dry season
survival strategy of the earliest (chimpanzee-like) hominids?
Until you answer that question it's pointless to go on.
VtSkier
Jun 5, 2012, 9:40:21 AM6/5/12
to
On 6/5/2012 1:35 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2:31 pm, VtSkier<VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
(snip)
> On Jun 4, 2:31 pm, VtSkier<VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> My
>> point being that you haven't convinced me that "pest control" behavior
>> (call it agriculture if you want to) was practiced by early humans much
>> less non-human hominids. I don't see it in non-agricultural humans and
>> so I don't see it in non-human hominids. The "pest control" you describe
>> can only be done with a reasonably sedentary population, and, except in
>> extremely rich environments, a sedentary lifestyle is not possible
>> without agriculture, it's full meaning, not just one or two parts.
>
> Well, we've already discussed this to death.
>
> You need to answer the question for yourself: What was the dry season
> survival strategy of the earliest (chimpanzee-like) hominids?
>
> Until you answer that question it's pointless to go on.
and predators. I have taken the liberty of replacing the word
"baboon(s)" with the word "hominid(s)". The group living, the daytime
foraging, the diet can only be extremely analogous to that of early
non-human hominids. With this lifestyle baboons and by analogy early
hominids appear to have had a pretty good and secure life.
In a previous post I said:
"What I wouldn't be looking for is the scrappy, aggressive, probably
more meat-eating than not, territorial, day time hunting/foraging,
smart, relatively small-statured two-legged ape
on-its-way-to-becoming-human that I think is there."
Except for the "two-legged ape" part I've described baboons and baboon
behavior to a "tee" in this statement.
Because "baboon" is a derisive term when applied to a human (of today)
it has a bad connotation. However I think the analogy is apt for
hominids vs. baboons.
As for your insistence that we answer the water during dry times issue,
I will point out that it is probably much less of an issue than you make
it. Baboons do quite nicely as described below. The Navajo who herd
sheep in their semi-desert environment of the four corners area, know
where water is at all times without extensive water holes.
Note that there is no opportunity for "pest control" as you describe it
in the description below except in sleeping areas, and food is not
collected in the sleeping area. So any "pest control" in that place
cannot be considered "agriculture" or part of agriculture.
Since we have no physical evidence at all of these subjects as they
relate to early hominids, our only evidence can be analogy to similar
animals and humans alive today. The one thing you haven't done for your
hypothesis to date that I've seen is to make an analogy as I've done here.
Hominids of the East African Savanna
Habitat
Hominids are found in surprisingly varied habitats and are extremely
adaptable. The major requirements for any habitat seems to be water
sources and safe sleeping places in either tall trees or on cliff faces.
When water is readily available, hominids drink every day or two, but
they can survive for long periods by licking the night dew from their
own bodies and from nearby plants.
Behavior
Hominids usually leave their sleeping places around 7 or 8 a.m. After
coming down from the cliffs or trees, adults sit in small groups
grooming each other while the juveniles play. They then form a cohesive
unit that moves off in a column of two or three, walking until they
begin feeding. Fanning out, they feed as they move along, often
traveling five or six miles a day. They forage for about three hours in
the morning, rest during the heat of the day and then forage again in
the afternoon before returning to their sleeping places by about 6 p.m.
Before retiring, they spend more time in mutual grooming, a key way of
forming bonds among individuals as well as keeping their bodies clean
and free of external parasites.
Hominids sleep, travel, feed and socialize together in groups of about
50 individuals, consisting of seven to eight males and approximately
twice as many females plus their young. These family units of females,
juveniles and infants form the stable core of a troop, with a ranking
system that elevates certain females as leaders. A troop's home range is
well-defined but does not appear to have territorial borders. It often
overlaps with the range of other baboons, but the troops seem to avoid
meeting one another.
When they begin to mature, males leave their natal troops and move in
and out of other troops. Frequent fights break out to determine
dominance over access to females or meat. The ranking of these males
constantly changes during this period.
Males are accepted into new troops slowly, usually by developing
"friendships" with different females around the edge of a troop. They
often help to defend a female and her offspring.
Diet
Hominids are opportunistic omnivores and selective feeders that
carefully choose their food. Grass makes up a large part of their diet,
along with berries, seeds, pods, blossoms, leaves, roots, bark and sap
from a variety of plants. Hominids also eat insects and small quantities
of meat, such as fish, shellfish, hares, birds, monkeys and young, small
antelopes.
Predators
Male hominids may confront predators like leopards or cheetahs by
forming a line and strutting in a threatening manner while opening their
mouths and screaming. Hominids are fierce fighters, but a demonstration
such as this can often put the predator on the run.
Remember, a baboon of the savanna living variety tops out at around 40
pounds. Not individually a very serious threat to the average predator
of the savanna. It's numbers that allow it, and by extension, early
hominids to survive and prosper.
Claudius Denk
Jun 5, 2012, 10:53:18 AM6/5/12
to
On Jun 5, 6:40 am, VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> On 6/5/2012 1:35 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > On Jun 4, 2:31 pm, VtSkier<VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >> My
> >> point being that you haven't convinced me that "pest control" behavior
> >> (call it agriculture if you want to) was practiced by early humans much
> >> less non-human hominids. I don't see it in non-agricultural humans and
> >> so I don't see it in non-human hominids. The "pest control" you describe
> >> can only be done with a reasonably sedentary population, and, except in
> >> extremely rich environments, a sedentary lifestyle is not possible
> >> without agriculture, it's full meaning, not just one or two parts.
>
> > Well, we've already discussed this to death.
>
> > You need to answer the question for yourself: What was the dry season
> > survival strategy of the earliest (chimpanzee-like) hominids?
>
> > Until you answer that question it's pointless to go on.
>
> What follows is a description of typical baboon habitat, behavior, diet
> and predators. I have taken the liberty of replacing the word
> "baboon(s)" with the word "hominid(s)".
Simplistic.
> On 6/5/2012 1:35 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > On Jun 4, 2:31 pm, VtSkier<VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >> My
> >> point being that you haven't convinced me that "pest control" behavior
> >> (call it agriculture if you want to) was practiced by early humans much
> >> less non-human hominids. I don't see it in non-agricultural humans and
> >> so I don't see it in non-human hominids. The "pest control" you describe
> >> can only be done with a reasonably sedentary population, and, except in
> >> extremely rich environments, a sedentary lifestyle is not possible
> >> without agriculture, it's full meaning, not just one or two parts.
>
> > Well, we've already discussed this to death.
>
> > You need to answer the question for yourself: What was the dry season
> > survival strategy of the earliest (chimpanzee-like) hominids?
>
> > Until you answer that question it's pointless to go on.
>
> What follows is a description of typical baboon habitat, behavior, diet
> and predators. I have taken the liberty of replacing the word
> "baboon(s)" with the word "hominid(s)".
> The group living, the daytime
> foraging, the diet can only be extremely analogous to that of early
> non-human hominids.
> With this lifestyle baboons and by analogy early
> hominids appear to have had a pretty good and secure life.
>
> In a previous post I said:
> "What I wouldn't be looking for is the scrappy, aggressive, probably
> more meat-eating than not, territorial, day time hunting/foraging,
> smart, relatively small-statured two-legged ape
> on-its-way-to-becoming-human that I think is there."
>
> Except for the "two-legged ape" part I've described baboons and baboon
> behavior to a "tee" in this statement.
>
> Because "baboon" is a derisive term when applied to a human (of today)
> it has a bad connotation. However I think the analogy is apt for
> hominids vs. baboons.
Right?
> As for your insistence that we answer the water during dry times issue,
> I will point out that it is probably much less of an issue than you make
> it. Baboons do quite nicely as described below. The Navajo who herd
> sheep in their semi-desert environment of the four corners area, know
> where water is at all times without extensive water holes.
anything about the situational factors for the earliest hominids.
> Note that there is no opportunity for "pest control" as you describe it
> in the description below except in sleeping areas, and food is not
> collected in the sleeping area. So any "pest control" in that place
> cannot be considered "agriculture" or part of agriculture.
> Since we have no physical evidence at all of these subjects as they
> relate to early hominids, our only evidence can be analogy to similar
> animals and humans alive today. The one thing you haven't done for your
> hypothesis to date that I've seen is to make an analogy as I've done here.
analogous to hominids.
emergence of bipedalism in the hominid lineage. Baboons aren't
bipedal. So if your whole argument pivots off the assertion that
early hominids are analogous to baboons, well, I think you have a big
problem.
As you know, I have no problem explaining the early emergence of
bipedalism with my hypothesis.
Another thing you don't seem to comprehend is the degree that garden
habitat would have been a Multi-species battleground during the dry
season (this is certainly not the case for the Navajo dry season).
Herds of food competitor species come flooding in during the dry
season. And behind them came the predators. And then there's the
fact that there were a lot more species that competed with them year
round in their garden habitat--since hominids were not yet ecological
dominant in garden habitat. (Hominids have been ecologically dominant
everywhere on the planet for at least the last ten thousand years.
That certainly would not have been the case in the earliest years of
hominid evolution.)
When the food became depleted at one site it was no big deal for most
species to simply migrate over to another site. Hominids, being much
less mobile, could not have possibly competed in this respect. Most
species could move from one site to another with relative ease. In
that sense, they didn't have all their eggs in one basket. Hominids,
in sharp contrast, had all their eggs in one basket. If the resources
at their site became depleted their only option is to wait it out and
hope they don't starve to death or--more likely--be eaten by predators
before the rains returned and the resource replenished themselves.
Since their eggs are all in one basket their only option was to watch
that basket. And that involves the rock-throwing, stick-wielding
communal territorialsm (pest control agriculture) indicated in my
hypothesis.
My hypothesis successfully predicts the emergence of bipedalism (due
to its rock-throwing, stick-wielding communal territorialsm aspects)
in the earliest years of hominid evolution. Your model predicts that
hominids would remain quadrupedal, like baboons.
VtSkier
Jun 5, 2012, 12:15:40 PM6/5/12
to
To begin with.
Nothing is fact, neither your "hypothesis" nor my analogy. This is a
discussion which we are having because there are no facts. Any attack
that you make on my statements because you have the "facts" is JUST
PLAIN BULLSHIT! The same can be said of a similar attack by me on your
hypothesis.
I've noted the parts of your post which resemble the above characterization.
On 6/5/2012 10:53 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Jun 5, 6:40 am, VtSkier<VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> On 6/5/2012 1:35 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 4, 2:31 pm, VtSkier<VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>>> My
>>>> point being that you haven't convinced me that "pest control" behavior
>>>> (call it agriculture if you want to) was practiced by early humans much
>>>> less non-human hominids. I don't see it in non-agricultural humans and
>>>> so I don't see it in non-human hominids. The "pest control" you describe
>>>> can only be done with a reasonably sedentary population, and, except in
>>>> extremely rich environments, a sedentary lifestyle is not possible
>>>> without agriculture, it's full meaning, not just one or two parts.
>>
>>> Well, we've already discussed this to death.
>>
>>> You need to answer the question for yourself: What was the dry season
>>> survival strategy of the earliest (chimpanzee-like) hominids?
>>
>>> Until you answer that question it's pointless to go on.
>>
>> What follows is a description of typical baboon habitat, behavior, diet
>> and predators. I have taken the liberty of replacing the word
>> "baboon(s)" with the word "hominid(s)".
>
> Simplistic.
You're right. But the analogy holds.
>> The group living, the daytime
>> foraging, the diet can only be extremely analogous to that of early
>> non-human hominids.
>
> This is your argument? (Pretty weak.)
No weaker than yours.
>> With this lifestyle baboons and by analogy early
>> hominids appear to have had a pretty good and secure life.
>>
>> In a previous post I said:
>> "What I wouldn't be looking for is the scrappy, aggressive, probably
>> more meat-eating than not, territorial, day time hunting/foraging,
>> smart, relatively small-statured two-legged ape
>> on-its-way-to-becoming-human that I think is there."
>>
>> Except for the "two-legged ape" part I've described baboons and baboon
>> behavior to a "tee" in this statement.
>>
>> Because "baboon" is a derisive term when applied to a human (of today)
>> it has a bad connotation. However I think the analogy is apt for
>> hominids vs. baboons.
>
> It's as if your argument is, "I think this therefore it's true."
> Right?
This is bullshit as described above.
>> As for your insistence that we answer the water during dry times issue,
>> I will point out that it is probably much less of an issue than you make
>> it. Baboons do quite nicely as described below. The Navajo who herd
>> sheep in their semi-desert environment of the four corners area, know
>> where water is at all times without extensive water holes.
>
> It's the height of silliness to look at Navajo and think this tells us
> anything about the situational factors for the earliest hominids.
Not really at all. In fact the Navajo environment is far more harsh than
the savanna environment that we are discussing. Your word "silliness" is
an ad-hom attack and therefore bullshit as described above. The point to
my analogy is that for a reasonably smart primate, knowing where water
is in a harsh environment at any time of the year is reasonably easy as
long as they inhabit that environment on a full time basis.
>> Since we have no physical evidence at all of these subjects as they
>> relate to early hominids, our only evidence can be analogy to similar
>> animals and humans alive today. The one thing you haven't done for your
>> hypothesis to date that I've seen is to make an analogy as I've done here.
>
> For an analogy to work it has to be analogous. Baboons are not
> analogous to hominids.
In behavior, social organization, feeding/foraging, habitat, predators,
why not? I'll grant you that baboons are not bipedal. They are, however,
hand-using, maybe even as good or better than our closer,
knuckle-walking relatives. Baboons are palm-walkers.
So you are saying the hominids lived solely in the garden habitat that
you describe? Your evidence for this is? What exactly is your "garden
habitat" within the savanna ecosystem? Is it the permanent water holes?
Areas near enough to rivers so that rain isn't necessary for lush
growth? Where is your evidence that hominids actually lived permanently
in this garden habitat?
There are certainly areas withing a typical savanna which is "better
real estate" than others. Things like hippos and crocodiles live there
on a permanent basis.
Is the biome of this area such that hominids can make a living here year
round? Or is it better forage for hippos with crocs making it any way
they can?
I like the description of how and where baboons live which requires
security for sleeping and a water supply reasonably close but not
necessarily a traditional water hole.
> When the food became depleted at one site it was no big deal for most
> species to simply migrate over to another site. Hominids, being much
> less mobile, could not have possibly competed in this respect. Most
> species could move from one site to another with relative ease. In
> that sense, they didn't have all their eggs in one basket. Hominids,
> in sharp contrast, had all their eggs in one basket. If the resources
> at their site became depleted their only option is to wait it out and
> hope they don't starve to death or--more likely--be eaten by predators
> before the rains returned and the resource replenished themselves.
> Since their eggs are all in one basket their only option was to watch
> that basket. And that involves the rock-throwing, stick-wielding
> communal territorialsm (pest control agriculture) indicated in my
> hypothesis.
I respectfully disagree with your statement that hominids were less able
to move from one area to another. Baboons often cover up to 6 miles on a
foraging expedition moving pretty much in a line. If they do a different
line every day they will have covered a huge area from one staging area.
One of those lines would most probably turn up another place from which
to forage and will have moved from the original staging area in the process.
You are assuming that the cessation of rain instantly creates an
emergency. It doesn't. It takes time and if the animals living in that
environment are reasonably smart as hominids were there can be some
small amount of planning to avert an emergency.
> My hypothesis successfully predicts the emergence of bipedalism (due
> to its rock-throwing, stick-wielding communal territorialsm aspects)
> in the earliest years of hominid evolution. Your model predicts that
> hominids would remain quadrupedal, like baboons.
Hmm. This one is a little tougher. I'm just not sure when bipedalism
came into play. Ardi was certainly bipedal if foot shape and pelvis
shape are the criteria at between 4.3 and 5.6 mya. But just what was the
habitat that led to this. I'm also not sure that the LCA was necessarily
chimp-like (grasping great toe, knuckle-walking partly quadrupedal). It
may well be that the LCA was more upright than a chimp and that the
chimp-way is either some sort of retrogression or specialization for
forest living.
As I said this is really tough absent evidence of a real LCA with Ardi
having almost human feet. The article that I read said that Ardi was
bipedal when on the ground but quadrupedal in the trees. Isn't that the
way most kids are today?
What I'm saying is that hominids were on their way to becoming bipedal
VERY early on while baboons being monkeys are not and probably will
never be bipedal, but manage much as hominids did in their time. The
savanna environment reinforced that "becoming bipedal" that hominids
were exhibiting while baboons stuck with their physiology are making do
with what they have. Yeah, I'd hate to eat with my feet, but if you
don't know any better you make do.
At any rate, I don't think rock-throwing, stick-wielding communal
territorialism requires bipedalism. Chimps, gorillas, many monkeys
(including baboons) exhibit this as well as feces-throwing for political
comment.
Nothing is fact, neither your "hypothesis" nor my analogy. This is a
discussion which we are having because there are no facts. Any attack
that you make on my statements because you have the "facts" is JUST
PLAIN BULLSHIT! The same can be said of a similar attack by me on your
hypothesis.
I've noted the parts of your post which resemble the above characterization.
On 6/5/2012 10:53 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Jun 5, 6:40 am, VtSkier<VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> On 6/5/2012 1:35 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 4, 2:31 pm, VtSkier<VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>>> My
>>>> point being that you haven't convinced me that "pest control" behavior
>>>> (call it agriculture if you want to) was practiced by early humans much
>>>> less non-human hominids. I don't see it in non-agricultural humans and
>>>> so I don't see it in non-human hominids. The "pest control" you describe
>>>> can only be done with a reasonably sedentary population, and, except in
>>>> extremely rich environments, a sedentary lifestyle is not possible
>>>> without agriculture, it's full meaning, not just one or two parts.
>>
>>> Well, we've already discussed this to death.
>>
>>> You need to answer the question for yourself: What was the dry season
>>> survival strategy of the earliest (chimpanzee-like) hominids?
>>
>>> Until you answer that question it's pointless to go on.
>>
>> What follows is a description of typical baboon habitat, behavior, diet
>> and predators. I have taken the liberty of replacing the word
>> "baboon(s)" with the word "hominid(s)".
>
> Simplistic.
>> The group living, the daytime
>> foraging, the diet can only be extremely analogous to that of early
>> non-human hominids.
>
> This is your argument? (Pretty weak.)
>> With this lifestyle baboons and by analogy early
>> hominids appear to have had a pretty good and secure life.
>>
>> In a previous post I said:
>> "What I wouldn't be looking for is the scrappy, aggressive, probably
>> more meat-eating than not, territorial, day time hunting/foraging,
>> smart, relatively small-statured two-legged ape
>> on-its-way-to-becoming-human that I think is there."
>>
>> Except for the "two-legged ape" part I've described baboons and baboon
>> behavior to a "tee" in this statement.
>>
>> Because "baboon" is a derisive term when applied to a human (of today)
>> it has a bad connotation. However I think the analogy is apt for
>> hominids vs. baboons.
>
> It's as if your argument is, "I think this therefore it's true."
> Right?
>> As for your insistence that we answer the water during dry times issue,
>> I will point out that it is probably much less of an issue than you make
>> it. Baboons do quite nicely as described below. The Navajo who herd
>> sheep in their semi-desert environment of the four corners area, know
>> where water is at all times without extensive water holes.
>
> It's the height of silliness to look at Navajo and think this tells us
> anything about the situational factors for the earliest hominids.
the savanna environment that we are discussing. Your word "silliness" is
an ad-hom attack and therefore bullshit as described above. The point to
my analogy is that for a reasonably smart primate, knowing where water
is in a harsh environment at any time of the year is reasonably easy as
long as they inhabit that environment on a full time basis.
>
>> Note that there is no opportunity for "pest control" as you describe it
>> in the description below except in sleeping areas, and food is not
>> collected in the sleeping area. So any "pest control" in that place
>> cannot be considered "agriculture" or part of agriculture.
> ?
You didn't read the description of baboons foraging?
>> Note that there is no opportunity for "pest control" as you describe it
>> in the description below except in sleeping areas, and food is not
>> collected in the sleeping area. So any "pest control" in that place
>> cannot be considered "agriculture" or part of agriculture.
> ?
>> Since we have no physical evidence at all of these subjects as they
>> relate to early hominids, our only evidence can be analogy to similar
>> animals and humans alive today. The one thing you haven't done for your
>> hypothesis to date that I've seen is to make an analogy as I've done here.
>
> For an analogy to work it has to be analogous. Baboons are not
> analogous to hominids.
why not? I'll grant you that baboons are not bipedal. They are, however,
hand-using, maybe even as good or better than our closer,
knuckle-walking relatives. Baboons are palm-walkers.
you describe? Your evidence for this is? What exactly is your "garden
habitat" within the savanna ecosystem? Is it the permanent water holes?
Areas near enough to rivers so that rain isn't necessary for lush
growth? Where is your evidence that hominids actually lived permanently
in this garden habitat?
There are certainly areas withing a typical savanna which is "better
real estate" than others. Things like hippos and crocodiles live there
on a permanent basis.
Is the biome of this area such that hominids can make a living here year
round? Or is it better forage for hippos with crocs making it any way
they can?
I like the description of how and where baboons live which requires
security for sleeping and a water supply reasonably close but not
necessarily a traditional water hole.
> When the food became depleted at one site it was no big deal for most
> species to simply migrate over to another site. Hominids, being much
> less mobile, could not have possibly competed in this respect. Most
> species could move from one site to another with relative ease. In
> that sense, they didn't have all their eggs in one basket. Hominids,
> in sharp contrast, had all their eggs in one basket. If the resources
> at their site became depleted their only option is to wait it out and
> hope they don't starve to death or--more likely--be eaten by predators
> before the rains returned and the resource replenished themselves.
> Since their eggs are all in one basket their only option was to watch
> that basket. And that involves the rock-throwing, stick-wielding
> communal territorialsm (pest control agriculture) indicated in my
> hypothesis.
to move from one area to another. Baboons often cover up to 6 miles on a
foraging expedition moving pretty much in a line. If they do a different
line every day they will have covered a huge area from one staging area.
One of those lines would most probably turn up another place from which
to forage and will have moved from the original staging area in the process.
You are assuming that the cessation of rain instantly creates an
emergency. It doesn't. It takes time and if the animals living in that
environment are reasonably smart as hominids were there can be some
small amount of planning to avert an emergency.
> My hypothesis successfully predicts the emergence of bipedalism (due
> to its rock-throwing, stick-wielding communal territorialsm aspects)
> in the earliest years of hominid evolution. Your model predicts that
> hominids would remain quadrupedal, like baboons.
came into play. Ardi was certainly bipedal if foot shape and pelvis
shape are the criteria at between 4.3 and 5.6 mya. But just what was the
habitat that led to this. I'm also not sure that the LCA was necessarily
chimp-like (grasping great toe, knuckle-walking partly quadrupedal). It
may well be that the LCA was more upright than a chimp and that the
chimp-way is either some sort of retrogression or specialization for
forest living.
As I said this is really tough absent evidence of a real LCA with Ardi
having almost human feet. The article that I read said that Ardi was
bipedal when on the ground but quadrupedal in the trees. Isn't that the
way most kids are today?
What I'm saying is that hominids were on their way to becoming bipedal
VERY early on while baboons being monkeys are not and probably will
never be bipedal, but manage much as hominids did in their time. The
savanna environment reinforced that "becoming bipedal" that hominids
were exhibiting while baboons stuck with their physiology are making do
with what they have. Yeah, I'd hate to eat with my feet, but if you
don't know any better you make do.
At any rate, I don't think rock-throwing, stick-wielding communal
territorialism requires bipedalism. Chimps, gorillas, many monkeys
(including baboons) exhibit this as well as feces-throwing for political
comment.
Claudius Denk
Jun 5, 2012, 1:07:41 PM6/5/12
to
OOn Jun 5, 9:15 am, VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> To begin with.
> Nothing is fact, neither your "hypothesis" nor my analogy. This is a
> discussion which we are having because there are no facts. Any attack
> that you make on my statements because you have the "facts" is JUST
> PLAIN BULLSHIT! The same can be said of a similar attack by me on your
> hypothesis.
> I've noted the parts of your post which resemble the above characterization.
I wasn't attacking you. I was trying to help you.
> To begin with.
> Nothing is fact, neither your "hypothesis" nor my analogy. This is a
> discussion which we are having because there are no facts. Any attack
> that you make on my statements because you have the "facts" is JUST
> PLAIN BULLSHIT! The same can be said of a similar attack by me on your
> hypothesis.
> I've noted the parts of your post which resemble the above characterization.
I think the evidence that hominids became bipedal very early is a
fact. Facts are what anchor our understandings in reality. It
prevents us from going off on a tangent that just sounds good.
> >>>> My
> >>>> point being that you haven't convinced me that "pest control" behavior
> >>>> (call it agriculture if you want to) was practiced by early humans much
> >>>> less non-human hominids. I don't see it in non-agricultural humans and
> >>>> so I don't see it in non-human hominids. The "pest control" you describe
> >>>> can only be done with a reasonably sedentary population, and, except in
> >>>> extremely rich environments, a sedentary lifestyle is not possible
> >>>> without agriculture, it's full meaning, not just one or two parts.
>
> >>> Well, we've already discussed this to death.
>
> >>> You need to answer the question for yourself: What was the dry season
> >>> survival strategy of the earliest (chimpanzee-like) hominids?
>
> >>> Until you answer that question it's pointless to go on.
>
> >> What follows is a description of typical baboon habitat, behavior, diet
> >> and predators. I have taken the liberty of replacing the word
> >> "baboon(s)" with the word "hominid(s)".
>
> > Simplistic.
>
> You're right. But the analogy holds.
> >> The group living, the daytime
> >> foraging, the diet can only be extremely analogous to that of early
> >> non-human hominids.
>
> > This is your argument? (Pretty weak.)
>
> No weaker than yours.
> >> With this lifestyle baboons and by analogy early
> >> hominids appear to have had a pretty good and secure life.
>
> >> In a previous post I said:
> >> "What I wouldn't be looking for is the scrappy, aggressive, probably
> >> more meat-eating than not, territorial, day time hunting/foraging,
> >> smart, relatively small-statured two-legged ape
> >> on-its-way-to-becoming-human that I think is there."
>
> >> Except for the "two-legged ape" part I've described baboons and baboon
> >> behavior to a "tee" in this statement.
>
> >> Because "baboon" is a derisive term when applied to a human (of today)
> >> it has a bad connotation. However I think the analogy is apt for
> >> hominids vs. baboons.
>
> > It's as if your argument is, "I think this therefore it's true."
> > Right?
>
> This is bullshit as described above.
> >> As for your insistence that we answer the water during dry times issue,
> >> I will point out that it is probably much less of an issue than you make
> >> it. Baboons do quite nicely as described below. The Navajo who herd
> >> sheep in their semi-desert environment of the four corners area, know
> >> where water is at all times without extensive water holes.
>
> > It's the height of silliness to look at Navajo and think this tells us
> > anything about the situational factors for the earliest hominids.
>
> Not really at all.
the last 12 ky) are dramatically different than what existed when
hominids first appeared on the scene in the context of a biota that is
often referred to as the Ethiopian Fauna.
> In fact the Navajo environment is far more harsh
hominids competed with in garden habitat had all been driven to
extinction by hominids by 12 kya. Even in the Americas.
> than
> the savanna environment that we are discussing. Your word "silliness" is
> an ad-hom attack and therefore bullshit as described above. The point to
> my analogy is that for a reasonably smart primate, knowing where water
> is in a harsh environment at any time of the year is reasonably easy as
> long as they inhabit that environment on a full time basis.
drive your thinking to conclusion that allows your thinking to be
delineated by comparison to real evidence. I don't see you doing
that. You just seem to think that your audience should just blindly
accept your assertions. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that you
shouldn't be allowed to make unsupported assertions. (Nobody could do
anything in this field if that were the case.) But don't expect
people to accept it just because you state it. Again, try to drive
your arguments to some kind of end that will anchor your understanding
in something that is beyond dispute, like the fossil evidence. Or
even the extent evidence. (I have done both.)
> >> Note that there is no opportunity for "pest control" as you describe it
> >> in the description below except in sleeping areas, and food is not
> >> collected in the sleeping area. So any "pest control" in that place
> >> cannot be considered "agriculture" or part of agriculture.
> > ?
>
> You didn't read the description of baboons foraging?
> >> Since we have no physical evidence at all of these subjects as they
> >> relate to early hominids, our only evidence can be analogy to similar
> >> animals and humans alive today. The one thing you haven't done for your
> >> hypothesis to date that I've seen is to make an analogy as I've done here.
>
> > For an analogy to work it has to be analogous. Baboons are not
> > analogous to hominids.
>
> In behavior, social organization, feeding/foraging, habitat, predators,
> why not?
> I'll grant you that baboons are not bipedal.
> They are, however,
> hand-using, maybe even as good or better than our closer,
> knuckle-walking relatives. Baboons are palm-walkers.
But I thought we were talking about humans/hominids who have
attributes very different from these species, and from baboon.
been much better able to outrun and fend off predators--like babboons.
> Your evidence for this is?
> What exactly is your "garden
> habitat" within the savanna ecosystem? Is it the permanent water holes?
> Areas near enough to rivers so that rain isn't necessary for lush
> growth? Where is your evidence that hominids actually lived permanently
> in this garden habitat?
contradicts it. (Note: it's your job to know the evidence. Don't
expect me to lay it all out for you.)
> There are certainly areas withing a typical savanna which is "better
> real estate" than others.
recognize the value of real estate--especially with respect to
surviving the dry season.
> Things like hippos and crocodiles live there
> on a permanent basis.
losing your mind?
> Is the biome of this area such that hominids can make a living here year
> round?
species out of it.
> Or is it better forage for hippos with crocs making it any way
> they can?
> I like the description of how and where baboons live which requires
> security for sleeping and a water supply reasonably close but not
> necessarily a traditional water hole.
in the light of the evidence.
> > When the food became depleted at one site it was no big deal for most
> > species to simply migrate over to another site. Hominids, being much
> > less mobile, could not have possibly competed in this respect. Most
> > species could move from one site to another with relative ease. In
> > that sense, they didn't have all their eggs in one basket. Hominids,
> > in sharp contrast, had all their eggs in one basket. If the resources
> > at their site became depleted their only option is to wait it out and
> > hope they don't starve to death or--more likely--be eaten by predators
> > before the rains returned and the resource replenished themselves.
> > Since their eggs are all in one basket their only option was to watch
> > that basket. And that involves the rock-throwing, stick-wielding
> > communal territorialsm (pest control agriculture) indicated in my
> > hypothesis.
>
> I respectfully disagree with your statement that hominids were less able
> to move from one area to another. Baboons often cover up to 6 miles on a
> foraging expedition moving pretty much in a line. If they do a different
> line every day they will have covered a huge area from one staging area.
> One of those lines would most probably turn up another place from which
> to forage and will have moved from the original staging area in the process.
themselves.
> You are assuming that the cessation of rain instantly creates an
> emergency.
> It doesn't. It takes time and if the animals living in that
> environment are reasonably smart as hominids were there can be some
> small amount of planning to avert an emergency.
>
> > My hypothesis successfully predicts the emergence of bipedalism (due
> > to its rock-throwing, stick-wielding communal territorialsm aspects)
> > in the earliest years of hominid evolution. Your model predicts that
> > hominids would remain quadrupedal, like baboons.
>
> Hmm. This one is a little tougher.
> I'm just not sure when bipedalism
> came into play. Ardi was certainly bipedal if foot shape and pelvis
> shape are the criteria at between 4.3 and 5.6 mya. But just what was the
> habitat that led to this. I'm also not sure that the LCA was necessarily
> chimp-like (grasping great toe, knuckle-walking partly quadrupedal). It
> may well be that the LCA was more upright than a chimp and that the
> chimp-way is either some sort of retrogression or specialization for
> forest living.
lineage very early. Well before expansion of brain size, for
example. Well before usage of sophsiticated tools.
> As I said this is really tough absent evidence of a real LCA with Ardi
> having almost human feet. The article that I read said that Ardi was
> bipedal when on the ground but quadrupedal in the trees. Isn't that the
> way most kids are today?
>
> What I'm saying is that hominids were on their way to becoming bipedal
> VERY early on while baboons being monkeys are not and probably will
> never be bipedal, but manage much as hominids did in their time. The
> savanna environment reinforced that "becoming bipedal" that hominids
> were exhibiting while baboons stuck with their physiology are making do
> with what they have. Yeah, I'd hate to eat with my feet, but if you
> don't know any better you make do.
of babboons not maintain the quadrupedalism like babboons? It doesn't
make sense.
> At any rate, I don't think rock-throwing, stick-wielding communal
> territorialism requires bipedalism. Chimps, gorillas, many monkeys
> (including baboons) exhibit this as well as feces-throwing for political
> comment.
exclusive possession of garden habit year round) by way of collective
rock-throwing, stick wielding its pretty obvious why bipedalism would
have been adaptive.
VtSkier
Jun 5, 2012, 5:18:54 PM6/5/12
to
already on the way to bipedalism. One branch stayed in open country and
found the stance helpful, maintained it and expanded on it. Yes I know
I'm giving evolution intent and I do know it doesn't work that way but
it's a convenient way to explain it. Another branch from the LCA moved
back into the forest and gained specializations that adapted it to
forest living. Chimps and all other great apes are specialized for
brachiation, that is, locomotion through trees swinging by arms. Note
that their clavicles are in a vertical plane, not horizontal like ours,
and feet are adapted for grasping. Arms are generally longer than legs.
These are all arboreal forest adaptations. I think knuckle-walking is
also a forest adaptation coming from the stiffening of the ape's wrist
again for brachiation.
Consider that humans (and human ancestors) are physically generalists.
Their body form is not committed to any special environment. Yes they
probably evolved on the savanna. Also consider that the Great Apes are
specialized as are monkeys (including baboons). Because of these
specializations they simply cannot over the period of only a few million
years attain an upright posture. They are stuck, especially baboons,
with their mostly quadrupedal stance.
I also think that baboons are pretty nearly as smart as Ardi and early
Australopithecus. And I still see very close behavioral parallels
between the species.
>
>> At any rate, I don't think rock-throwing, stick-wielding communal
>> territorialism requires bipedalism. Chimps, gorillas, many monkeys
>> (including baboons) exhibit this as well as feces-throwing for political
>> comment.
>
> Considering their strategic territorialistic goals (maintaining
> exclusive possession of garden habit year round) by way of collective
> rock-throwing, stick wielding its pretty obvious why bipedalism would
> have been adaptive.
You know, this might be a correct assumption, the possession of a chunk
>> At any rate, I don't think rock-throwing, stick-wielding communal
>> territorialism requires bipedalism. Chimps, gorillas, many monkeys
>> (including baboons) exhibit this as well as feces-throwing for political
>> comment.
>
> Considering their strategic territorialistic goals (maintaining
> exclusive possession of garden habit year round) by way of collective
> rock-throwing, stick wielding its pretty obvious why bipedalism would
> have been adaptive.
of real estate by a gang of hominids but I'm not sold. Were there places
in the Miocene/Pliocene savannas that were rich enough to support a
"tribe" for probably multi-years as your hypothesis suggests? Are there
parallels to these areas today? What is their biome?
I think in order to hold a piece of real estate as you describe, you
would probably need a troop numbering in the range of 50 individuals,
which is exactly what you have in a baboon troop.
Then, you made a statement about the really fierce predators that were
wiped out by humans 12,000 years ago by human activity. The assumption
from this statement is that these predators lasted up until this time
period. Humans by this time has fanned out all over the globe including
the Americas. Why wouldn't the existence of these predators have been a
deterrent to our hominid ancestors becoming human?
By the way, how do you know these predators were any more fierce than
the ones we have today? Yes, we do know that some of these predators
were specialized to prey on certain (usually large) herbivores, be just
because we think they are fierce because they have large dagger like
teeth (for instance) it doesn't necessarily follow that they were any
more fierce than your average tiger.
I'm going to put this away for a while to mull stuff over and do a bit
of reading. I will probably be back in a couple of weeks or less.
Claudius Denk
Jun 5, 2012, 6:01:46 PM6/5/12
to
On Jun 5, 2:18 pm, VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> >> What I'm saying is that hominids were on their way to becoming bipedal
> >> VERY early on while baboons being monkeys are not and probably will
> >> never be bipedal, but manage much as hominids did in their time. The
> >> savanna environment reinforced that "becoming bipedal" that hominids
> >> were exhibiting while baboons stuck with their physiology are making do
> >> with what they have. Yeah, I'd hate to eat with my feet, but if you
> >> don't know any better you make do.
>
> > Why would a chimpanzee-like ape that lived a lifestyle similar to that
> > of babboons not maintain the quadrupedalism like babboons? It doesn't
> > make sense.
>
> Here's a partial answer. The LCA was probably open country living and
> already on the way to bipedalism. One branch stayed in open country and
> found the stance helpful, maintained it and expanded on it. Yes I know
> I'm giving evolution intent and I do know it doesn't work that way but
> it's a convenient way to explain it.
I'm not a stickler in that regard. (It's difficult to talk about
> >> What I'm saying is that hominids were on their way to becoming bipedal
> >> VERY early on while baboons being monkeys are not and probably will
> >> never be bipedal, but manage much as hominids did in their time. The
> >> savanna environment reinforced that "becoming bipedal" that hominids
> >> were exhibiting while baboons stuck with their physiology are making do
> >> with what they have. Yeah, I'd hate to eat with my feet, but if you
> >> don't know any better you make do.
>
> > Why would a chimpanzee-like ape that lived a lifestyle similar to that
> > of babboons not maintain the quadrupedalism like babboons? It doesn't
> > make sense.
>
> Here's a partial answer. The LCA was probably open country living and
> already on the way to bipedalism. One branch stayed in open country and
> found the stance helpful, maintained it and expanded on it. Yes I know
> I'm giving evolution intent and I do know it doesn't work that way but
> it's a convenient way to explain it.
evolution if you don't speak of it as having intent.) I'm concerned
that you are not telling us what is selectively advantageous about
bipedalism in open country. You just said, "they found it helpful."
Helpful to what end?
of extended family units). Each one of which had it's own property as
part of the larger community.
> Were there places
> in the Miocene/Pliocene savannas that were rich enough to support a
> "tribe" for probably multi-years as your hypothesis suggests?
> Are there
> parallels to these areas today?
these "places" are occupied by . . . well, us humans.
> What is their biome?
Garden habitat.
> I think in order to hold a piece of real estate as you describe, you
> would probably need a troop numbering in the range of 50 individuals,
> which is exactly what you have in a baboon troop.
> Then, you made a statement about the really fierce predators that were
> wiped out by humans 12,000 years ago by human activity.
> The assumption
> from this statement is that these predators lasted up until this time
> period.
kya in the Americas--sabertoothed cats, mammoth, etc. These are all
species that would have depended on garden habitat to survive the dry
(winter) season.
> Humans by this time has fanned out all over the globe including
> the Americas. Why wouldn't the existence of these predators have been a
> deterrent to our hominid ancestors becoming human?
> By the way, how do you know these predators were any more fierce than
> the ones we have today? Yes, we do know that some of these predators
> were specialized to prey on certain (usually large) herbivores, be just
> because we think they are fierce because they have large dagger like
> teeth (for instance) it doesn't necessarily follow that they were any
> more fierce than your average tiger.
lumbering (fruit eating) prey were more numerous in that they had
access to all the garden habitat that currently supports over 6
billion hominids.
> I'm going to put this away for a while to mull stuff over and do a bit
> of reading. I will probably be back in a couple of weeks or less.
consider this unique hypothesis without automatically (and stubbornly)
assuming it must be wrong.
Regards,
JTEM
Jun 10, 2012, 5:30:10 AM6/10/12
to
Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Arguments based on lack of data don't impress me much.
Yet that's exactly what you were doing: Speculating.
> Arguments based on lack of data don't impress me much.
You offered nothing but worthless speculation.
> > In fact, the "Molecular Clock" people insist it had
> > to live at the time of Ardi, while the Wiki article on Ardi insists
> > that it couldn't possibly be the LCA (I just read it).
>
> Let's just say the evidence is inconclusive.
read it.
> > Their argument is retarded, by the way. Effectively it's insisting
> > that there's no such thing as evolution, and because Ardi's
> > feet are different it can't be the LCA...
>
> > Dumb. Really, really, dumb.
>
> It's hard to say.
dumb.
> The LCA may have been about 8 mya (because this is
> when monsoon climate first appeared). Or it may have been around 5 to
> 6 mya.
have always argued that the so-called "Molecular Clock" dates are
always too old. Which means, I would place the LCA even closer to us,
even younger.
The reasoning is simple: A speciesization event (between two
populations, where they effectively become two different species)
requires more change & more rapid change than the insane "molecular
clock" model would allow. Example:
Founder effect. Instead of a slow, creeping into dominance of a
specific genetic line and/or traits, the population is founded on
them (with them).
Example two:
Environmental change. Let's say that the ice age rears it's ugly
head. The glaciers return. What was a beautiful forest is now an
arctic tundra, and all this happened in only 70 years! That means
all the animal species living their had to adapt to the new
environment in only 70 years (probably less). All the adaptations,
the EVOLUTION necessary to take an animal adapted to a warm
climate and change it to an animal adapted to a frozen tundra had
to occur in less than 70 years, the time it took for the glaciers to
arrive.
The "Molecular clock" assumes a constant pace, while we know
that major evolutionary events happen quite quickly. Thus, the
so-called "Molecular Clock" way over estimates age.
> And/or it may have been around 3.5 mya as there was a reversal
> in the climate during the pliocene when, possibly, the rainforest
> reemerged until about 3.5.
arrival of H. habilis.
JTEM
Jun 10, 2012, 5:42:59 AM6/10/12
to
Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> I don't think anyone thinks that Ardi was our LCA with the chimps. As
> you say, the evidence is inconclusive. But it does seem to suggest that
> the populations that gave rise to creatures that became us were not
> knuckle-walkers, and that increasingly facilitative bipedality superior
> to chimps and gorillas was happening was likely present before ca. 4.4 mya.
One of the massively huge problems which plague
> I don't think anyone thinks that Ardi was our LCA with the chimps. As
> you say, the evidence is inconclusive. But it does seem to suggest that
> the populations that gave rise to creatures that became us were not
> knuckle-walkers, and that increasingly facilitative bipedality superior
> to chimps and gorillas was happening was likely present before ca. 4.4 mya.
paleoanthropology is a complete surrender to
linear thinking.
For example, the idea that humans split off from chimps.
There is absolutely no reason to assume for one moment
that it wasn't the other way around. Which is to say, that
the chimp line is the child of the human line, or at least the
line that gave rise to humans. Bipedalism is the key here.
To me, all the evidence seems to point to the chimp line
splitting off from humans, "de-evolving" as some might
claim. Chimps are the primate equivalent to the flightless
bird. Both have reverted, reacquired a previously lost
set of features/behaviors.
Again, there is absolutely no reason on this earth not
to assume this, yet paleoanthropology, stuck in it's
severely limited thinking, reacts as if it is somehow
controversial.
Go figure.
Claudius Denk
Jun 11, 2012, 12:22:29 PM6/11/12
to
On Jun 10, 2:30 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Arguments based on lack of data don't impress me much.
>
> Yet that's exactly what you were doing: Speculating.
>
> You offered nothing but worthless speculation.
You know it's worthless how?
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Arguments based on lack of data don't impress me much.
>
> Yet that's exactly what you were doing: Speculating.
>
> You offered nothing but worthless speculation.
> > > In fact, the "Molecular Clock" people insist it had
> > > to live at the time of Ardi, while the Wiki article on Ardi insists
> > > that it couldn't possibly be the LCA (I just read it).
>
> > Let's just say the evidence is inconclusive.
>
> The "Evidence" is powerful. You just have to know how to
> read it.
> > > Their argument is retarded, by the way. Effectively it's insisting
> > > that there's no such thing as evolution, and because Ardi's
> > > feet are different it can't be the LCA...
>
> > > Dumb. Really, really, dumb.
>
> > It's hard to say.
>
> No. It's quite easy to say: Their argument is dumb. It really is
> dumb.
>
> > The LCA may have been about 8 mya (because this is
> > when monsoon climate first appeared). Or it may have been around 5 to
> > 6 mya.
>
> The "Molecular Clock" people place it much later than that. I for one
> have always argued that the so-called "Molecular Clock" dates are
> always too old. Which means, I would place the LCA even closer to us,
> even younger.
>
> The reasoning is simple: A speciesization event
VtSkier
Jun 12, 2012, 7:57:16 PM6/12/12
to
On 6/10/2012 5:42 AM, JTEM wrote:
> Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't think anyone thinks that Ardi was our LCA with the chimps. As
>> you say, the evidence is inconclusive. But it does seem to suggest that
>> the populations that gave rise to creatures that became us were not
>> knuckle-walkers, and that increasingly facilitative bipedality superior
>> to chimps and gorillas was happening was likely present before ca. 4.4 mya.
>
(snip)
> Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't think anyone thinks that Ardi was our LCA with the chimps. As
>> you say, the evidence is inconclusive. But it does seem to suggest that
>> the populations that gave rise to creatures that became us were not
>> knuckle-walkers, and that increasingly facilitative bipedality superior
>> to chimps and gorillas was happening was likely present before ca. 4.4 mya.
>
> For example, the idea that humans split off from chimps.
>
> There is absolutely no reason to assume for one moment
> that it wasn't the other way around. Which is to say, that
> the chimp line is the child of the human line, or at least the
> line that gave rise to humans. Bipedalism is the key here.
>
> To me, all the evidence seems to point to the chimp line
> splitting off from humans, "de-evolving" as some might
> claim. Chimps are the primate equivalent to the flightless
> bird. Both have reverted, reacquired a previously lost
> set of features/behaviors.
> (snip again)
>
> There is absolutely no reason to assume for one moment
> that it wasn't the other way around. Which is to say, that
> the chimp line is the child of the human line, or at least the
> line that gave rise to humans. Bipedalism is the key here.
>
> To me, all the evidence seems to point to the chimp line
> splitting off from humans, "de-evolving" as some might
> claim. Chimps are the primate equivalent to the flightless
> bird. Both have reverted, reacquired a previously lost
> set of features/behaviors.
I also said as much in one of my posts to Mr. Denk.
However, I wouldn't say that chimps "de-evolved" <from the human line>,
I would say that the great apes are a further evolvement /away/ from
gound-living to arboreal life. I would suggest that the ultimate great
ape is the gibbon with the orangutan a close second. They both have the
brachiation specializations which humans and the human line do not have.
They have the vertical (or nearly so) clavicle, long arms, short legs,
permanently hooked fingers, stiff wrist AND they live in the trees, the
jungle canopy to be exact. Chimps, bonobos and gorillas have the same
basic specializations but have returned to ground living probably
because of loss of habitat or in the gorilla's case, perhaps gaining too
much weight. But they still have short legs, long arms, stiff wrists
(which IMO lead to knuckle walking).
Humans and the human line are physically generalized except for
bipedalism. We can climb trees, but not as good as a gibbon; we can run
and walk freely, but not as well as our four-legged neighbors or perhaps
distant cousins.
I'm thinking the LCA was a ground-living tree climber (shades of Ardi)
with a propensity for bipedalism, but not necessarily totally bipedal,
and with a liking for higher a protein diet.
Claudius Denk
Jun 13, 2012, 10:43:46 AM6/13/12
to
put hominids in rainforest (closed canopy) habitat they will evolve
into apes. And vice versa: if you put apes in monsoon forest habitat
(significant dry season, open canopy) they will evolve into hominids.
That this is the case can be easily discerned from the fossil and
paleoclimatic evidence. Accordingly, there is no reason to conclude
that apes evolved from hominids. Hominids evolved from apes. If the
evidence is clear on anything it is clear on that. Don't belabor the
obvious.
VtSkier
Jun 13, 2012, 8:12:02 PM6/13/12
to
Hominids didn't evolve from apes. However, I did say that the ape(s)
hominids did evolve from were nothing like the apes we have today, which
are specialized creatures of the rain forest.
True I didn't CALL the animal from which hominids evolved from an "ape".
I did go on to describe the "animal" as being ground living with a
proclivity toward bipedalism.
From a Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee-human_last_common_ancestor
"It is believed that there are no proto-chimpanzee fossils or
proto-gorilla fossils that have been clearly identified. However,
Richard Dawkins, in his book "The Ancestor's Tale," proposes that robust
australopithecines such as Paranthropus are the ancestors of gorillas,
whereas some of the gracile australopithecines are the ancestors of
chimpanzees."
So what Dawkins is saying directly contradicts your assertion that
hominids were not ancestral to apes. So it isn't obvious at all that
humans evolved from apes, at least not apes like gorillas and chimpanzees.
JTEM
Jun 13, 2012, 10:32:07 PM6/13/12
to
VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> From a Wikipedia articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee-human_last_common_ancestor
more sense than what I was saying.
It was probably not very clean cut though. I mean, if the DNA data
is the least bit correct, even ignoring dating, there was still a
split at
one point followed by a much later reunion/interbreeding between
the two populations -- an exchange of DNA/Features.
Human & Chimp line, I mean.
> From a Wikipedia articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee-human_last_common_ancestor
> "It is believed that there are no proto-chimpanzee fossils or
> proto-gorilla fossils that have been clearly identified. However,
> Richard Dawkins, in his book "The Ancestor's Tale," proposes that robust
> australopithecines such as Paranthropus are the ancestors of gorillas,
> whereas some of the gracile australopithecines are the ancestors of
> chimpanzees."
Well, damn, I missed that! He's probably right. And it does make
> proto-gorilla fossils that have been clearly identified. However,
> Richard Dawkins, in his book "The Ancestor's Tale," proposes that robust
> australopithecines such as Paranthropus are the ancestors of gorillas,
> whereas some of the gracile australopithecines are the ancestors of
> chimpanzees."
more sense than what I was saying.
It was probably not very clean cut though. I mean, if the DNA data
is the least bit correct, even ignoring dating, there was still a
split at
one point followed by a much later reunion/interbreeding between
the two populations -- an exchange of DNA/Features.
Human & Chimp line, I mean.
JTEM
Jun 13, 2012, 10:37:36 PM6/13/12
to
Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Their argument is retarded, by the way. Effectively it's insisting
> > > > that there's no such thing as evolution, and because Ardi's
> > > > feet are different it can't be the LCA...
>
> > > > Dumb. Really, really, dumb.
>
> > > It's hard to say.
>
> > No. It's quite easy to say: Their argument is dumb. It really is
> > dumb.
> Science seems easy to those that don't understand it.
and misrepresent OPINIONS as "Science." See above.
I pointed out that their argument is dumb, which it is. You
misunderstood this as a critique on science.
Okay, sure, you will now squirm and pretend you did no such
thing, but we're all used to that...
> This is not an explanation.
JTEM
Jun 13, 2012, 10:27:11 PM6/13/12
to
VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> I'm thinking the LCA was a ground-living tree climber (shades of Ardi)
> with a propensity for bipedalism, but not necessarily totally bipedal,
> and with a liking for higher a protein diet.
Speaking of Ardi, here's a story that confirms something I said
> I'm thinking the LCA was a ground-living tree climber (shades of Ardi)
> with a propensity for bipedalism, but not necessarily totally bipedal,
> and with a liking for higher a protein diet.
earlier, but not what some might think.
It places the LCA at about 4.5 million years ago. This, however, is
based on the DNA evidence -- the imaginary "Molecular Clock" --
which by all logic must be wrong. The "Molecular Clock" nonsense
has to date things as older than they really are...
The story is on the recent mapping of the Bonobo genome, and it's
stuffed full of assumptions:
: Ancient humans split away from bonobos and chimps about 4.5
: million years ago.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-bonobo-genome-20120614,0,1798276.story
Anyhow, the DNA data would place the ultimate split around Ardi,
but I would place it closer to us, probably H. habilis.
Controversial, I know, is is there a better candidate after Ardi?
Claudius Denk
Jun 14, 2012, 12:04:50 AM6/14/12
to
species evolve to be more specialized over time. This is especially
true for anthro major who constantly make the dimwitted claim that
extant chimps are more "derived" than ancient chimps, etc. It's a
little piece of pseudoscience that persists amongst the
anthropologists.
> True I didn't CALL the animal from which hominids evolved from an "ape".
> I did go on to describe the "animal" as being ground living with a
> proclivity toward bipedalism.
>
> From a Wikipedia articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee-human_last_common_ancestor
> "It is believed that there are no proto-chimpanzee fossils or
> proto-gorilla fossils that have been clearly identified. However,
> Richard Dawkins, in his book "The Ancestor's Tale," proposes that robust
> australopithecines such as Paranthropus are the ancestors of gorillas,
> whereas some of the gracile australopithecines are the ancestors of
> chimpanzees."
It may be true. It may be partially true. Or it may be completely
> proto-gorilla fossils that have been clearly identified. However,
> Richard Dawkins, in his book "The Ancestor's Tale," proposes that robust
> australopithecines such as Paranthropus are the ancestors of gorillas,
> whereas some of the gracile australopithecines are the ancestors of
> chimpanzees."
false. But we don't know. Evolution doesn't have a direction. There
is not such thing as one animal being better than another--in an
absolute sense. But it hardly matters with respect to understanding
human origins.
> So what Dawkins is saying directly contradicts your assertion that
> hominids were not ancestral to apes. So it isn't obvious at all that
> humans evolved from apes, at least not apes like gorillas and chimpanzees.
exist on this planet prior to 8 mya. Humans only emerge in the
context of monsoon forest habitat.
JTEM
Jun 14, 2012, 4:18:18 AM6/14/12
to
Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Well, there's a tendency for amateur evolutionists to assume that
> species evolve to be more specialized over time.
It's called "Micro Evolution," or at least it was before "Genetic
> Well, there's a tendency for amateur evolutionists to assume that
> species evolve to be more specialized over time.
Drift"
became all the rage. It has not only been observed in nature but
replicated by man.
The chicken, for example. Or every last breed of dog. Or horse. Etc.
In nature it can be as simple as a change in color from population
to population, matching it's environment. Here's a story on a slightly
more complex example, fishing living in a dark, cave environment
losing their eyesight:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070215144258.htm
> This is especially
> true for anthro major who constantly make the dimwitted claim that
> extant chimps are more "derived" than ancient chimps, etc.
> > True I didn't CALL the animal from which hominids evolved from an "ape".
> > I did go on to describe the "animal" as being ground living with a
> > proclivity toward bipedalism.
>
> Why does this matter?
origins, Paleoanthropology.... evolution.
> Evolution doesn't have a direction.
population, it would be impossible to predict it's evolutionary
direction __If__ it were to evolve into a new species. But
we're talking about the past, and a distinct direction was
taken and we can plot that direction it took.
You're a scatterbrain. No, this is not ad hominem. The point it
you leap from subject to subject, juggle priorities and
constantly change your course. One example is your over us
of "speculation" in criticizing others (even if they're not
speculating), only for you to turn around and speculate endlessly.
And here, right now, you're confusing a problem with future
evolution for a case of past evolution -- where the problem does
not exist.
Claudius Denk
Jun 14, 2012, 11:14:34 AM6/14/12
to
more and more creative ways. Consequently many people can't make
progress in this discipline because they can't get beyond the half
truths. Even Darwin recognized that, as a science, evolutionary
biology seems to be missing a unifying principle. I discovered the
unifying principle. But it wasn't easy (it involved development of a
unique methodological approach, something more akin to chaos theory or
complexity theory) and it was/is especially difficult to communicate
this unifying principle to others. In fact it was so difficult that I
gave up trying to communicate it some time ago. Now I just use it to
answer questions.
RichTravsky
Jun 16, 2012, 12:27:15 AM6/16/12
to
> put hominids in rainforest (closed canopy) habitat they will evolve
> into apes. And vice versa: if you put apes in monsoon forest habitat
> (significant dry season, open canopy) they will evolve into hominids.
APES ARE HOMINIDS.
RichTravsky
Jun 16, 2012, 12:31:46 AM6/16/12
to
australopiths.
As to higher protein intake, do you mean meat or some other source?
RichTravsky
Jun 16, 2012, 12:41:52 AM6/16/12
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Jun 1, 8:53 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Tom McDonald wrote:
> > > On 5/20/2012 11:41 PM, RichTravsky wrote:
> > > > Tom McDonald wrote:
> > > >> I find this interesting, as an overview of what the author (unknown, but
> > > >> posted on T.O., and possibly written by, marc.tessera) has pulled
> > > >> together about thermoregulation and hairlessness, with a dip into the
> > > >> persistence hunting pool. Submitted for your consideration.
> > > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > >> The thermoregulatory hypothesis was first proposed by Darwin in 1871
> > > >> and later developed by Dr. Peter Wheeler (Wheeler 1984; 1985).
> > > >> 1. Benefits stemming from the loss of human body hair:
> > > >> “In order to comprehend why humans are essentially hairless, it is
> > > >> essential to understand that mammalian body hair is not merely an
> > > >> aesthetic characteristic; it protects the skin from wounds, bites,
> > > >> heat, cold, and UV radiation. Additionally, it can be used as a
> > > >> communication tool and as a camouflage. To this end, it can be
> > > >> concluded that benefits stemming from the loss of human body hair must
> > > >> be great enough to outweigh the loss of these protective functions by
> > > >> nakedness” (Wikipedia 2012).
> > > >> “Humans are the only primate species that has mostly naked skin. Loss
> > > >> of fur was an adaptation to changing environmental conditions that
> > > >> forced our ancestors to travel longer distances for food and water.
> > > >> Analyses of fossils and genes hint at when this transformation
> > > >> occurred. The evolution of hairlessness helped to set the stage for
> > > >> the emergence of large brains and symbolic thought” (Jablonski 2010).
> > > >> 2. When can we date the loss of hair among our ancestors?
> > > >> “Studies conducted independently by Lieberman and Christopher Ruff of
> > > >> Johns Hopkins University have shown that by about 1.6 million years
> > > >> ago an early member of our genus called Homo ergaster had evolved
> > > >> essentially modern body proportions, which would have permitted
> > > >> prolonged walking and running. Homo ergaster had to travel far in
> > > >> search of sustenance—including meat. This species, which arose by 1.6
> > > >> million years ago, was probably the first to possess naked skin and
> > > >> eccrine sweat, which would have offset the body heat generated by such
> > > >> elevated activity levels” (Jablonski 2010).
> > > >> Moreover “humans, unlike other apes, have, not one, but two types of
> > > >> hair lice, one living in head hair and the other living in pubic hair.
> > > >> Chimps and gorillas on the other hand, have only one. The reason that
> > > >> humans have two types of hair lice arises from our nakedness over most
> > > >> of our bodies, and thus the two colonies of lice are isolated and have
> > > >> evolved separately. The argument then is that when we lost our hair
> > > >> before our hair lice split into two species” (Jogalekar 2011). “Thus,
> > > >> the origin of body lice provides a minimum estimate for the dawn of
> > > >> hominid garb. By comparing gene sequences of organisms, investigators
> > > >> can learn roughly when the species arose. Such analyses in lice
> > > >> indicate that whereas head lice have plagued humans from the start,
> > > >> body lice evolved much later. The timing of their appearance hints
> > > >> that humans went naked for more than a million years before getting
> > > >> dressed” (Jablonski 2010).
> > > >> 3. Change in diet:
> > > >> “After diverging from their chimpanzee-lineage, our ancestors became
> > > >> omnivorous in order to maximize calorie intake, an important
> > > >> distinction in a nutrient-scarce environment. Prey, however, are
> > > >> moving targets, and though early humans changed the traditionally ape-
> > > >> like appearance of the australopithecines and adapted long, strong
> > > >> legs to facilitate sustained running, dense, hairy coats still posed a
> > > >> potentially fatal risk of causing overheating during the chase. It is
> > > >> posited that thick hair got in the way of the sweat evaporating, so
> > > >> humans evolved a sparser coat of fur” (Jablonski 2006).
> > > >> 4. Persistence hunting to ate meat:
> > > >> “Persistence hunting is an ancient method of hunting. It is carried
> > > >> out by Kalahari bushmen (Australian aboriginal tribes). Persistence
> > > >> hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
> > > >> several hours of continuous running at roughly marathon pace. Although
> > > >> slow over short distances, humans are actually quite efficient runners
> > > >> over long distances. Hunting occurs by chasing a animal and not
> > > >> letting it rest, so after several hours, the animal collapses
> > > >> exhaustion. That’s when our Running Ape can get close enough to
> > > >> basically stab the animal to death with a crude spear head. The skill
> > > >> in persistence hunting lies in the stamina required for the long-
> > > >> distance running and the ability tracking the prey over a vast area.
> > > >> The reason that humans can outrun four-legged ruminants over a long
> > > >> distance turns out to be due to a surprising reason: sweating. Humans
> > > >> are one of the few mammals that sweat for cooling, and this turns out
> > > >> to be incredibly advantageous for long-distance running in hot
> > > >> scorched conditions. Most mammals cool by panting, which is
> > > >> incompatible with running. They overheat if they run long distances
> > > >> without stopping. In contrast, our Running Ape ancestor could maintain
> > > >> a steady pace whilst the liquid glistening on their naked skins keeps
> > > >> their bodies from overheating. Finally, the hunted mammal overheats,
> > > >> and collapses from exhaustion” (Jogalekar 2011).
> >
> > > > Hair reduction, really, rather than hair loss.
> >
> > > That's right. Should have been more precise.
> >
> > > > There may well have been sexual selection at work. The hair we have has
> > > > social functions.
> >
> > > I suspect that part of the sexual selection had to do with the fitness
> > > of the lesser-haired Homo folks to function better in open, where the
> > > improvement of cooling via perspiration would made such lesser-haired
> > > individuals better adapted to prolonged sun exposure, whether or not
> > > running was involved.
> >
> > At a gross level, I suspect, but after most of the hair had been reduced
> > what was left was probably sexual selection. For example, we have eyebrows,
> > probably the only primates with them, and they are important social
> > indicators. Pubic hair, armpit hair, beards, etc signals sexual maturity.
>
> Sexual selection if for birds (mostly). It has no relevance to human
> evolution.
WRONG.
Start here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection_in_human_evolution
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5522.html
Sexual Selection by Malte Andersson
>
> On Jun 1, 8:53 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Tom McDonald wrote:
> > > On 5/20/2012 11:41 PM, RichTravsky wrote:
> > > > Tom McDonald wrote:
> > > >> I find this interesting, as an overview of what the author (unknown, but
> > > >> posted on T.O., and possibly written by, marc.tessera) has pulled
> > > >> together about thermoregulation and hairlessness, with a dip into the
> > > >> persistence hunting pool. Submitted for your consideration.
> > > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > >> The thermoregulatory hypothesis was first proposed by Darwin in 1871
> > > >> and later developed by Dr. Peter Wheeler (Wheeler 1984; 1985).
> > > >> 1. Benefits stemming from the loss of human body hair:
> > > >> “In order to comprehend why humans are essentially hairless, it is
> > > >> essential to understand that mammalian body hair is not merely an
> > > >> aesthetic characteristic; it protects the skin from wounds, bites,
> > > >> heat, cold, and UV radiation. Additionally, it can be used as a
> > > >> communication tool and as a camouflage. To this end, it can be
> > > >> concluded that benefits stemming from the loss of human body hair must
> > > >> be great enough to outweigh the loss of these protective functions by
> > > >> nakedness” (Wikipedia 2012).
> > > >> “Humans are the only primate species that has mostly naked skin. Loss
> > > >> of fur was an adaptation to changing environmental conditions that
> > > >> forced our ancestors to travel longer distances for food and water.
> > > >> Analyses of fossils and genes hint at when this transformation
> > > >> occurred. The evolution of hairlessness helped to set the stage for
> > > >> the emergence of large brains and symbolic thought” (Jablonski 2010).
> > > >> 2. When can we date the loss of hair among our ancestors?
> > > >> “Studies conducted independently by Lieberman and Christopher Ruff of
> > > >> Johns Hopkins University have shown that by about 1.6 million years
> > > >> ago an early member of our genus called Homo ergaster had evolved
> > > >> essentially modern body proportions, which would have permitted
> > > >> prolonged walking and running. Homo ergaster had to travel far in
> > > >> search of sustenance—including meat. This species, which arose by 1.6
> > > >> million years ago, was probably the first to possess naked skin and
> > > >> eccrine sweat, which would have offset the body heat generated by such
> > > >> elevated activity levels” (Jablonski 2010).
> > > >> Moreover “humans, unlike other apes, have, not one, but two types of
> > > >> hair lice, one living in head hair and the other living in pubic hair.
> > > >> Chimps and gorillas on the other hand, have only one. The reason that
> > > >> humans have two types of hair lice arises from our nakedness over most
> > > >> of our bodies, and thus the two colonies of lice are isolated and have
> > > >> evolved separately. The argument then is that when we lost our hair
> > > >> before our hair lice split into two species” (Jogalekar 2011). “Thus,
> > > >> the origin of body lice provides a minimum estimate for the dawn of
> > > >> hominid garb. By comparing gene sequences of organisms, investigators
> > > >> can learn roughly when the species arose. Such analyses in lice
> > > >> indicate that whereas head lice have plagued humans from the start,
> > > >> body lice evolved much later. The timing of their appearance hints
> > > >> that humans went naked for more than a million years before getting
> > > >> dressed” (Jablonski 2010).
> > > >> 3. Change in diet:
> > > >> “After diverging from their chimpanzee-lineage, our ancestors became
> > > >> omnivorous in order to maximize calorie intake, an important
> > > >> distinction in a nutrient-scarce environment. Prey, however, are
> > > >> moving targets, and though early humans changed the traditionally ape-
> > > >> like appearance of the australopithecines and adapted long, strong
> > > >> legs to facilitate sustained running, dense, hairy coats still posed a
> > > >> potentially fatal risk of causing overheating during the chase. It is
> > > >> posited that thick hair got in the way of the sweat evaporating, so
> > > >> humans evolved a sparser coat of fur” (Jablonski 2006).
> > > >> 4. Persistence hunting to ate meat:
> > > >> “Persistence hunting is an ancient method of hunting. It is carried
> > > >> out by Kalahari bushmen (Australian aboriginal tribes). Persistence
> > > >> hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
> > > >> several hours of continuous running at roughly marathon pace. Although
> > > >> slow over short distances, humans are actually quite efficient runners
> > > >> over long distances. Hunting occurs by chasing a animal and not
> > > >> letting it rest, so after several hours, the animal collapses
> > > >> exhaustion. That’s when our Running Ape can get close enough to
> > > >> basically stab the animal to death with a crude spear head. The skill
> > > >> in persistence hunting lies in the stamina required for the long-
> > > >> distance running and the ability tracking the prey over a vast area.
> > > >> The reason that humans can outrun four-legged ruminants over a long
> > > >> distance turns out to be due to a surprising reason: sweating. Humans
> > > >> are one of the few mammals that sweat for cooling, and this turns out
> > > >> to be incredibly advantageous for long-distance running in hot
> > > >> scorched conditions. Most mammals cool by panting, which is
> > > >> incompatible with running. They overheat if they run long distances
> > > >> without stopping. In contrast, our Running Ape ancestor could maintain
> > > >> a steady pace whilst the liquid glistening on their naked skins keeps
> > > >> their bodies from overheating. Finally, the hunted mammal overheats,
> > > >> and collapses from exhaustion” (Jogalekar 2011).
> >
> > > > Hair reduction, really, rather than hair loss.
> >
> > > That's right. Should have been more precise.
> >
> > > > There may well have been sexual selection at work. The hair we have has
> > > > social functions.
> >
> > > I suspect that part of the sexual selection had to do with the fitness
> > > of the lesser-haired Homo folks to function better in open, where the
> > > improvement of cooling via perspiration would made such lesser-haired
> > > individuals better adapted to prolonged sun exposure, whether or not
> > > running was involved.
> >
> > At a gross level, I suspect, but after most of the hair had been reduced
> > what was left was probably sexual selection. For example, we have eyebrows,
> > probably the only primates with them, and they are important social
> > indicators. Pubic hair, armpit hair, beards, etc signals sexual maturity.
>
> Sexual selection if for birds (mostly). It has no relevance to human
> evolution.
WRONG.
Start here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection_in_human_evolution
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5522.html
Sexual Selection by Malte Andersson
RichTravsky
Jun 16, 2012, 12:44:07 AM6/16/12
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Jun 1, 9:11 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Persistence hunting is <snip> carried
> >
> > > > Early lifestyles may be reflected by this.
> >
> > > That's the same thing Marc Verhaegen would say after showing you a
> > > picture of a person swimming.
> >
> > People don't live in water. They live on land.
>
> Millions of people swim. Only a handful chase animals down over long
> distance.
And because they live on land that becomes significant.
> > > > > > fhe reason that humans can outrun four-legged ruminants over a long
> >
> > > > No. Dinner. Ever heard of relay hunting? That too.
> >
> > > > Walter Bortz has an interesting paper (JHE (1985) 14, 145-155)
> > > > entitled "Physical Exercise as an Evolutionary Force". He notes
> > > > humans' incredible ability to run, and run for long distances.
> > > > (He ties this in with hair loss and our ability to shed heat.)
> >
> > > Can Bortz explain how running turned our species into the most
> > > socially complex species ever known to exist?
> >
> > You mean like how hunting is a cooperative endeavor? Even chimps do that.
>
> That's right. And chimps don't have the social adaptations that us
> humans have, right?
Cooperative hunting is a social adaptation.
> > > > He cites contemporary examples (from other authors) such as:
> >
> > > > - Bushmen can run down an unwounded springbok in the hottest
> > > > part of the day
> >
> > > > - the !Kung can run down antelope
> >
> > > > - Bushmen run down eland, kudu, and hartebeest
> >
> > > > - Pygmies relentlessly chase prey
> >
> > > > - the "extraordinary" running capabilities of American Indians
> > > > are noted
> >
> > > Can you explain the selective origins of agriculture?
> >
> > Agriculture, as humans practice it, is an intellectual accomplishment.
>
> I'll take that as a no.
I'll that that to mean you don't know.
> > > >http://www.livescience.com/98-runner-high-jogging-separated-humans-ap...
> > > > ...
> > > > "We are very confident that strong selection for running -- which came at the
> > > > expense of the historical ability to live in trees -- was instrumental in the
> > > > origin of the modern human body form," said University of Utah biologist
> > > > Dennis Bramble.
> > > > ...
> >
> > > Explaining the origins of a skill that us humans aren't very good at
> > > isn't something to crow about.
> >
> > You mean like swimming?
>
> Yep, and running.
And since we live on LAND, which is more important?
>
> On Jun 1, 9:11 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Persistence hunting is <snip> carried
> > > > > > out by Kalahari bushmen (Australian aboriginal tribes). Persistence
> > > > > > hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
> > > > > > several hours of continuous running at roughly marathon pace.
> >
> > > > > Who cares.
> > > > > > hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
> > > > > > several hours of continuous running at roughly marathon pace.
> >
> >
> > > > Early lifestyles may be reflected by this.
> >
> > > That's the same thing Marc Verhaegen would say after showing you a
> > > picture of a person swimming.
> >
> > People don't live in water. They live on land.
>
> Millions of people swim. Only a handful chase animals down over long
> distance.
And because they live on land that becomes significant.
> > > > > > fhe reason that humans can outrun four-legged ruminants over a long
> > > > > > distance turns out to be due to a surprising reason: sweating.
> >
> > > > > Pure silliness.
> >
> >
> > > > No. Dinner. Ever heard of relay hunting? That too.
> >
> > > > Walter Bortz has an interesting paper (JHE (1985) 14, 145-155)
> > > > entitled "Physical Exercise as an Evolutionary Force". He notes
> > > > humans' incredible ability to run, and run for long distances.
> > > > (He ties this in with hair loss and our ability to shed heat.)
> >
> > > Can Bortz explain how running turned our species into the most
> > > socially complex species ever known to exist?
> >
> > You mean like how hunting is a cooperative endeavor? Even chimps do that.
>
> That's right. And chimps don't have the social adaptations that us
> humans have, right?
Cooperative hunting is a social adaptation.
> > > > He cites contemporary examples (from other authors) such as:
> >
> > > > - Bushmen can run down an unwounded springbok in the hottest
> > > > part of the day
> >
> > > > - the !Kung can run down antelope
> >
> > > > - Bushmen run down eland, kudu, and hartebeest
> >
> > > > - Pygmies relentlessly chase prey
> >
> > > > - the "extraordinary" running capabilities of American Indians
> > > > are noted
> >
> > > Can you explain the selective origins of agriculture?
> >
> > Agriculture, as humans practice it, is an intellectual accomplishment.
>
> I'll take that as a no.
I'll that that to mean you don't know.
> > > >http://www.livescience.com/98-runner-high-jogging-separated-humans-ap...
> > > > ...
> > > > "We are very confident that strong selection for running -- which came at the
> > > > expense of the historical ability to live in trees -- was instrumental in the
> > > > origin of the modern human body form," said University of Utah biologist
> > > > Dennis Bramble.
> > > > ...
> >
> > > Explaining the origins of a skill that us humans aren't very good at
> > > isn't something to crow about.
> >
> > You mean like swimming?
>
> Yep, and running.
And since we live on LAND, which is more important?
RichTravsky
Jun 16, 2012, 12:44:38 AM6/16/12
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > > On May 31, 6:10 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > >> On 5/31/2012 7:59 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > >>> On May 31, 4:20 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > >>>> On 5/31/2012 4:26 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:> On May 31, 2:04 pm, VtSkier<VtSk...@somewhere.net> > >>>>>> On 5/31/2012 4:21 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> Focus on what is distinctive about hominids and put forth a hypothesis
> > > >>>>>>> in regards to the selective origins of these distinctions or go away.
> > > >>>>>>> Stop looking for excuses to ignore these distinctions.
> >
> > > >>>>>> my list: HAIRLESSNESS! UPRIGHT POSTURE! LIKES DAYLIGHT TO
> > > >>>>>> DARKNESS! LARGE BRAIN!
> >
> > > >>>>>> That's about all I can think of
> >
> > > >>>>> Well then, you're an idiot.
> >
> > > >>>> No, he's not; but you are an evasive twit and a coward of an unmarked
> > > >>>> snipper.
> >
> > > >>> Actually I don't think he's an idiot. I just think that you both are
> > > >>> representative of the cult mentality associated with the current
> > > >>> paradigm.
> >
> > > >>> What's interesting about your response is that you don't support or
> > > >>> dispute his (all caps, see upthread) assertions. Nor do you express
> > > >>> any kind of opinion whatsoever about the subject under discussion.
> > > >>> This is what is distinctive about your response. It's posturing.
> >
> > > >>> Why the posturing, Tom? And why the commitment to vagueness in
> > > >>> general? It's like you're hiding something. It's like you talk to
> > > >>> your lawyer before every post.
> >
> > > >>>> What's'a'matta? You can't make an argument? All you got is abuse?
> >
> > > >>>> Ah, the Jimmy Death Spiral. It's a wonder to behold.
> >
> > > >>> Let's face it Tom, your commitment to vagueness and posturing tells us
> > > >>> everything we need to know about what you truly think about your
> > > >>> hypothesis of human origins in comparison to my Ecological Gatekeeper
> > > >>> Hypothesis.
> >
> > > >> Aaaand Jimmy corkscrews into the cornfield.
> >
> > > > Before you go, Tom, might you be so kind as to provide us more details
> > > > about how you envision early hominids living a life of long distance
> > > > running (naked?) to become the most social, communicative, conscious,
> > > > territorial, communal and agricultural species ever know to exist on
> > > > this planet?
> >
> > > How do you explain our capacity for endurance running and our relative
> > > hairlessness in your hypothesis? Be specific, you evasive jackass.
> >
> > No answer.
>
> I've answered previously.
Lie.
>
> On Jun 1, 10:27 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Tom McDonald wrote:
> > > On 5/31/2012 8:16 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Jun 1, 10:27 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Tom McDonald wrote:
> > > > On May 31, 6:10 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > >> On 5/31/2012 7:59 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > >>> On May 31, 4:20 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > >>>> On 5/31/2012 4:26 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:> On May 31, 2:04 pm, VtSkier<VtSk...@somewhere.net> > >>>>>> On 5/31/2012 4:21 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> Focus on what is distinctive about hominids and put forth a hypothesis
> > > >>>>>>> in regards to the selective origins of these distinctions or go away.
> > > >>>>>>> Stop looking for excuses to ignore these distinctions.
> >
> > > >>>>>> my list: HAIRLESSNESS! UPRIGHT POSTURE! LIKES DAYLIGHT TO
> > > >>>>>> DARKNESS! LARGE BRAIN!
> >
> > > >>>>>> That's about all I can think of
> >
> > > >>>>> Well then, you're an idiot.
> >
> > > >>>> No, he's not; but you are an evasive twit and a coward of an unmarked
> > > >>>> snipper.
> >
> > > >>> Actually I don't think he's an idiot. I just think that you both are
> > > >>> representative of the cult mentality associated with the current
> > > >>> paradigm.
> >
> > > >>> What's interesting about your response is that you don't support or
> > > >>> dispute his (all caps, see upthread) assertions. Nor do you express
> > > >>> any kind of opinion whatsoever about the subject under discussion.
> > > >>> This is what is distinctive about your response. It's posturing.
> >
> > > >>> Why the posturing, Tom? And why the commitment to vagueness in
> > > >>> general? It's like you're hiding something. It's like you talk to
> > > >>> your lawyer before every post.
> >
> > > >>>> What's'a'matta? You can't make an argument? All you got is abuse?
> >
> > > >>>> Ah, the Jimmy Death Spiral. It's a wonder to behold.
> >
> > > >>> Let's face it Tom, your commitment to vagueness and posturing tells us
> > > >>> everything we need to know about what you truly think about your
> > > >>> hypothesis of human origins in comparison to my Ecological Gatekeeper
> > > >>> Hypothesis.
> >
> > > >> Aaaand Jimmy corkscrews into the cornfield.
> >
> > > > Before you go, Tom, might you be so kind as to provide us more details
> > > > about how you envision early hominids living a life of long distance
> > > > running (naked?) to become the most social, communicative, conscious,
> > > > territorial, communal and agricultural species ever know to exist on
> > > > this planet?
> >
> > > How do you explain our capacity for endurance running and our relative
> > > hairlessness in your hypothesis? Be specific, you evasive jackass.
> >
> > No answer.
>
> I've answered previously.
Lie.
RichTravsky
Jun 16, 2012, 12:46:11 AM6/16/12
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 8:49 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> > On 6/3/2012 10:14 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 2, 4:19 am, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> “Persistence hunting is an ancient method of hunting. It is carried
> > >> This is just amazing. You claim to be the world's greatest evolutionary
> > >> theorist, and don't even know that sexual selection is key to nearly all
> > >> animals' evolution (most fish and some other sea creatures excepted).
> >
> > > You are so naive. Sexual selection is one of those things that can
> > > explain anything and, therefore, it explains nothing. Pseudo-
> > > scientists tend to borrow notions from other aspects of a discipline
> > > to suggest that they are applicable where they are not. One of the
> > > words to look for when pseudo-scientists go off on a tangent is the
> > > word, "key". The statement, "sexual selection is *key* to nearly all
> > > animals' evolution," is a perfect example of this kind of pseudo-
> > > science. Like weighing moonbeams, you can basically come to any
> > > conclusion you want with this kind of silly logic.
> >
> > > The concept of sexual selection was originally theorize to explain
> > > adaptations that *appear* to be maladaptive. A peacocks tail, for
> > > example, can only make it easier for it's predators to find it and
> > > harder for it to capture its prey.
> >
> > > As the world's greatest evolutionary theorist I suppose I have some
> > > reponsibility to educate you. Here's some links that will, hopefully,
> > > help you overcome your severe naivete about this aspect of the process
> > > of natural selection:
> > >http://goo.gl/Po0lb
> >
> > > Here is something I cut and pasted from a post (see link below) on
> > > this topic that I presented way back in 2001:
> > >http://goo.gl/2s1vc
> > > *** Begin Cut and Paste ***
> > > Sexual selection, IMO, is a population level adaptation. It allows
> > > two
> > > populations (of closely related species) to remain separate despite
> > > the fact
> > > that they have not fully achieved geographic separation. It is a
> > > very
> > > useful adaptation for species that normally are wide ranging (and
> > > therefore
> > > do not as easily achieve geographic separation)--such as birds--and in
> > > rich
> > > ecosystems that offer many niches to potentially speciate into. It
> > > also
> > > seems to be amplified by island isolation. This is why this phenomena
> > > is
> > > mostly found in birds (being far ranging--and, therefore, not easily
> > > able to
> > > achieve geographic isolation), in tropical habitat, and on islands.
> >
> > > I don't think it; can be applied to hominids, who were coming out of
> > > a
> > > tropical habitat to one that was now more highly seasonal (extremely
> > > seasonal) and that, if anything, offered less potential for speciation
> > > into
> > > niches, and our ancestors were not far ranging species, and they were
> > > not on
> > > islands. Moreover sexual selection is more of an identification
> > > thing. It
> > > can't be mistaken for the rich context of human cultural experiences.
> > > Once
> > > a species identifies that an individual is not part of their group
> > > they
> > > don't go on paying attention to them. There is no other information
> > > to
> > > impart than that. Human culture, on the otherhand, involves a lot
> > > more
> > > information.
> > > *** End Cut and Paste ***
> claim that there is some information out there somewhere in some
> library that will substantiate their stupidity. And, supposedly, it's
> their opponents responsibility to go out and find it.
Google is your friend.
This is not a hand holding service.
Uh, the evidence is in any library. It's your responsibility to know
and understand the evidence.
>
> On Jun 3, 8:49 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> > On 6/3/2012 10:14 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 2, 4:19 am, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> out by Kalahari bushmen (Australian aboriginal tribes). Persistence
> > >>>>>>> hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
> > >>>>>>> hunting works by basically running an animal to exhaustion over
> > >> theorist, and don't even know that sexual selection is key to nearly all
> > >> animals' evolution (most fish and some other sea creatures excepted).
> >
> > > You are so naive. Sexual selection is one of those things that can
> > > explain anything and, therefore, it explains nothing. Pseudo-
> > > scientists tend to borrow notions from other aspects of a discipline
> > > to suggest that they are applicable where they are not. One of the
> > > words to look for when pseudo-scientists go off on a tangent is the
> > > word, "key". The statement, "sexual selection is *key* to nearly all
> > > animals' evolution," is a perfect example of this kind of pseudo-
> > > science. Like weighing moonbeams, you can basically come to any
> > > conclusion you want with this kind of silly logic.
> >
> > > The concept of sexual selection was originally theorize to explain
> > > adaptations that *appear* to be maladaptive. A peacocks tail, for
> > > example, can only make it easier for it's predators to find it and
> > > harder for it to capture its prey.
> >
> > > As the world's greatest evolutionary theorist I suppose I have some
> > > reponsibility to educate you. Here's some links that will, hopefully,
> > > help you overcome your severe naivete about this aspect of the process
> > > of natural selection:
> > >http://goo.gl/Po0lb
> >
> > > Here is something I cut and pasted from a post (see link below) on
> > > this topic that I presented way back in 2001:
> > >http://goo.gl/2s1vc
> > > *** Begin Cut and Paste ***
> > > Sexual selection, IMO, is a population level adaptation. It allows
> > > two
> > > populations (of closely related species) to remain separate despite
> > > the fact
> > > that they have not fully achieved geographic separation. It is a
> > > very
> > > useful adaptation for species that normally are wide ranging (and
> > > therefore
> > > do not as easily achieve geographic separation)--such as birds--and in
> > > rich
> > > ecosystems that offer many niches to potentially speciate into. It
> > > also
> > > seems to be amplified by island isolation. This is why this phenomena
> > > is
> > > mostly found in birds (being far ranging--and, therefore, not easily
> > > able to
> > > achieve geographic isolation), in tropical habitat, and on islands.
> >
> > > I don't think it; can be applied to hominids, who were coming out of
> > > a
> > > tropical habitat to one that was now more highly seasonal (extremely
> > > seasonal) and that, if anything, offered less potential for speciation
> > > into
> > > niches, and our ancestors were not far ranging species, and they were
> > > not on
> > > islands. Moreover sexual selection is more of an identification
> > > thing. It
> > > can't be mistaken for the rich context of human cultural experiences.
> > > Once
> > > a species identifies that an individual is not part of their group
> > > they
> > > don't go on paying attention to them. There is no other information
> > > to
> > > impart than that. Human culture, on the otherhand, involves a lot
> > > more
> > > information.
> > > *** End Cut and Paste ***
> >
> > Reference to posts you have made about this issue are not evidence. I
> > think you need to hit the library.
>
> Pseudoscientists when confronted with their cluelessness almost always
> > Reference to posts you have made about this issue are not evidence. I
> > think you need to hit the library.
>
> claim that there is some information out there somewhere in some
> library that will substantiate their stupidity. And, supposedly, it's
> their opponents responsibility to go out and find it.
Google is your friend.
This is not a hand holding service.
Uh, the evidence is in any library. It's your responsibility to know
and understand the evidence.
RichTravsky
Jun 16, 2012, 12:47:29 AM6/16/12
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > characteristics, especially in comparison to our chimpanzee-like LCA.
> >
> > There's no reason to believe that the LCA was particularly
> > Chimp like.
Obviously there is no direct evidence of *any* behavior millions of
years ago.
You were saying?
> > In fact, the "Molecular Clock" people insist it had
> > to live at the time of Ardi, while the Wiki article on Ardi insists
> > that it couldn't possibly be the LCA (I just read it).
>
> Let's just say the evidence is inconclusive.
we have no evidence for *any* behaviors back then
Obviously there is no direct evidence of *any* behavior millions of
years ago.
> > Their argument is retarded, by the way. Effectively it's insisting
> > that there's no such thing as evolution, and because Ardi's
> > feet are different it can't be the LCA...
> >
> > Dumb. Really, really, dumb.
>
> It's hard to say. The LCA may have been about 8 mya (because this is
>
> On Jun 4, 12:05 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > No, everything doesn't matter. Humans have distinctive
> On Jun 4, 12:05 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > characteristics, especially in comparison to our chimpanzee-like LCA.
> >
> > There's no reason to believe that the LCA was particularly
> > Chimp like.
>
> Arguments based on lack of data don't impress me much.
we have no evidence for *any* behaviors back then
> Arguments based on lack of data don't impress me much.
Obviously there is no direct evidence of *any* behavior millions of
years ago.
You were saying?
> > In fact, the "Molecular Clock" people insist it had
> > to live at the time of Ardi, while the Wiki article on Ardi insists
> > that it couldn't possibly be the LCA (I just read it).
>
> Let's just say the evidence is inconclusive.
Obviously there is no direct evidence of *any* behavior millions of
years ago.
> > Their argument is retarded, by the way. Effectively it's insisting
> > that there's no such thing as evolution, and because Ardi's
> > feet are different it can't be the LCA...
> >
> > Dumb. Really, really, dumb.
>
> when monsoon climate first appeared). Or it may have been around 5 to
> 6 mya. And/or it may have been around 3.5 mya as there was a reversal
VtSkier
Jun 16, 2012, 9:14:17 AM6/16/12
to
might kick or bite back therefore requiring some skill in catching.
Hmm. Locking wrist structure in some australopiths. A few posts back in
this thread I presented a quote and a cite for Richard Dawkins proposing
(speculating) that chimps may have evolved from gracile australopiths
and gorillas may have evolved from robust australopiths.
VtSkier
Jun 16, 2012, 9:15:01 AM6/16/12
to
Claudius Denk
Jun 16, 2012, 12:44:34 PM6/16/12
to
doing it out in treeless habitat where they would have to compete with
cooperative hunters like (lion, hyena, dogs, etc.) that run fast ant
that would find them an easy meal. My scenario is base on reason and
details. Your scenario is based on vagueness.
Claudius Denk
Jun 16, 2012, 12:45:47 PM6/16/12
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages