Stupid theories of hominin evolution

[Paul Crowley]

Suppose we had a theory about lion
evolution that failed to mention that the
species was a carnivore, or one about
wildebeest that didn't refer to their
extensive migrations, or one about
elephants that left our all reference to
their trunks, or one about giraffes that
made no mention of their height and
their necks . . . .

You get the idea -- a theory that
ignores the most conspicuous or
salient feature or behaviour or
characteristic of the taxon.

What's the most conspicuous and
salient feature or behaviour or
characteristic of the hominin
taxon?

All together now . . . .

Does it figure prominently in your
favourite theory of hominen
evolution?

No?

So how come you support such
a stupid theory?

[I Envy JTEM]

Paul Crowley wrote:

> What's the most conspicuous and
> salient feature or behaviour or
> characteristic of the hominin
> taxon?

No penis bone!

Or, um, or were you looking for something else?

"Intelligence" is the biggie, if you ask me, though it's super
difficult to gauge across the expanse of time.

Actually, I recall arguing 80 gazillion years ago that the first and
most obvious is upright walking.

"Bigger brains" is what has always dotted the line between Homo
and everything else. It's something that can be measured from
fossils, and that makes it empirical. I'm not as convinced by it,
as humans today show a large enough range in brain size. Just
extrapolating that backwards in time should leave us reason to
doubt, all the more so when you consider that maybe there was
a few million years LESS of filtering... more diversity, perhaps?




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/662184098294595584

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Fantasy Island?
-

Homo sapiens: sheltered-hyper-altricial-hyper-social-hyper-speaking grounded-watered ape.

Upright biped not Hs unique.
Baculum loss not Hs unique.
Brain size: shrinking in Hs, not unique.

[Paul Crowley]

On Monday 13 September 2021 at 20:07:58 UTC+1, I Envy JTEM wrote:

> > What's the most conspicuous and
> > salient feature or behaviour or
> > characteristic of the hominin
> > taxon?
>
> No penis bone!
>
> Or, um, or were you looking for something else?
>
> "Intelligence" is the biggie, if you ask me, though it's super
> difficult to gauge across the expanse of time.

"Intelligence" (in a broad sense) is the
reason that we've got to a population of
8 billion, and are destroying the planet.

(By 'intelligence' I mean the whole gamut
of abilities and social systems that
facilitated adaptability, culture,
communication and language.)

> though it's super
> difficult to gauge across the expanse of time.

"Intelligence" hardly had anything to do
with the reason the first population of
proto-hominins separated from their
chimp cousins. That would have been
something accidental -- like a major
river changing course, or a rise in sea-
level. But if the newly separated
population was to survive in its new
situation it had to be able to call upon
its own resources in new ways. It had
to change its behaviours to allow for the
exploitation of its native "intelligence".
It had to find new food sources and new
ways of doing things and then exchange
ideas within the whole community.

> Actually, I recall arguing 80 gazillion years ago that the first and
> most obvious is upright walking.

'Upright walking' and all the other
morphological and behavioural changes
must have been impelled by the newly-
developed and exercised "intelligence".

All the standard theories (and most of
the non-standard ones, such as seen in
this forum) unthinkingly assume the
contrary. According to them, the taxon
adopted all manner of strange (and
often unique) morphologies and then,
purely coincidentally, noticed that it
had acquired a super-intelligence.
That's manifestly illogical. It requires
an extreme level of coincidence.

So when you see a theory of human
evolution claiming that early hominins
evolved an ability at super-running or
became bipedal from wading, or from
climbing cliffs, or from swimming in
lakes or the sea, you know that you
are reading nonsense.

Any theory that focuses primarily on
morphology can only be wrong.

> "Bigger brains" is what has always dotted the line between Homo
> and everything else. It's something that can be measured from
> fossils, and that makes it empirical. I'm not as convinced by it,
> as humans today show a large enough range in brain size. Just
> extrapolating that backwards in time should leave us reason to
> doubt, all the more so when you consider that maybe there was
> a few million years LESS of filtering... more diversity, perhaps?

The 'brain size' issue has got to be a
distraction. H.naledi's brain is not much
more than that of a chimp. If that's all
a relatively recent hominin needed,
then the rest is probably just a form of
insulation, and readily lost by a species
that slept in caves.

[I Envy JTEM]

Paul Crowley wrote:

> "Intelligence" (in a broad sense) is the
> reason that we've got to a population of
> 8 billion, and are destroying the planet.

Google: The Great Oxidation Event.

Microbes changed the planet, the atmosphere, and sparked the first
and one of the greatest extinction events in life's history.

What I'm say in a round about way is that you shouldn't fall for the
propaganda. Life on earth changes the earth. Life on earth has
always changed the earth.

...one researcher claimed that humans began to have an impact
on the oceans, sea life populations, already in prehistoric times.

Either we render humans extinct or we stop worrying about IF we're
going to change the planet and starting talking abut HOW we're
going to change -- directing the change.

> "Intelligence" hardly had anything to do
> with the reason the first population of
> proto-hominins separated from their
> chimp cousins.

All evidence supports the conclusion that it never happened that
way. There's an excellent & rather compelling argument that Pan
should be erased and Chimps should be classified as Homo.

> That would have been
> something accidental -- like a major
> river changing course, or a rise in sea-
> level. But if the newly separated
> population was to survive in its new
> situation it had to be able to call upon
> its own resources in new ways. It had
> to change its behaviours to allow for the
> exploitation of its native "intelligence".

"Founder Effect" works, too.

But Aquatic Ape results in what you're speaking of. The glacial/interglacial
cycle, storm surges, red tides, the odd inhospitable stretch of coast... then
add human conflict, population growth, nothing to stop individuals or whole
groups from peeling off...

But Aquatic Ape doesn't just explain HOW and WHY humans spread,
breaking off into all sorts of different populations. It explains how they all
remained humans, as the Aquatic (coastal) population acted as a
conduit, transporting DNA from population to population.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/662426928409640960

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op woensdag 15 september 2021 om 16:22:16 UTC+2 schreef Paul Crowley:

> "Intelligence" (in a broad sense) is the
> reason that we've got to a population of
> 8 billion, and are destroying the planet.

Yes, Paul, unfortunately, you're right here...

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

With a little help from our (brainless) friends:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2011/07/27/counting-chickens