Science and Technology news... :: View topic

RichTravsky · Guest

Claudius Denk wrote:
[quote]On Sep 21, 8:34 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Claudius Denk wrote:
On Sep 8, 11:11 am, Paul Crowley <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
RichTravsky wrote:
Of course they>re savanna adapted!! What else IYO??

They are NOT savanna adapted.
They are semi-desert adapted.
There are too many large herbivores
and large carnivores on the savanna
to permit the existence of a hominid.

Prove it -

I think you are asking me to prove
a negative (that they are not savanna-
adapted). You could seek to prove
the positive.

No, I>m asking you to prove your assertion:

There are too many large herbivores and large carnivores on the savanna
to permit the existence of a hominid.

Still waiting

What, for you, would constitute 'proof'?

You don>t accept the absence of food edible
by hominids, nor the overwhelming presence
of large predators, nor the absence in humans
of any savanna adaptations (night-sight,
resistance to the tsetse fly, ability to
survive on minimal water, and so on and on).

Well stated. It shows how completely divorced from reality are these
conventional notions. It>s like a cult. They just keep pretending
like everything is alright.- Hide quoted text -

So, just because someone declares it without proof, you accept it? ;)

Nothing is stopping you from disputing it, you fool.
[/quote]
Nothing is stopping *you* from providing proof...

RichTravsky · Guest

RichTravsky wrote:
[quote]Claudius Denk wrote:
On Sep 8, 12:26 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Claudius Denk wrote:
On Aug 27, 7:53 pm, rmacfarl <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
On Aug 28, 2:11 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Aug 27, 7:51 am, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
"Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
"Phil Nicholls" <pan...@yahoo.com
Bipedalism is a terrestral form of locomtion developed
NOT for chasing down kudus but for walking for
moderately long distances in an energetically efficient
manner,

So A>piths and earlier hominids
were good at walking?
This is typical of Standard PA
nonsense.

I agree. Note that these idiots never mention what benefit they
achieved from this "long distance walking" ability.

tourism?

And what kind of animal would we be if we couldn>t?

Go back to the statement by Phil Nicholls.
He thinks that bipedalism developed for a
particular reason: "walking for moderately
long distances in an energetically efficient
manner".

Do you agree with his 'logic'?

Yes. Ethnography, anatomy and physiology do
not contradict.

Answer the question you evasive jackass.

Oh,
right....chained to the waterside or to the grove of trees
that had to be defended to the death.

Pretty much. What else can be deduced
from the anatomy?

But we aren.t that animal.

Firstly, we are talking about A>piths.
Secondly, modern H/G are not so
different. (Antelope-chasing is
essentially a PA fantasy.)

And a fantasy of anthropologists and others who
have actually observed it. But the sun was very hot....

You whackjobs don>t even have anything as good as AAT.

What really burns you Jim, is the knowledge that *you* sure as Hell
don>t...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I was hoping you were going to explain to us how hominids long-
distance walked themselves into being the most communally
territorialistic species known to exist.

You>re not fun.

Australopiths ranged over a good chunk of Africa - from south Africa up north
to Ethiopia and west to Chad. How do you think they did that, fly?

So do many plant and tree species. Did they also walk?

Plants have different distribution mechanisms. You should know this, Clod.
[/quote]
No dispute.

RichTravsky · Guest

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
[quote]
SF:
Without understanding that place of death is not necessarily the creature>s
primary habitat one could make the mistake believing that our ancestors
were aquatic..

My little boy, without compar.anatomy one can even believe that our
ancestors ran after kudus.
[/quote]
Like this?

http://blogs.menupages.com/boston/Boston-marathon-45.3.jpg

[quote]Taphonomic bias...

Yes, my boy:

A fossil beaked whale (Cetacea; Ziphiidae) from the Miocene of Kenya
JG Mead 1975 J.Paleont.49:745-751
... found in association with a freshwater-terrestrial fauna ...
[/quote]
Are you saying whales inhabited shorelines?

You couldn>t have picked a worse example - this one is funny.

RichTravsky · Guest

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
[quote]
SF belives that all humans are bushmen:
[/quote]

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg/1ea478ea599c5540?dmode=source&hl=en
From: "Marc Verhaegen" <fa204...@skynet.be>
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
...
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003

"Rich Travsky" <traRvs...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message

[quote]Humans are no long-distance species.
Interesting what can be seen on the Discovery TV Channel. I saw a TV
episode about a nice little African bushman. He was running down some sort[/quote]
of gazelle or antelope (apparently a perfectly healthy example). He just
kept running after the poor (4-legged) beast and he just kept running and
running and running. After about four hours of running in the mid-day sun,
he was able to simply walk up and toss a spear into the poor exhausted
beast. I presume that he then spent the rest of the day butchering it and
carrying it back. The bushman didn>t seem to be the slightest bit fazed
by the whole process. All in a day>s work for him I suppose.
...
[quote]Yes, very interesting, but it>s about Bushmen, recently (after the
sapiens LCA) savanna-adapted humans, not about the majority of human beings.[/quote]
You

[quote]RECENTLY SAVANNA ADAPTED HUMANS???
[/quote]
WHY DO YOU SHOUT?? CAN>T YOU READ??

[quote]So, humans CAN adapt to the savanna?
[/quote]
Why not IYO??
...

[quote]Op 22-09-2008 06:33, in artikel 48D72035.26256695@hotmMOVEail.com,
RichTravsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:

Marc Verhaegen wrote:

Savanna Fools now claims that if A belongs to B, B belongs to A:

Aquatic fool now claims that Bushmen aren>t humans...

Op 12-09-2008 19:23, in artikel 48CAA57B.8246DCB8@hotmMOVEail.com,
RichTravsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:

Marc Verhaegen wrote:

SF too stupid to discern between rare populations today & the sapiens LCA
200 ka:

SF:
How do you think we got savanna adapted, Marc?

we?? you>re crazy: some bushmen you mean perhaps??

Bushmen are humans, Marc.

And savanna fools are stupid, my boy.[/quote]

RichTravsky · Guest

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
[quote]
* C. B. Stringer,
* J. C. Finlayson,
* R. N. E. Barton,
* Y. Fernández-Jalvo,
* I. Cáceres,
* R. C. Sabin,
* E. J. Rhodes,
* A. P. Currant,
* J. Rodríguez-Vidal,
* F. Giles-Pacheco,
* J. A. Riquelme-Cantal
Neanderthal exploitation of marine mammals in Gibraltar
PNAS published September 22, 2008, doi:10.1073/pnas.0805474105

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2454-neanderthal-butchery-site-uncovered
.html
Neanderthal butchery site uncovered
25 June 2002

A rare Neanderthal butchery site has been discovered by archaeologists
excavating
a quarry in Norfolk, UK. Mammoth tusks and flint tools estimated to be 50,000
years old are among the "sensational" artefacts uncovered.
"It is extremely rare to find any evidence of Neanderthals and even rarer to
find
it in association with mammoth remains," says David Miles, chief archaeologist
at
English Heritage. "We may have discovered a butchery site, or what would be
even
more exciting, first evidence in Britain of a Neanderthal hunting site, which
would tell us much about their organisational and social abilities. ...
Eight handaxes, plus enormous teeth, two-metre long tusks and parts of the
skeletons
of three, or possibly four mammoths, teeth from a woolly rhino and reindeer
antlers
first came to light during a dig conducted earlier this year. ...

Yes, thanks, this confirms that butchering of waterside large animals
(mammoths, whales, bovids...) evolved from shellfish collection in
[/quote]
Mammoths were waterside animals?

Wooly rhinos were waterside animals?

Reindeer were (are) waterside animals?

How about tur?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0125_060125_neanderthal.html
...
Now a team of U.S. and Israeli anthropologists working at the Ortvale Klde
Rockshelter, a significant Neanderthal-modern human site in the republic
of Georgia, has helped to dispel one such hunch.

Drawing on evidence from animal remains—largely the bones of a mountain goat
species called the Caucasian tur—the scientists have determined that
Neandertals at the site were as capable hunters as the modern humans who later
lived in the area.
...
Impact fractures and cut marks on the bones, along with the absence of tooth
marks, suggest to researchers that the animals were killed by Neandertals.

Examining tooth wear to determine the age of the animals, the scientists
discovered that two-thirds of their specimens were prime-age adults—that is,
large, fast and hard to capture.

Since tur can quickly climb steep, rocky slopes, they can be extremely
elusive.
...

[quote]tool-using omnivores.
[/quote]
Proof butchering evolved from shellfish use?

[quote]Our nearest relatives hunt colobus monkeys in trees, but don>t use tools to
butcher these.
[/quote]
How many chimps butcher mammoths, wooly rhinos, and reindeer? Or tur?

RichTravsky · Guest

Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]
RichTravsky wrote:

Ahem. Prove the assertion

There are too many large herbivores and large carnivores on the savanna
to permit the existence of a hominid.

I asked you what you would accept as proof.
[/quote]
And I said

Something more substantial than your mere assertion.

You know, like... research? DUH?

[quote]That is a perfectly fair question and you have
not yet given an answer.

Ask a creationist what proof he would accept
for evolution, and you will not get a sensible
answer -- since to him it is a matter of faith.

Ask a savanna believer what proof he would
accept to show it>s false, and you will not get
a sensible answer -- since to him it is a matter
of faith.

Paul.[/quote]

RichTravsky · Guest

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
[quote]
Savanna Fool now thinks "marine exploitation" is nto about AAT:

... the recent news about giant clams indicates that the amount of marine
exploitation by both neanderthals and early modern humans may have been
underestimated
http://tinyurl.com/44xubg

That>s a link to a blog,

Read the PNAS paper, dud.

and it has nothing about aat.

SFs are stupid stupid stupid.
[/quote]
If you meant a PNAS paper, Marc, it was stupid to post a link to a blog ;)

Is this the one you were afraid to post?

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/37/13764.full

"Neanderthal brain size at birth provides insights into the evolution of
human life history" ?

Still nothing aat related there.

RichTravsky · Guest

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
[quote]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080926/sc_livescience/iditaroddogsendu
rancesecretrevealed;_ylt=AlhBmhsTNwnwEV_0cNo.0wLQOrgF
[/quote]
"Iditarod Dogs' Endurance Secret Revealed"

Nothing about fish, Marc.

RichTravsky · Guest

Claudius Denk wrote:
[quote]
On Oct 5, 8:18 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Paul Crowley wrote:

RichTravsky wrote:

Ahem. Prove the assertion

There are too many large herbivores and large carnivores on the savanna
to permit the existence of a hominid.

I asked you what you would accept as proof.

And I said

Something more substantial than your mere assertion.

You know, like... research? DUH?

The research proves it:
[/quote]
Cite it ->

Oh wait

Cite it, you evasive twit ->

There.

[quote]It>s not like this is hard to figure out. The predatory
realities in the expansively nonforested savanna are too intense for
early hominids. Not to mention there is nothing there for them to
eat.

Hominids are not adapted to true savanna habitat. This
is especially true for the less technological competent earlier
hominids. Not only would predation be a problem that they couldn>t
possibly overcome but is/was too much competition from large
herbivorous species in such habitat. These two factor in addition to
the stresses caused by the extended dry season of savanna habitat
pretty much eliminate any possibility that early hominids resided in
true savanna habitat.

Monsoon forest habitat had the locations--well treed, well watered,
garden-like localities--that could have supported continued hominid
habitation.

That proves it.[/quote]

Claudius Denk · Guest

On Oct 6, 4:45 am, Paul Crowley <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
[quote]Claudius Denk wrote:
You>re missing my point. My point has to do with group selection. In
group selective scenarios the individuals (and/or subgroups of the
larger group) have no choice but to participate in the fight with the
alternative being sure and certain death. You don>t have this.

Simply not true.

In your
scenario if an individual (and/or subgroup of a larger group) chooses
to avoid fighting it>s no big deal.

Choosing not to fight was not an option.
[/quote]
Absurd.

[quote]Imagine you
are in an L.A. streetgang, or the mafia. Do you think
you>d have an option? Do you think individual chimps
have a real option?

There is no reason to expect them to die as a result of this decision.

You seem to have no conception at all as to how human
societies work, or chimp ones. Brave fighters get the
status, the girls, etc., etc. Cowards get beaten up by
their comrades and, when times get hard, are the first
to starve to death.
[/quote]
Simpleminded nonsense.

[quote]
In fact, in your scenario there
is no reason for there to be any dispute/fight at all. It>s just your
(dimwiitted) assertion that they would be picking up weapons and
fighting each other.

You can>t seem to remember the basic fact of
life about territorial species. Groups fight.
How come you forget this all the time?
[/quote]
Stupid assumption.

[quote]
The only group being selected for in your scenario is the same group
that already exists amongst chimps. Small breeding groups. We see
absolutely no tendency for selection for the communal territorialism
that is characteristic of hominids. There>s nothing even remotely
like this at all in your scenario! Nothing at all!

Ridiculous. They were like chimps at the very start
-- because they were chimps. But that changed
rapidly as soon as they moved to the ground.
[/quote]
Incidental.

[quote]
I have told you this dozens of times. Confrontational
groups prone to violence will seek to acquire weapons --
if only to intimidate.

Absurd assumption. And irrelevant anyways.

It is plain common sense, and extremely relevant.
[/quote]
Cartoonish nonsense.

[quote]
Those living in trees, and often
running up them, will never be able to hold on to such
weapons for long.

Like it matters.

Of course it matters. You can>t hold on to a
club while running around in a tree -- or even
just trying to sleep in one. But, if you are
on the ground all the time, you can keep one
indefinitely.
[/quote]
Who cares.

[quote]
Each member of a population which
is on the ground all the time -- including at night --
will be able to acquire and keep a personal weapon at
hand 24/7, and 365 days a year. THAT is what brought
about bipedalism, and lead to larger (substantially)
monogamous groups,

Nonsense. We see absolutely no tendency for selection for the
communal territorialism that is characteristic of hominids. There>s
nothing even remotely like this at all in your scenario! Nothing at
all!

Eh? All social territorial species (e.g. meercats)
demonstrate strong selection for communal
territorialism. That>s how they maintain their
niche, over millions of years.
[/quote]
It>s that simple for you, isn>t it. You>re an idiot. You dont'
understand biological evolution.

[quote]
You don>t have a group selective scenario of human/hominid evolution.
Arguably you have a group selective scenario that selects for smaller
groups (bands) like we see in chimpanzees. There is absolutely
nothing about your scenario that would suggest a shift to the communal
territorialism that is characteristic of hominids.

There are basically three requirements for a group selective
scenario. In my hypothesis I achieve all three of these. In your
hypothesis we don>t even achieve one of these three requirements.

1) There must be situational factors that cause groups to be groups
and, most importantly, stay groups over long periods of time.

This is pretty silly. It applies to all social
territorial species.
[/quote]
Absurd. No it doesn>t. Communities did not always exist.

[quote]
And
this means that there must be situational factors that reduce or
prevent gene flow between the groups in question (communities).

I agree that a high degree of 'reduced gene flow'
seems to be peculiarly distinctive of hominids.
That requires that each breeding population be
large enough; that there is some geographic
isolation separating them, and that it be strongly
reinforced by isolating behaviours -- i.e. an
hostility so intense, that the exchange of breeding
females is never considered.

In my hypothesis this is achieved by two factors: a) the patchiness of
the forested patches (community sites) of the groups (communities) of
my group selective scenario.

This is ridiculous on numerous grounds.
(a) Such 'patchiness' does not rule out the
presence of narrow 'strips' allowing individuals,
or small groups, to travel and meet. Numerous
wild populations of numerous species occupy
a 'patchy' habitat, and have no difficulty in
dispersal.
[/quote]
Incidental. I never claimed the isolation was perfect.

[quote](b) Such patchiness varies enormously over
geological time -- or even over time measured
within a human lifetime. It presents not the
slightest obstacle to inter-breeding.
[/quote]
Absurd. You dont' know this.

[quote]
(Note: this patchiness of forested
patches is a known aspect of regions that have a monsoon forest
climate/environment, which is the climate/environment stipulated in my
hypothesis. In your hypothesis the climate/environment is not
specified.) and

In my scenario, there are dense populations at
specific points on the coastline -- often based on,
or backed up by, an offshore island. These
populations are large enough to be independently
viable. They will not breed with the next population
100 or so miles up the coast, but will at some
point (over the tens of thousands of years) come
into conflict with them, and either wipe them out
or be wiped out by them.
[/quote]
You don>t have a group selective scenario.

[quote]
b) very severe predatory realities at the greater
treeless locations between the forested community sites. Together
these two factors cause groups (communities) to stay groups over long
periods of time.

This is hopelessly wrong. Predatory attacks cause
prey species to unite
[/quote]
Absurd.

(i.e. groups and individuals
[quote]both within species and across species; you will
see bitter enemies, like crows and magpies, co-
operating when a predatory cat climbs a tree.)
Marginally separated hominid groups (perhaps tending
towards isolation) would come together to fight the
predators off and, when possible, hunt them down.
They would, during that time, cease to be hostile,
and would exchange breeding females.

In your scenario we don>t see anything like this at all. You have no
reason or rational for the small breeding groups to collectives into
larger groups.

Of course I do. Three letters: WAR.
Larger coalitions defeat smaller ones.
[/quote]
There>s no reason to expect them to collectivize. They>d be more
likely to run from the war.

[quote]
And you certainly have no rational for them to
collectivize into the larger communal groups (collectives comprised of
numerous breeding groups) that we do see in my hypothesis. And since
there are no predators in your scenario there is mechanism that
prevents geneflow between these (nonexistent) groups.

Not true.
[/quote]
It is true.

There are, of course, predators. All populations
[quote]on the mainland, or with a toe-hold on it, would encounter
them regularly. IMO hominids would have been highly
pro-active against predators, probably baiting food with
poison (or sharp stones). Individuals, or small groups,
would have been very wary about wandering away from
their home sites, and would only have gone 'up-country'
when compelled.

So, in your
scenario there is no basis for human groups (communities) to come into
existence in the first place. And there is nothing preventing gene
flow between any such groups.

Sheer nonsense.
[/quote]
It should be obvious to you that if group selection could be achieved
in such a mundane fashion as you suggest we>d expect to find a lot
more species that can talk, have culture, intelligence, etc. But we
don>t.

[quote]
2.) There must be some mechanism that can potentially cause the
members of a community to die enmass or at least be decimated.

Of course. And this SHOULD be part of the process
of selection, with more able (or more organised, or
more intelligent, or more cultured) populations doing
better than the rest. That is not the case with your
absurd scenario.
[/quote]
It is the case with my scenario. It>s not with yours.

[quote]
In my scenario this mechanism is provided by collectives of
opportunity seeking predators preying upon the more impoverished
communities in my scenario during the depths of the dry season, when
these communities would be most vulnerable. Successful predation at
any such community site would tend to draw in more predators which
causes more stress for the community and more desperation during the
depths of the dry season, which might even result in the massacre of
the community as a whole in a predatory siege/massacre.

Sheer nonsense.
[/quote]
Why?

[quote]
In your scenario there is nothing like this.

Again three letters: WAR.
[/quote]
There is no reason for them to evolve to become warriors in your
scenario.

[quote]
In fact, in your
scenario the only way this could be achieved would be if the competing
groups in your scenario were dedicated to massacring opponents. And
this suggest that we evolved from animals that practiced genocide as a
rule which is inconsitent with what we see amongst competing humans.

You know extraordinarily little about humans
-- with an amazing blind spot for the record of
your own very recent ancestors. Where do you
live now? What kind of people lived there 400
years ago? Were any of them your ancestors?
[/quote]
Genocide is rare amongst humans.

[quote]
How many native Tasmanians survived the invasion
of Europeans (just within the last 200 years)?

Given that all those events were caused by people
who were literate, thought of themselves as "god-
fearing", and were highly cultured by historical
standards, what might have happened (say) 40 kya?

Usually us humans assimilate our defeated opponents.

That>s why there are so many Neanderthal genes
around?
[/quote]
Yep.

[quote]
All humans are extremely close genetically -- most
having common ancestors within the last 60 kya or
so. In the past, when the (relatively very small)
populations had been breeding independently for a
few hundred thousand years, they would not have
seen each other as the same species. They would
not have wanted to interbreed. But any 'half-breeds'
produced 'accidentally' would have been killed, or
not allowed to breed themselves.
[/quote]
Nonsense.

[quote]
Genocide is
extremely rare (fortunately) amongst humans.

How do you explain the TOTAL disappearance
genes from ...

read more »[/quote]

Paul Crowley · Guest

RichTravsky wrote:

[quote]Bushmen do NOT occupy the huge savanna regions
of Africa -- full of large herbivores, such as
wildebeeste, zebra, antelope, and their predators;
they live in semi-desert -- where herbivores have
a much lower density, and their predators an even
lower one.

This has nothing to do with adaption to savanna. Herbivores are not a
threat
[/quote]
Herbivores can be a very serious threat. They
can have nasty tempers. Hippos kill more people
than any other animal in Africa. Of course, if
you hunt them, you can bet that they will turn
on you, whenever they can.

[quote]and there are predators where you go.
[/quote]
Predation is normally a very serious problem --
which has to be faced. But one way of hominids
would have 'dealt' with it, was by having bases
on offshore islands (similar to modern Zanzibar).
On such islands, they would be absolutely safe,
and able -- over tens, or hundreds of thousands
of years -- to work out how to cope with major
predators on the mainland.

[quote]is especially true for the less technological competent earlier
hominids. Not only would predation be a problem that they couldn>t

Predation is not a show stopper.

Predation is OFTEN a show-stopper. You would
not camp out on the African savanna with your
young children. The large herbivores there can
cope with predation, using speed, and the fast
movement of herds across the landscape. But a
weak slow primate could not.

Gollee, a weak and slow primate could not survive in the forests! Doesn>t leave much, eh?
[/quote]
Agreed. It>s a serious problem to be considered --
not dodged, as is the approved practice within PA.

[quote]Australopiths had a wide range and could not
have done so with out coping strategies.

Strange 'logic' (if typical of the 'science' that is PA):
" . . since they lived there and coped with the
predators, they must have lived there and coped
with the predators . . ."

Why is it strange? You just explained why it isn>t. thanks!
[/quote]
Your education in science was clearly extraordinarily
limited. In science a belief is not justified by the
fact that it is a belief. That is the province of
religion -- and also (as it happens) of standard PA.

Paul.

Paul Crowley · Guest

RichTravsky wrote:

[quote]Paul Crowley wrote:

RichTravsky wrote:

Ahem. Prove the assertion

There are too many large herbivores and large carnivores on the savanna
to permit the existence of a hominid.

I asked you what you would accept as proof.

And I said

Something more substantial than your mere assertion.

You know, like... research? DUH?
[/quote]
"Research? Duh?" is not an answer. Nor more
than are "Facts . . Duh" or "Logic . .. duh".
This is, in theory, a science (even if its
practitioners know as much about science as
most alchemists in classical Rome.)

State the facts, or the evidence, that would, in
your opinion, disprove the proposition that
humans (and earlier hominids) could not live on
a savanna (like the Masai Mara) in the midst of
constantly migrating herds of 2 million wildebeeste,
1 million zebra, 1 million antelope, and their
predators.

Obviously, the presence of ancient tribes of H/G
humans (but not recent pastoralists) would be
strong evidence. But, given their absence, what
else?

Paul.

Paul Crowley · Guest

RichTravsky wrote:

[quote]There are too many large herbivores and large carnivores on the savanna
to permit the existence of a hominid.

Still waiting

What, for you, would constitute 'proof'?

Something more substantial than your mere assertion.

Those holding a scientific belief can state
the conditions which would prove it false.

Noted - no proof.
[/quote]
First clarify your request. What for you
would constitute 'proof'? Stop showing
your ignorance of scientific method.

[quote]Those holding a religious belief cannot
accept that there are ANY conditions which
would prove it false.

Noted - no proof.
[/quote]
First clarify your request. What for you
would constitute 'proof'? Stop showing
your ignorance of scientific method.

[quote]Which kind of belief do you have in the
theory 'hominids evolved on the savanna' ?

Still waiting for your proof...

Three dodges from you in one post - a personal best?
[/quote]
First clarify your request. What for you
would constitute 'proof'? Stop showing
your ignorance of scientific method.

Paul.

Claudius Denk · Guest

On Oct 6, 4:45 am, Paul Crowley <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
[quote]Claudius Denk wrote:
You>re missing my point. My point has to do with group selection. In
group selective scenarios the individuals (and/or subgroups of the
larger group) have no choice but to participate in the fight with the
alternative being sure and certain death. You don>t have this.

Simply not true.

In your
scenario if an individual (and/or subgroup of a larger group) chooses
to avoid fighting it>s no big deal.

Choosing not to fight was not an option. Imagine you
are in an L.A. streetgang, or the mafia. Do you think
you>d have an option? Do you think individual chimps
have a real option?

There is no reason to expect them to die as a result of this decision.

You seem to have no conception at all as to how human
societies work, or chimp ones. Brave fighters get the
status, the girls, etc., etc. Cowards get beaten up by
their comrades and, when times get hard, are the first
to starve to death.

In fact, in your scenario there
is no reason for there to be any dispute/fight at all. It>s just your
(dimwiitted) assertion that they would be picking up weapons and
fighting each other.

You can>t seem to remember the basic fact of
life about territorial species. Groups fight.
How come you forget this all the time?

The only group being selected for in your scenario is the same group
that already exists amongst chimps. Small breeding groups. We see
absolutely no tendency for selection for the communal territorialism
that is characteristic of hominids. There>s nothing even remotely
like this at all in your scenario! Nothing at all!

Ridiculous. They were like chimps at the very start
-- because they were chimps. But that changed
rapidly as soon as they moved to the ground.

I have told you this dozens of times. Confrontational
groups prone to violence will seek to acquire weapons --
if only to intimidate.

Absurd assumption. And irrelevant anyways.

It is plain common sense, and extremely relevant.

Those living in trees, and often
running up them, will never be able to hold on to such
weapons for long.

Like it matters.

Of course it matters. You can>t hold on to a
club while running around in a tree -- or even
just trying to sleep in one. But, if you are
on the ground all the time, you can keep one
indefinitely.

Each member of a population which
is on the ground all the time -- including at night --
will be able to acquire and keep a personal weapon at
hand 24/7, and 365 days a year. THAT is what brought
about bipedalism, and lead to larger (substantially)
monogamous groups,

Nonsense. We see absolutely no tendency for selection for the
communal territorialism that is characteristic of hominids. There>s
nothing even remotely like this at all in your scenario! Nothing at
all!

Eh? All social territorial species (e.g. meercats)
demonstrate strong selection for communal
territorialism. That>s how they maintain their
niche, over millions of years.

You don>t have a group selective scenario of human/hominid evolution.
Arguably you have a group selective scenario that selects for smaller
groups (bands) like we see in chimpanzees. There is absolutely
nothing about your scenario that would suggest a shift to the communal
territorialism that is characteristic of hominids.

There are basically three requirements for a group selective
scenario. In my hypothesis I achieve all three of these. In your
hypothesis we don>t even achieve one of these three requirements.

1) There must be situational factors that cause groups to be groups
and, most importantly, stay groups over long periods of time.

This is pretty silly. It applies to all social
territorial species.

And
this means that there must be situational factors that reduce or
prevent gene flow between the groups in question (communities).

I agree that a high degree of 'reduced gene flow'
seems to be peculiarly distinctive of hominids.
That requires that each breeding population be
large enough; that there is some geographic
isolation separating them, and that it be strongly
reinforced by isolating behaviours -- i.e. an
hostility so intense, that the exchange of breeding
females is never considered.

In my hypothesis this is achieved by two factors: a) the patchiness of
the forested patches (community sites) of the groups (communities) of
my group selective scenario.

This is ridiculous on numerous grounds.
(a) Such 'patchiness' does not rule out the
presence of narrow 'strips' allowing individuals,
or small groups, to travel and meet. Numerous
wild populations of numerous species occupy
a 'patchy' habitat, and have no difficulty in
dispersal.
(b) Such patchiness varies enormously over
geological time -- or even over time measured
within a human lifetime. It presents not the
slightest obstacle to inter-breeding.

(Note: this patchiness of forested
patches is a known aspect of regions that have a monsoon forest
climate/environment, which is the climate/environment stipulated in my
hypothesis. In your hypothesis the climate/environment is not
specified.) and

In my scenario, there are dense populations at
specific points on the coastline -- often based on,
or backed up by, an offshore island. These
populations are large enough to be independently
viable. They will not breed with the next population
100 or so miles up the coast, but will at some
point (over the tens of thousands of years) come
into conflict with them, and either wipe them out
or be wiped out by them.

b) very severe predatory realities at the greater
treeless locations between the forested community sites. Together
these two factors cause groups (communities) to stay groups over long
periods of time.

This is hopelessly wrong. Predatory attacks cause
prey species to unite (i.e. groups and individuals
both within species and across species; you will
see bitter enemies, like crows and magpies, co-
operating when a predatory cat climbs a tree.)
Marginally separated hominid groups (perhaps tending
towards isolation) would come together to fight the
predators off and, when possible, hunt them down.
They would, during that time, cease to be hostile,
and would exchange breeding females.

In your scenario we don>t see anything like this at all. You have no
reason or rational for the small breeding groups to collectives into
larger groups.

Of course I do. Three letters: WAR.
Larger coalitions defeat smaller ones.

And you certainly have no rational for them to
collectivize into the larger communal groups (collectives comprised of
numerous breeding groups) that we do see in my hypothesis. And since
there are no predators in your scenario there is mechanism that
prevents geneflow between these (nonexistent) groups.

Not true. There are, of course, predators. All populations
on the mainland, or with a toe-hold on it, would encounter
them regularly. IMO hominids would have been highly
pro-active against predators, probably baiting food with
poison (or sharp stones). Individuals, or small groups,
would have been very wary about wandering away from
their home sites, and would only have gone 'up-country'
when compelled.

So, in your
scenario there is no basis for human groups (communities) to come into
existence in the first place. And there is nothing preventing gene
flow between any such groups.

Sheer nonsense.

2.) There must be some mechanism that can potentially cause the
members of a community to die enmass or at least be decimated.

Of course. And this SHOULD be part of the process
of selection, with more able (or more organised, or
more intelligent, or more cultured) populations doing
better than the rest. That is not the case with your
absurd scenario.

In my scenario this mechanism is provided by collectives of
opportunity seeking predators preying upon the more impoverished
communities in my scenario during the depths of the dry season, when
these communities would be most vulnerable. Successful predation at
any such community site would tend to draw in more predators which
causes more stress for the community and more desperation during the
depths of the dry season, which might even result in the massacre of
the community as a whole in a predatory siege/massacre.

Sheer nonsense.

In your scenario there is nothing like this.

Again three letters: WAR.

In fact, in your
scenario the only way this could be achieved would be if the competing
groups in your scenario were dedicated to massacring opponents. And
this suggest that we evolved from animals that practiced genocide as a
rule which is inconsitent with what we see amongst competing humans.

You know extraordinarily little about humans
-- with an amazing blind spot for the record of
your own very recent ancestors. Where do you
live now? What kind of people lived there 400
years ago? Were any of them your ancestors?

How many native Tasmanians survived the invasion
of Europeans (just within the last 200 years)?

Given that all those events were caused by people
who were literate, thought of themselves as "god-
fearing", and were highly cultured by historical
standards, what might have happened (say) 40 kya?

Usually us humans assimilate our defeated opponents.

That>s why there are so many Neanderthal genes
around?

All humans are extremely close genetically -- most
having common ancestors within the last 60 kya or
so. In the past, when the (relatively very small)
populations had been breeding independently for a
few hundred thousand years, they would not have
seen each other as the same species. They would
not have wanted to interbreed. But any 'half-breeds'
produced 'accidentally' would have been killed, or
not allowed to breed themselves.

Genocide is
extremely rare (fortunately) amongst humans.

How do you explain the TOTAL disappearance
genes from Neanderthals (and H.erectus
generally) ?

If your scenario carried
any validity at all we>d expect human vs. human genocide to be
extremely common.

In a primitive community, where resources are
extremely limited, the defeated populations are
mostly merely driven 'up-country' -- where they
soon starve and die.
[/quote]
Absurd.

[quote]
3.) There must be some behavior by which the cooperative individuals
of a group (community) can compete against other groups (other
communities in their vicinity) such that if the cooperative behavior
is successfully achieved the probability of survival and reproductive
success of the members of the community as a whole is increased and/or
the probability of other groups as a whole (other communities in their
vicinity) is decreased.

In my scenario this is achieved by the rock-throwing, stick-wielding
(war) pest control (agricultural) behaviors of the members of the
community to guard their garden habitat and thereby prevent or reduce
its rate of depletion of the resources therein so that these resources
will be available to them when it is most important to them, during
the depths of the dry season.

Apart from your silly 'rock-throwing', we
don>t disagree too much about all this.

(Note: it is this rock-throwing, stick-wielding collective
[war] behavior that caused the emergence of bipedalism.)

Quite absurd. The large predators of the time would
scarcely notice the few sticks and stones.
[/quote]
Yes. I know. That>s why I would never suggest such a thing.

In my scenario rock-throwing is part of their food preservation
strategy. Try to follow.

[quote]In any
case, nearly all attacks would be at night -- when
sticks and stones would be quite useless.

In your scenario there is nothing like this at all.

Indeed. Who would want it?
War between hominid populations
is the selective agent.
[/quote]
Impossible.

[quote]
In fact in your
scenario there is no tendency at all toward the agricultural (pest
control) behavior that is intrinsic to my hypothesis.

Any behavior (such as 'gardening') which increased
resources would make the community larger and
stronger, and better able to withstand drought and
other disasters, and better able to defend themselves
(or practice war) against their neighbours.
[/quote]
Simpleminded. (A larger population eats more and is a larger target
for predators.)

[quote]
Conclusion: As I stated above, there are basically three requirements
for a group selective scenario. In my hypothesis I achieve all three
of these.

There are many more than three things that need
explanation in human evolution. Bipedalism is the
greatest of them -- the adoption of a SLOWER
method of locomotion. Your scenario does not
begin to account for it.
[/quote]
I account for it.

[quote](It could not possibly
evolve in the presence of predators.) Nakedness is
another. You do not even notice it. The switch
to ground-living is another -- you have forgotten
it. How the species competed with (its ancestral)
chimps is another. You ignore it. And at no
point do you deal sensibly with the issue of
predation.
[/quote]
You are too simpleminded to ever make progress as an evolutionary
theorist.

Paul Crowley · Guest

Claudius Denk wrote:

[quote]You>re missing my point. My point has to do with group selection. In
group selective scenarios the individuals (and/or subgroups of the
larger group) have no choice but to participate in the fight with the
alternative being sure and certain death. You don>t have this.
[/quote]
Simply not true.

[quote]In your
scenario if an individual (and/or subgroup of a larger group) chooses
to avoid fighting it>s no big deal.
[/quote]
Choosing not to fight was not an option. Imagine you
are in an L.A. streetgang, or the mafia. Do you think
you>d have an option? Do you think individual chimps
have a real option?

[quote]There is no reason to expect them to die as a result of this decision.
[/quote]
You seem to have no conception at all as to how human
societies work, or chimp ones. Brave fighters get the
status, the girls, etc., etc. Cowards get beaten up by
their comrades and, when times get hard, are the first
to starve to death.

[quote]In fact, in your scenario there
is no reason for there to be any dispute/fight at all. It>s just your
(dimwiitted) assertion that they would be picking up weapons and
fighting each other.
[/quote]
You can>t seem to remember the basic fact of
life about territorial species. Groups fight.
How come you forget this all the time?

[quote]The only group being selected for in your scenario is the same group
that already exists amongst chimps. Small breeding groups. We see
absolutely no tendency for selection for the communal territorialism
that is characteristic of hominids. There>s nothing even remotely
like this at all in your scenario! Nothing at all!
[/quote]
Ridiculous. They were like chimps at the very start
-- because they were chimps. But that changed
rapidly as soon as they moved to the ground.

[quote]I have told you this dozens of times. Confrontational
groups prone to violence will seek to acquire weapons --
if only to intimidate.

Absurd assumption. And irrelevant anyways.
[/quote]
It is plain common sense, and extremely relevant.

[quote]Those living in trees, and often
running up them, will never be able to hold on to such
weapons for long.

Like it matters.
[/quote]
Of course it matters. You can>t hold on to a
club while running around in a tree -- or even
just trying to sleep in one. But, if you are
on the ground all the time, you can keep one
indefinitely.

[quote]Each member of a population which
is on the ground all the time -- including at night --
will be able to acquire and keep a personal weapon at
hand 24/7, and 365 days a year. THAT is what brought
about bipedalism, and lead to larger (substantially)
monogamous groups,

Nonsense. We see absolutely no tendency for selection for the
communal territorialism that is characteristic of hominids. There>s
nothing even remotely like this at all in your scenario! Nothing at
all!
[/quote]
Eh? All social territorial species (e.g. meercats)
demonstrate strong selection for communal
territorialism. That>s how they maintain their
niche, over millions of years.

[quote]You don>t have a group selective scenario of human/hominid evolution.
Arguably you have a group selective scenario that selects for smaller
groups (bands) like we see in chimpanzees. There is absolutely
nothing about your scenario that would suggest a shift to the communal
territorialism that is characteristic of hominids.

There are basically three requirements for a group selective
scenario. In my hypothesis I achieve all three of these. In your
hypothesis we don>t even achieve one of these three requirements.

1) There must be situational factors that cause groups to be groups
and, most importantly, stay groups over long periods of time.
[/quote]
This is pretty silly. It applies to all social
territorial species.

[quote]And
this means that there must be situational factors that reduce or
prevent gene flow between the groups in question (communities).
[/quote]
I agree that a high degree of 'reduced gene flow'
seems to be peculiarly distinctive of hominids.
That requires that each breeding population be
large enough; that there is some geographic
isolation separating them, and that it be strongly
reinforced by isolating behaviours -- i.e. an
hostility so intense, that the exchange of breeding
females is never considered.

[quote]In my hypothesis this is achieved by two factors: a) the patchiness of
the forested patches (community sites) of the groups (communities) of
my group selective scenario.
[/quote]
This is ridiculous on numerous grounds.
(a) Such 'patchiness' does not rule out the
presence of narrow 'strips' allowing individuals,
or small groups, to travel and meet. Numerous
wild populations of numerous species occupy
a 'patchy' habitat, and have no difficulty in
dispersal.
(b) Such patchiness varies enormously over
geological time -- or even over time measured
within a human lifetime. It presents not the
slightest obstacle to inter-breeding.

[quote](Note: this patchiness of forested
patches is a known aspect of regions that have a monsoon forest
climate/environment, which is the climate/environment stipulated in my
hypothesis. In your hypothesis the climate/environment is not
specified.) and
[/quote]
In my scenario, there are dense populations at
specific points on the coastline -- often based on,
or backed up by, an offshore island. These
populations are large enough to be independently
viable. They will not breed with the next population
100 or so miles up the coast, but will at some
point (over the tens of thousands of years) come
into conflict with them, and either wipe them out
or be wiped out by them.

[quote]b) very severe predatory realities at the greater
treeless locations between the forested community sites. Together
these two factors cause groups (communities) to stay groups over long
periods of time.
[/quote]
This is hopelessly wrong. Predatory attacks cause
prey species to unite (i.e. groups and individuals
both within species and across species; you will
see bitter enemies, like crows and magpies, co-
operating when a predatory cat climbs a tree.)
Marginally separated hominid groups (perhaps tending
towards isolation) would come together to fight the
predators off and, when possible, hunt them down.
They would, during that time, cease to be hostile,
and would exchange breeding females.

[quote]In your scenario we don>t see anything like this at all. You have no
reason or rational for the small breeding groups to collectives into
larger groups.
[/quote]
Of course I do. Three letters: WAR.
Larger coalitions defeat smaller ones.

[quote]And you certainly have no rational for them to
collectivize into the larger communal groups (collectives comprised of
numerous breeding groups) that we do see in my hypothesis. And since
there are no predators in your scenario there is mechanism that
prevents geneflow between these (nonexistent) groups.
[/quote]
Not true. There are, of course, predators. All populations
on the mainland, or with a toe-hold on it, would encounter
them regularly. IMO hominids would have been highly
pro-active against predators, probably baiting food with
poison (or sharp stones). Individuals, or small groups,
would have been very wary about wandering away from
their home sites, and would only have gone 'up-country'
when compelled.

[quote]So, in your
scenario there is no basis for human groups (communities) to come into
existence in the first place. And there is nothing preventing gene
flow between any such groups.
[/quote]
Sheer nonsense.

[quote]2.) There must be some mechanism that can potentially cause the
members of a community to die enmass or at least be decimated.
[/quote]
Of course. And this SHOULD be part of the process
of selection, with more able (or more organised, or
more intelligent, or more cultured) populations doing
better than the rest. That is not the case with your
absurd scenario.

[quote]In my scenario this mechanism is provided by collectives of
opportunity seeking predators preying upon the more impoverished
communities in my scenario during the depths of the dry season, when
these communities would be most vulnerable. Successful predation at
any such community site would tend to draw in more predators which
causes more stress for the community and more desperation during the
depths of the dry season, which might even result in the massacre of
the community as a whole in a predatory siege/massacre.
[/quote]
Sheer nonsense.

[quote]In your scenario there is nothing like this.
[/quote]
Again three letters: WAR.

[quote]In fact, in your
scenario the only way this could be achieved would be if the competing
groups in your scenario were dedicated to massacring opponents. And
this suggest that we evolved from animals that practiced genocide as a
rule which is inconsitent with what we see amongst competing humans.
[/quote]
You know extraordinarily little about humans
-- with an amazing blind spot for the record of
your own very recent ancestors. Where do you
live now? What kind of people lived there 400
years ago? Were any of them your ancestors?

How many native Tasmanians survived the invasion
of Europeans (just within the last 200 years)?

Given that all those events were caused by people
who were literate, thought of themselves as "god-
fearing", and were highly cultured by historical
standards, what might have happened (say) 40 kya?

[quote]Usually us humans assimilate our defeated opponents.
[/quote]
That>s why there are so many Neanderthal genes
around?

All humans are extremely close genetically -- most
having common ancestors within the last 60 kya or
so. In the past, when the (relatively very small)
populations had been breeding independently for a
few hundred thousand years, they would not have
seen each other as the same species. They would
not have wanted to interbreed. But any 'half-breeds'
produced 'accidentally' would have been killed, or
not allowed to breed themselves.

[quote]Genocide is
extremely rare (fortunately) amongst humans.
[/quote]
How do you explain the TOTAL disappearance
genes from Neanderthals (and H.erectus
generally) ?

[quote]If your scenario carried
any validity at all we>d expect human vs. human genocide to be
extremely common.
[/quote]
In a primitive community, where resources are
extremely limited, the defeated populations are
mostly merely driven 'up-country' -- where they
soon starve and die.

[quote]3.) There must be some behavior by which the cooperative individuals
of a group (community) can compete against other groups (other
communities in their vicinity) such that if the cooperative behavior
is successfully achieved the probability of survival and reproductive
success of the members of the community as a whole is increased and/or
the probability of other groups as a whole (other communities in their
vicinity) is decreased.

In my scenario this is achieved by the rock-throwing, stick-wielding
(war) pest control (agricultural) behaviors of the members of the
community to guard their garden habitat and thereby prevent or reduce
its rate of depletion of the resources therein so that these resources
will be available to them when it is most important to them, during
the depths of the dry season.
[/quote]
Apart from your silly 'rock-throwing', we
don>t disagree too much about all this.

[quote](Note: it is this rock-throwing, stick-wielding collective
[war] behavior that caused the emergence of bipedalism.)
[/quote]
Quite absurd. The large predators of the time would
scarcely notice the few sticks and stones. In any
case, nearly all attacks would be at night -- when
sticks and stones would be quite useless.

[quote]In your scenario there is nothing like this at all.
[/quote]
Indeed. Who would want it?
War between hominid populations
is the selective agent.

[quote]In fact in your
scenario there is no tendency at all toward the agricultural (pest
control) behavior that is intrinsic to my hypothesis.
[/quote]
Any behavior (such as 'gardening') which increased
resources would make the community larger and
stronger, and better able to withstand drought and
other disasters, and better able to defend themselves
(or practice war) against their neighbours.

[quote]Conclusion: As I stated above, there are basically three requirements
for a group selective scenario. In my hypothesis I achieve all three
of these.
[/quote]
There are many more than three things that need
explanation in human evolution. Bipedalism is the
greatest of them -- the adoption of a SLOWER
method of locomotion. Your scenario does not
begin to account for it. (It could not possibly
evolve in the presence of predators.) Nakedness is
another. You do not even notice it. The switch
to ground-living is another -- you have forgotten
it. How the species competed with (its ancestral)
chimps is another. You ignore it. And at no
point do you deal sensibly with the issue of
predation.

Paul.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Anthropology - Paleo Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 23, 24, 25 ... 46, 47, 48 Next
Page 24 of 48