Jim McGinn
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2003 10:07 am Post subject: The Assumptions Most Dear To Us |
 |
|
rmacfarl@alphalink.com.au (Ross Macfarlane) wrote
[quote]Algis wrote:
Ok, look. I concede the point that in many hunter-gather societies
they have perfected the art of throwing spears whilst running without
losing accuracy
[/quote]
They don>t necessarily have to be running all the time
you evasive jackass.
[quote]but does that make a valid argument for how bipedalism
began? Which is what Jim & Paul have been trying to argue. I don>t
think it does.
[/quote]
Why not?
[quote]I would never be seen to be arguing on the same side as either of
those 2 gentlemen.
[/quote]
This is because you were born without a spine.
[quote]A spear-wielding Homo sapiens post-dates the origin
of bipedalism by a considerable margin.
[/quote]
Right, and rock throwing, stick wielding, it would seem,
is the perfect evolutionary upramp to spear wielding (a
spear, afterall, is nothing but the combination of a
sharpened rock and a long straight stick).
[quote]...
Maybe you>re right, maybe you>re wrong. Either way I can>t see how
this helps a proto-hominid start to walk on two legs. Do you?
[/quote]
If we have an scenario that indicates how those that have
rock throwing, stick wielding behavior survive in greater
numbers than those that don>t--as indicated in my
yet-to-be-disputed hypothesis--then, obviously, the answer
to this questions is a resounding, Yes!
[quote]Absolutely yes! Chimps throw things to scare off predators - & they go
bipedally to do it. If the LCA was on the ground more, it would be
more vulnerable to predators, so a defense mechanism like throwing
could well be selective. As a corollary, so would being able to stand
bipedally with better balance.
[/quote]
Yes. Obviously. If, for the moment, we focus solely
on rock throwing, stick wielding proficiency then there
can be no doubt that a faculative bipedal ape would be
many times more proficient than one that was only
occasionally bipedal. This is so obvious that it isn>t
even worth disputing.
But the big question is what situational factors would
be involved, starting with chimps, to achieve a
selective scenario in which those that have rock
throwing, stick wielding behaviors survive in greater
numbers than those that don>t. This is not simple.
This question is *incredibly* difficult. And the reason
it>s so difficult is because the right answer is
extremely counterintuitive. Moreover, there are two
knee-jerk assumptions standing between oneself and this
extremely counterintuitive correct answer: 1) the knee
jerk tendency to assume that rock throwing stick
wielding could only achieve selective benefit if it is
wielded against predators; and/or 2) the knee jerk
tendency to assume that rock throwing stick wielding
could only achieve selective benefit if it is wielded
against other groups of chimps/apiths. It just never
occurs to anybody that the correct answer, as explained
in my hypothesis, involves rocks and stick wielded
against poverty causing inmigrating species to achieve
territorial imperatives to thus avoid poverty induced
predatory massacres during the depth of the dry season
in a habitat characterized by severe seasonally
recurring dessication.
If science is about anything it>s about overcoming the
brain numbing effects of the assumptions that are most
dear to us (see 1) and 2) above).
[quote]
Anyway, watch some cricket. Coming in off a 30m run-up doesn>t stop
Brett Lee from being dangerously accurate at 150 km/hr. Those batsmen
don>t wear helmets to keep the sun off.
Come off it. These bowlers practice a million times against a fixed
target that never moves. Are you seriously proposing this helps the
origin of bipedalism?
No.
[/quote]
This kind of behavior would have been adaptive in the
context of my yet-to-be-disputed hypothesis.
[quote]
The only time when stillness helps with hurling a projectile is
spear-fishing. But I don>t think even you>d put a harpoon in an
aquarboreal LCA>s toolkit.
That>s a bit of an exageration. Throwing whilst still is the norm.
Bull! There are almost no circumstances where people stand still to
throw. It>s ergonomically poor because you lose balance (unless the
projectile>s light, like a dart), & it>s ineffectual because you can>t
throw far.
[/quote]
Excellent point.
[quote]Baseball pitching>s about the only example, & those guys
turn themselves in knots to get the power they need.
[/quote]
Yes. And a baseball pitcher is really taking one big step.
[quote]
Throwing whilst running is a specialist activity. Either way - I don>t
think they don>t help advance bipedal walking.
Depends on why you>re throwing. If, like a chimp, you>re running
around making a hell of a racket & throwing stuff, to scare off a
predator, accuracy isn>t much relevant.
[/quote]
Yes. And/or to scare off any animal that is
impinging/trespassing on their territory. Is human
territorialism not obvious. What is it about you
anthro dimwits that you think there is some law that
we have to dismiss the obvious. I don>t dismiss it.
I explain it>s selective origins.
[quote]
A>piths' shoulders were not adapted for throwing like Homo, nor their
chests for running, so cricketers, baseballers & javelin throwers
aren>t good models for developing bipedalism. But chimps scaring off
leopards quite possibly are...
[/quote]
Not leopards (see 1) above). But I agree with everything else here.
Jim |
|
