| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Anthropology - Paleo Forum » Man-eaters
Page 5 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:31 pm |
|
|
|
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
Quote: claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1168410564.961962.180780@i39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Humans possess some extraordinarily
sophisticated capacities -- especially
language. They do indeed need an
evolutionary explanation, but yours is
not it.
My scenario does not assume such abilities.
Nor does it attempt to explain them.
Then its a useless hypothesis, by your own admission.
There is MANY basic issues in human
evolution that are (a) much easier to explain;
This is a plainly dumb statement. How would you supposedly know
apriori what is easier to explain or not. Ease of explanation is not a
criteria I would entertain.
Quote: (b) NOT explained by any other hypothesis,
including yours, such as bipedalism
My hypothesis explains bipedalism.
Quote: , infant
altriciality, naked skin, and the move to
sleeping on the ground.
My hypothesis is consistent with all of the evidence (if any) related
to these factors.
Quote: There is no sense to seeking to provide
an explanation of a complex phenomenon,
when you can't do so for relatively simple
ones that, almost certainly, evolved much
earlier.
Bullshit. Pure pseudoscience. You have no basis for assuming some
attributes evolved later.
Quote:
I'm not following anything but the evidence and logic. It's ludicrous
to assume these abilities only evolved recently.
The evolved over a very long time, and are
still continuing to do so.
Thank you Dr. Vaguenstein.
What is vague in that statement? It seems
that your claim is that complex language
evolved before bipedalism -- or in association
with it.
Yes. (Only an evolutionary dimwit would assume otherwise.)
Quote: Of course, no one (including you)
has any idea what your hypothesis is in this
regard -- because you have never stated
anything clear -- not on this matter nor on
anything else.
Group/communal selection is the solution. (If this isn't obvious to
you then there is little hope for you.)
Quote: They certainly
did NOT evolve (significantly beyond the
chimp level) prior to the origin of the taxon
NOR at its origin. There simply was not
enough time.
Enough time. If you understood the concept of punctuated equilibrium
you would realize that time not that important of a factor. In fact
now the term "gradualist" is considered pejorative amongst us
evolutionary theorists.
Human language is a very different
phenomenon from all other things that
could be said to evolve.
You can say that again.
Quote: YOU will be
the only "evolutionary theorist" in the
history of the planet who maintains that
"punctuated equilibrium" has applied to
its development.
Yes. I know.
Quote: An animal like a chimp could readily (and
rapidly) evolve to live in larger groups.
Little else was needed.
IOW, Paul says the can live in larger groups and therefore they do. No
underlying rationale for the emergence of this behavior.
I have stated the rationale -- the isolation of
a pre-hominid population (of 'chimps') on a
fairly large island, where the predators died
out (largely through the usual natural causes).
Why large groups? IOW, why do those that prefer large groups have a
selective advantage over those that prefer small groups in your
scenario? You haven't addressed this issue. And puttin them on an
island in and of itself does not address this issue. Think in terms of
survival and reproduction.
Quote:
No shift in climate/environment/fauna.
Certainly no shift in climate. You have to
be an evolutionary illiterate to think that
could have any effect.
Exactly the opposite is the truth. If not then stasis (no change)
rules.
Quote:
-- although as it
developed over the millions of years, it gave
significant advantages to those populations
or 'tribes' who were better able to use it.
You've done it again. You've just assumed human behavior would emerge.
Nope. It is fairly obvious that a population
which is better at language use (other things
being equal) will do better than its opposition.
Why don't chimps talk? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul Crowley |
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1168561871.545289.277060@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Quote: Humans possess some extraordinarily
sophisticated capacities -- especially
language. They do indeed need an
evolutionary explanation, but yours is
not it.
My scenario does not assume such abilities.
Nor does it attempt to explain them.
Then its a useless hypothesis, by your own admission.
There is MANY basic issues in human
evolution that are (a) much easier to explain;
This is a plainly dumb statement.
The grammar is awful. But otherwise it's fine.
Quote: How would you supposedly know
apriori what is easier to explain or not.
Millions of species have developed new features,
and new morphologies. We know, as well as we
can know anything, the FORM of the explanation
needed. (Not that it is widely ignored, as when we
see human features 'explained' as having evolved in
deserts.) Whereas complex language has evolved
only once, We don't know where to start with a
theory for the 'evolution of complex language'
Quote: Ease of explanation is not a criteria I would entertain.
That shows only how foolish and impractical
you are.
Quote: (b) NOT explained by any other hypothesis,
including yours, such as bipedalism
My hypothesis explains bipedalism.
What was it again? (I suppose it's just a huge
pile of meaningless verbiage. You ducked my
questions on the differences between the day-
to-day lives of chimps and that you postulate
for Apiths.)
Quote: , infant
altriciality, naked skin, and the move to
sleeping on the ground.
My hypothesis is consistent with all of the evidence (if any) related
to these factors.
It simply ignores them, as though they did
not exist.
Quote: There is no sense to seeking to provide
an explanation of a complex phenomenon,
when you can't do so for relatively simple
ones that, almost certainly, evolved much
earlier.
Bullshit. Pure pseudoscience. You have no basis for assuming some
attributes evolved later.
Brain size.
Quote: What is vague in that statement? It seems
that your claim is that complex language
evolved before bipedalism -- or in association
with it.
Yes. (Only an evolutionary dimwit would assume otherwise.)
I prefer, in this matter, to go along with the
rest of the world.
Quote: YOU will be
the only "evolutionary theorist" in the
history of the planet who maintains that
"punctuated equilibrium" has applied to
its development.
Yes. I know.
Aren't you proud of yourself. Is there no
way you can provide evidence for it?
Quote: I have stated the rationale -- the isolation of
a pre-hominid population (of 'chimps') on a
fairly large island, where the predators died
out (largely through the usual natural causes).
Why large groups? IOW, why do those that prefer large groups have a
selective advantage over those that prefer small groups in your
scenario? You haven't addressed this issue.
Sleeping on the ground enabled the retention
of weapons (and tools). Remember? That
immediately ramped up the threat level in all
inter-communal fights. Larger groups always
had an advantage over smaller ones, but now
it became huge. Secondly, running away got
much more difficult. They no longer lived in
the bush and few trees in the habitat were
readily climbable. Fast running was incompatible
with weapon-retention.
Quote: And puttin them on an
island in and of itself does not address this issue.
It eliminates large predators (in and of itself).
That allows ground-sleeping, weapon-retention,
expansion into new habitats, and much else.
These are enormous changes in life-style and
will bring about great ones in morphology
and social structure.
Quote: Nope. It is fairly obvious that a population
which is better at language use (other things
being equal) will do better than its opposition.
Why don't chimps talk?
Their bands are much too small to be able
to develop it (or to much need it). There is
virtually no communication between them.
The first stages in language were probably
in naming places and common things, for
communicating life-saving information:
"Lion under big tree, by white rock near fast
river". Every chimp band would have to
invent its own names, and codes. In other
words, that is not a language, and while
perhaps such an ability could be evolved,
we have seen nothing like it in any species.
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:20 pm |
|
|
|
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
Quote: claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1168561871.545289.277060@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Humans possess some extraordinarily
sophisticated capacities -- especially
language. They do indeed need an
evolutionary explanation, but yours is
not it.
My scenario does not assume such abilities.
Nor does it attempt to explain them.
Then its a useless hypothesis, by your own admission.
There is MANY basic issues in human
evolution that are (a) much easier to explain;
This is a plainly dumb statement.
The grammar is awful. But otherwise it's fine.
How would you supposedly know
apriori what is easier to explain or not.
Millions of species have developed new features,
and new morphologies. We know, as well as we
can know anything, the FORM of the explanation
needed.
The "FORM" of the explanation? Other than vagueness what form do you
prescribe? The only form I employ is that of natural selection. IOW,
I keep it simple. Just state what individuals with what variants of
behavior and morphology will survive and thrive under *specific*
situational conditions. In contrast you have nothing but vague notions
in which your audience is required to fill-in the details according to
your imagination. Why would larger groups emerge on an island? Why
would they, supposedly, begin to pick up clubs and collectively fight
other groups of conspecifics? You provide no details from which we can
properly evaluate aspects of your hypothetical thinking (specfically
its assumptions) which are critical to the conclusions of your
scenario. Ultimately your argument is an argument based on authority.
We're all supposed to just take your word on it. Not going to happen.
Quote: (Not that it is widely ignored, as when we
see human features 'explained' as having evolved in
deserts.) Whereas complex language has evolved
only once, We don't know where to start with a
theory for the 'evolution of complex language'
I do: Group/communal selection.
Quote:
Ease of explanation is not a criteria I would entertain.
That shows only how foolish and impractical
you are.
(b) NOT explained by any other hypothesis,
including yours, such as bipedalism
My hypothesis explains bipedalism.
What was it again? (I suppose it's just a huge
pile of meaningless verbiage. You ducked my
questions on the differences between the day-
to-day lives of chimps and that you postulate
for Apiths.)
It was a stupid question.
Quote:
, infant
altriciality, naked skin, and the move to
sleeping on the ground.
My hypothesis is consistent with all of the evidence (if any) related
to these factors.
It simply ignores them, as though they did
not exist.
Specifically?
Quote:
There is no sense to seeking to provide
an explanation of a complex phenomenon,
when you can't do so for relatively simple
ones that, almost certainly, evolved much
earlier.
Bullshit. Pure pseudoscience. You have no basis for assuming some
attributes evolved later.
Brain size.
Brain size doesn't dictate behavior.
Quote:
What is vague in that statement? It seems
that your claim is that complex language
evolved before bipedalism -- or in association
with it.
Yes. (Only an evolutionary dimwit would assume otherwise.)
I prefer, in this matter, to go along with the
rest of the world.
That's your choice.
Quote:
YOU will be
the only "evolutionary theorist" in the
history of the planet who maintains that
"punctuated equilibrium" has applied to
its development.
Yes. I know.
Aren't you proud of yourself. Is there no
way you can provide evidence for it?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Quote:
I have stated the rationale -- the isolation of
a pre-hominid population (of 'chimps') on a
fairly large island, where the predators died
out (largely through the usual natural causes).
Why large groups? IOW, why do those that prefer large groups have a
selective advantage over those that prefer small groups in your
scenario? You haven't addressed this issue.
Sleeping on the ground enabled the retention
of weapons (and tools). Remember?
Enabled? Listen dimwit. Just tell us why those that did do the
behavior would survive and reproduce and those that did not did not.
You haven't done this and I predict you won't.
Quote: That
immediately ramped up the threat level in all
inter-communal fights.
What are they supposedly fighting over? Why would they even bother.
Your whole scenario relies too much on imagination and too little on
plain old natural selection.
Quote: Larger groups always
had an advantage over smaller ones, but now
it became huge.
Why? (A question you will never answer.)
Quote: Secondly, running away got
much more difficult. They no longer lived in
the bush and few trees in the habitat were
readily climbable. Fast running was incompatible
with weapon-retention.
You're whacked. I can't make any sense of this. You're just throwing
behaviors around and hoping something sticks.
Quote: And puttin them on an
island in and of itself does not address this issue.
It eliminates large predators (in and of itself).
So what?
Quote: That allows ground-sleeping, weapon-retention,
Allows, yes. Necessitates, no way.
Quote: expansion into new habitats, and much else.
These are enormous changes in life-style and
will bring about great ones in morphology
and social structure.
Typical pseudoscientific statement.
Quote:
Nope. It is fairly obvious that a population
which is better at language use (other things
being equal) will do better than its opposition.
Why don't chimps talk?
Their bands are much too small to be able
to develop it (or to much need it).
Only a simpleton would suggest that group size dictated language.
There's no selection with your scenario.
There is
Quote: virtually no communication between them.
The first stages in language were probably
in naming places and common things, for
communicating life-saving information:
"Lion under big tree, by white rock near fast
river". Every chimp band would have to
invent its own names, and codes. In other
words, that is not a language, and while
perhaps such an ability could be evolved,
we have seen nothing like it in any species.
Pure nonsense. Nothing you stated here explains why chimps don't also
have language.
You have to have group/communal selection for the origins of language.
You don't have this and don't understand evolution well enough to
realize it. Paul, you're a victim of your own ignorance. Few ever
recover from this. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lee Olsen |
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Quote: Lee Olsen wrote:
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
The garden guarding
hypothesis was dead the second I pointed out how ridiculous it was for
apiths to guard anything at night, let alone a planted garden.
Night? Why would night be a problem?
Surely even you are not that stupid. First you claim apiths needed
trees to escape, presumably during the day (McGinn:"And the only safe
place against an
injured, pissed-off lion or hyena is high in a tree."),
Uh huh.
Wrong again dipstick, that is just exactly the opposite of the physical
evidence.
How so? Keep in mind I don't have access to your imagination.
You don't seem to have access to a library or the internet either, as
you have just proven once again.
Niccolo Caldararo: "You really need to do some reading (and I've said
this before). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make statements which most of us know are unsupported by
the data."
Quote:
now you are
claiming they didn't need these same trees just as desperately at night
I never stated any such thing. You're off your rocker, as usual.
So, if that is the case, they didn't need trees for protection day or
night. Right?
How did you come to this conclusion?
If they did need protection from trees day or night, who would be down
in the garden protecting the what ever it was they were supposed to be
defending? You can't have it both ways moron.
Quote:
(not to mention the obvious night vision handicap)?
What, "obvious night vision handicap?" Why is it that God has not
Leopards see better at night, on the ground or in trees than you (or
apiths) do.
Yeah, so?
What good is a tree that doesn't protect you day and night from a
leopard? What good is a tree if it is necessary to come down out of it
to chase away a predator or a buffalo?
Quote:
gifted me with the same ability to see the emperor's new clothes.
I don't know why you see so well at night, maybe God gave you such
exceptional eyesight because he didn't give you any brains.
Any 5-year old
could see the contradiction here.
I guess that pretty much counts you out.
Says the loon who loves to make retractions:
Message-ID: <1164704227.718683.98...
/groups/unlock?msg=04fbb3c26ba8e19a&hl=en&_done=/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/browse_frm/thread/3597d023d7604931%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26>@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com
Jim McGinn: "Both tigers and lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."
Irrelevant..........,
at least to a person who continually makes ignorant blunders and then
next claims he have the "perfect scenario."
Quote:
"The analysis shows that the sabertooth cats were a sister group to
the modern cats--that is, they diverged early on from the ancestors of
modern cats and are not closely related to any living felid species."
Barnett et al.: "Evolution of the extinct Sabretooths and the American
cheetah-like cat" Current Biology, Vol. 15, August 9, 2005.
Jim McGinn: "Well then I guess I stand corrected on this point."
You have been corrected on many points, but your someting less than
5-year old mentality doesn't seem to allow you to comprehend them.
I can't figure out what your point is. Assuming you have one.
Niccolo Caldararo: "You really need to do some reading (and I've said
this before). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make statements which most of us know are unsupported by
the data."
Quote:
What did they do, sit up in their
trees and piss on cape buffalo and lions to scare them away to keep
them from wrecking their garden?
I think it's comical that you would indicate that buffalo would so
carelessly enter treed habitat, at night given the ambush hunting
tactics of the miocene predators.
No, the idiot idea that "they never ventured more than 50 or maybe a
100 yards from the safety of trees." was a falicy of your own making
that you have totally failed to demonstrate.
Relevance?
Just another imagination statement of yours that has no meaning in the
real world, just like the apith guarding gardens scenario.
Quote:
Truth is, it would be impossible to
defend their planted gardens day or night.
It's night for their opponents also.
You might try going to the library for the first time in your life and
check out a book called BONES by Lew Binford.
Read it. It's conclusions are dimwitted.
Hearing voices again? Who said anything about his conclusions? I think
most of them stink also. That doesn't made his observations about
preadators hunting at night false. These can verified elsewhere:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2519leopards.html
NARRATOR: Tonight, on NOVA: As daylight fades, a silent hunter stalks.
For the first time ever, under the cover of complete darkness, see her
strike. With NOVA's special cameras, go on the hunt with Africa's most
successful big cat. Enter the hidden world of leopards of the night.
Or check any good library (which I know you will never do). So much for
your lunatic idea apiths guarded territory or gardens day or night.
Quote:
Let's face it, your silly
hypothesis is the funniest comedy to hit sap since Ed's MAOAC.
Humans currently are effective at defending territory from hebivores.
Why would it have been different for the earliest hominids?
How early? The South African caves prove apiths could not defend any
better than antelope.
Prove? How so? As usual you're just making up facts to fit your
preconceived notions.
Niccolo Caldararo: "You really need to do some reading (and I've said
this before). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make statements which most of us know are unsupported by
the data."
Does your lack of intelligence means I need to repeat the same
citations continuously?
Quote:
Homo e could. Any thing else you would like to
know?
Do you use a crystal ball?
Nope, just a library. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lee Olsen |
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Quote: Lee Olsen wrote:
What is obvious is the fact that you don't have any evidence for apiths
gardening gardens, nor do you have any rational reason to expect there
should be any in the first place. It is all just a childish fantasy.
I never indicated, "apiths gardening gardens." That's your delusion.
How would you like to make a very large wager on that?
How much can you afford to lose?
"gardening gardens"? Typo, It should read apiths guarding gardens. I'm
sure that since you are such a liar and love to mangle the English
language, you will first off deny that a garden would be considered
"territory"? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lee Olsen |
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Quote: Lee Olsen wrote:
What childish nonsense. I wasn't the one who made the claim that apiths
guarded gardens. The burden is on you to do the proving.
The burden is on my opponents to do the disproving.
Imagination can't be disproved.
Of course it can, you idiot. It's your vagueness that can't be
disproved.
Message-ID: <1165825208.180342.263860@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn: "Much of the existing evidence is consistent with
gardens/groves, etc.
Hominid fossils tend to be found in association with trees and water
nearby. And hominid food preference are consistent with such."
ROTFL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:24 pm |
|
|
|
|
Lee Olsen wrote:
Quote: claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
What is obvious is the fact that you don't have any evidence for apiths
gardening gardens, nor do you have any rational reason to expect there
should be any in the first place. It is all just a childish fantasy.
I never indicated, "apiths gardening gardens." That's your delusion.
How would you like to make a very large wager on that?
How much can you afford to lose?
"gardening gardens"? Typo, It should read apiths guarding gardens. I'm
sure that since you are such a liar and love to mangle the English
language,
Me?
Quote: you will first off deny that a garden would be considered
"territory"?
Why would I deny this? Are we having the same conversation? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lee Olsen |
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Quote: Lee Olsen wrote:
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
now you are
claiming they didn't need these same trees just as desperately at night
I never stated any such thing. You're off your rocker, as usual.
So, if that is the case, they didn't need trees for protection day or
night. Right?
How did you come to this conclusion?
If they did need protection from trees day or night, who would be down
in the garden protecting the what ever it was they were supposed to be
defending? You can't have it both ways moron.
They are only up in the trees when predators are in the immediate
vicinity, dimwit.
How stupid can you get? What if the predator decides not to leave?
Lucy then will come down and beat him up?
Quote:
(not to mention the obvious night vision handicap)?
What, "obvious night vision handicap?" Why is it that God has not
Leopards see better at night, on the ground or in trees than you (or
apiths) do.
Yeah, so?
What good is a tree that doesn't protect you day and night from a
leopard? What good is a tree if it is necessary to come down out of it
to chase away a predator or a buffalo?
See above.
see above
Quote:
gifted me with the same ability to see the emperor's new clothes.
I don't know why you see so well at night, maybe God gave you such
exceptional eyesight because he didn't give you any brains.
Any 5-year old
could see the contradiction here.
I guess that pretty much counts you out.
Says the loon who loves to make retractions:
Message-ID: <1164704227.718683.98...
/groups/unlock?msg=04fbb3c26ba8e19a&hl=en&_done=/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/browse_frm/thread/3597d023d7604931%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26>@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com
Jim McGinn: "Both tigers and lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."
Irrelevant..........,
at least to a person who continually makes ignorant blunders and then
next claims he have the "perfect scenario."
You are a simpleton.
and you are a person who continually makes ignorant blunders and then
next claims he have the "perfect scenario."
Message-ID: <1165098768.578213.303960@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn: "IOW, it makes about as much sense to emplace human
ancestors, including homo,
neanderdudes, and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and
guns) in treeless savanna habitat as it does to emplace them swimming
alongside crocodiles."
ROTFL
Quote:
"The analysis shows that the sabertooth cats were a sister group to
the modern cats--that is, they diverged early on from the ancestors of
modern cats and are not closely related to any living felid species."
Barnett et al.: "Evolution of the extinct Sabretooths and the American
cheetah-like cat" Current Biology, Vol. 15, August 9, 2005.
Jim McGinn: "Well then I guess I stand corrected on this point."
You have been corrected on many points, but your someting less than
5-year old mentality doesn't seem to allow you to comprehend them.
I can't figure out what your point is. Assuming you have one.
Niccolo Caldararo: "You really need to do some reading (and I've said
this before). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make statements which most of us know are unsupported by
the data."
Who is Niccolo Caldararo? Why would anybody care about his opinion,
dimwit.
Message-ID: <1164704227.718683.98...
</groups/unlock?msg=04fbb3c26ba8e19a&hl=en&_done=/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/browse_frm/thread/3597d023d7604931%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26>@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn: "Both tigers and lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."
Niccolo Caldararo is a guy who can see through an illiterate buffoon
like you.
Quote:
What did they do, sit up in their
trees and piss on cape buffalo and lions to scare them away to keep
them from wrecking their garden?
I think it's comical that you would indicate that buffalo would so
carelessly enter treed habitat, at night given the ambush hunting
tactics of the miocene predators.
No, the idiot idea that "they never ventured more than 50 or maybe a
100 yards from the safety of trees." was a falicy of your own making
that you have totally failed to demonstrate.
Relevance?
Just another imagination statement of yours that has no meaning in the
real world, just like the apith guarding gardens scenario.
Reality is complicated. Get used to it.
Yes, imagination can get pretty complicated if you stir enough of it
together.
Quote:
Truth is, it would be impossible to
defend their planted gardens day or night.
It's night for their opponents also.
You might try going to the library for the first time in your life and
check out a book called BONES by Lew Binford.
Read it. It's conclusions are dimwitted.
Hearing voices again?
Feel free to relay to us the brilliant insights that you, supposedly,
gleened from your reading of this book.
Who said anything about his conclusions? I think
most of them stink also.
Then why did you present it?
Can't you read, there is a difference between observed facts and
conclusions drawn from them. Even an idiot like you should be able to
figure that out.
Quote:
That doesn't made his observations about
preadators hunting at night false. These can verified elsewhere:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2519leopards.html
NARRATOR: Tonight, on NOVA: As daylight fades, a silent hunter stalks.
For the first time ever, under the cover of complete darkness, see her
strike. With NOVA's special cameras, go on the hunt with Africa's most
successful big cat. Enter the hidden world of leopards of the night.
Do you have a point?
Yes, I falsified yours.
Quote:
Or check any good library (which I know you will never do). So much for
your lunatic idea apiths guarded territory or gardens day or night.
Specifically?
Your evidence that they did, specifically?
Quote:
Let's face it, your silly
hypothesis is the funniest comedy to hit sap since Ed's MAOAC.
Humans currently are effective at defending territory from hebivores.
Why would it have been different for the earliest hominids?
How early? The South African caves prove apiths could not defend any
better than antelope.
Prove? How so? As usual you're just making up facts to fit your
preconceived notions.
Niccolo Caldararo: "You really need to do some reading (and I've said
this before). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make statements which most of us know are unsupported by
the data."
Can't answer the question. You're a fool.
Message-ID: <1164704227.718683.98...
</groups/unlock?msg=04fbb3c26ba8e19a&hl=en&_done=/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/browse_frm/thread/3597d023d7604931%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26>@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
Quote: Jim McGinn: "Both tigers and lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."
"The analysis shows that the sabertooth cats were a sister group to
the modern cats--that is, they diverged early on from the ancestors of
modern cats and are not closely related to any living felid species."
Barnett et al.: "Evolution of the extinct Sabretooths and the American
cheetah-like cat" Current Biology, Vol. 15, August 9, 2005.
Jim McGinn: "Well then I guess I stand corrected on this point."
Niccolo Caldararo: "You really need to do some reading (and I've said
this before). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make statements which most of us know are unsupported by
the data."
Quote:
Does your lack of intelligence means I need to repeat the same
citations continuously?
Homo e could. Any thing else you would like to
know?
Do you use a crystal ball?
Nope, just a library.
Why do you never include speific references that apply to your point?
Vagueness does not a hypothesis make.
Barnett et al.: "Evolution of the extinct Sabretooths and the American
cheetah-like cat" Current Biology, Vol. 15, August 9, 2005.
Do you want the entire list repeated as an admission of your senile
mind?
Have you always been a lying asshole, or do you only do it when
trolling on sap? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul Crowley |
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1168626026.451654.106280@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote: Millions of species have developed new features,
and new morphologies. We know, as well as we
can know anything, the FORM of the explanation
needed.
The "FORM" of the explanation? Other than vagueness what form do you
prescribe?
When a new species evolves it, nearly
always, acquires some new feature, or set
of features. Their function is usually fairly
clear. We can see how, for example, a
cheetah is designed for a very high speed
short-distant chase, often in daylight.
There is usually little mystery about the
explanation -- the benefits of the feature(s),
in that context, are obvious.
For a whole variety of reasons (largely
political -- with a small 'p') this does not
apply to humans. Scarcely ANY human
feature has found an evolutionary
explanation.
However, it is particularly the case with
large brains and with language.
Quote: The only form I employ is that of natural selection. IOW,
I keep it simple.
That's a joke. You can't explain even the
most simple things. You immediately
retreat in the a dense mass of complicated
and quite meaningless verbiage.
Quote: Just state what individuals with what variants of
behavior and morphology will survive and thrive under *specific*
situational conditions. In contrast you have nothing but vague notions
in which your audience is required to fill-in the details according to
your imagination. Why would larger groups emerge on an island? Why
would they, supposedly, begin to pick up clubs and collectively fight
other groups of conspecifics?
Fighting with conspecifics is what very
many species do. Take a look at a few wild
species sometime -- of mammals, birds, fish,
reptiles, insects . . whatever.
Quote: , infant
altriciality, naked skin, and the move to
sleeping on the ground.
My hypothesis is consistent with all of the evidence (if any) related
to these factors.
It simply ignores them, as though they did
not exist.
Specifically?
Eh? How can I be more specific? You ignore
almost ALL distinctive human features.
You provide NO explanation. How do you
want me to point at your nothingnesses?
Quote: There is no sense to seeking to provide
an explanation of a complex phenomenon,
when you can't do so for relatively simple
ones that, almost certainly, evolved much
earlier.
Bullshit. Pure pseudoscience. You have no basis for assuming some
attributes evolved later.
Brain size.
Brain size doesn't dictate behavior.
Do you admit that brain size has increased
-- fairly steadily -- throughout hominid
evolution? Do you have ANY explanation
for that?
Quote: I have stated the rationale -- the isolation of
a pre-hominid population (of 'chimps') on a
fairly large island, where the predators died
out (largely through the usual natural causes).
Why large groups? IOW, why do those that prefer large groups have a
selective advantage over those that prefer small groups in your
scenario? You haven't addressed this issue.
Sleeping on the ground enabled the retention
of weapons (and tools). Remember?
Enabled? Listen dimwit. Just tell us why those that did do the
behavior would survive and reproduce and those that did not did not.
Those that did not carry weapons -- or have
them to hand at all times -- got injured or
killed. Ask anyone in Iraq or Somalia why
they carry around weapons.
Quote: You haven't done this and I predict you won't.
I've done it often. Your Alzheimer's is
getting worse.
Quote: That
immediately ramped up the threat level in all
inter-communal fights.
What are they supposedly fighting over?
What do you think the Sunnis and the Shias
are fighting over? Or the Tamils and the
other Sri Lankans . . . and so on around the
globe and all throughout recorded history?
Quote: Why would they even bother.
They wanted to live, and knew that if they
didn't fight, they'd die. Isn't all human
history good enough evidence for you?
You are as bad as the standard PA folks.
It's politically correct to say that humans
need not be violent -- so, according to
them (and you) violence never happened
not at any time in human history nor in
hominid evolution. That's what they (and
you) want to believe. So that's what you
do believe. You just have to abolish all
known facts -- and that's never a problem.
Quote: Your whole scenario relies too much on imagination and too little on
plain old natural selection.
You are almost totally ignorant of the
behaviour of all natural species.
Quote: Larger groups always
had an advantage over smaller ones, but now
it became huge.
Why? (A question you will never answer.)
With natural weapons (teeth, feet and hands)
the winner in a fight would often suffer
substantial damage. With the introduction
of weapons, the winner need not seriously
risk any hurt when killing opponents. That
made aggression highly profitable -- when
the advantage lay with the aggressors.
That advantage usually consisted of larger
numbers. The only solution was, as far as
possible, to cancel it out. That meant that
larger and larger groups were formed.
Quote: Secondly, running away got
much more difficult. They no longer lived in
the bush and few trees in the habitat were
readily climbable. Fast running was incompatible
with weapon-retention.
You're whacked. I can't make any sense of this. You're just throwing
behaviors around and hoping something sticks.
Of what exactly can't you make sense?
Quote: And puttin them on an
island in and of itself does not address this issue.
It eliminates large predators (in and of itself).
So what?
That allows ground-sleeping, weapon-retention,
Allows, yes. Necessitates, no way.
Ridiculous. As soon as the large predators
die out, the proto-hominids will leave the
trees and go wherever there is food and
water. They'll then forget all about sleeping
in trees -- and with the need to carry weapons
at all times -- bipedalism will soon evolve.
Quote: expansion into new habitats, and much else.
These are enormous changes in life-style and
will bring about great ones in morphology
and social structure.
Typical pseudoscientific statement.
Except that you can't find anything
wrong with it.
Quote: Nope. It is fairly obvious that a population
which is better at language use (other things
being equal) will do better than its opposition.
Why don't chimps talk?
Their bands are much too small to be able
to develop it (or to much need it).
Only a simpleton would suggest that group size dictated
language.
I'm certainly not claiming that. Language
evolved very slowly. It was useful, and
those better at it generally did better. But
it was rarely, on its own, a 'deciding factor'.
Quote: There's no selection with your scenario.
There's selection in every generation.
Quote: There is
virtually no communication between them.
The first stages in language were probably
in naming places and common things, for
communicating life-saving information:
"Lion under big tree, by white rock near fast
river". Every chimp band would have to
invent its own names, and codes. In other
words, that is not a language, and while
perhaps such an ability could be evolved,
we have seen nothing like it in any species.
Pure nonsense. Nothing you stated here explains why
chimps don't also have language.
It's as good an account as you are likely to
see. (Not that that says very much.)
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lee Olsen |
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Quote: Lee Olsen wrote:
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
What is obvious is the fact that you don't have any evidence for apiths
gardening gardens, nor do you have any rational reason to expect there
should be any in the first place. It is all just a childish fantasy.
I never indicated, "apiths gardening gardens." That's your delusion.
How would you like to make a very large wager on that?
How much can you afford to lose?
"gardening gardens"? Typo, It should read apiths guarding gardens. I'm
sure that since you are such a liar and love to mangle the English
language,
Me?
That's funny coming from a guy that can't even remember his own name,
eh Claudius McGinn?
Quote:
you will first off deny that a garden would be considered
"territory"?
Why would I deny this?
Because you make so many retractions one never really knows from one
day to the next what your latest position might be. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| spiznet |
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Lee Olsen wrote:
Quote: claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
What childish nonsense. I wasn't the one who made the claim that apiths
guarded gardens. The burden is on you to do the proving.
The burden is on my opponents to do the disproving.
Imagination can't be disproved.
Of course it can, you idiot. It's your vagueness that can't be
disproved.
Message-ID: <1165825208.180342.263860@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Jim McGinn: "Much of the existing evidence is consistent with
gardens/groves, etc.
Hominid fossils tend to be found in association with trees and water
nearby. And hominid food preference are consistent with such."
ROTFL
If there are trees, there must be water nearby. Elementary logic! QED!
ROTFLAEIPM
roll on the floor laughing and eaten in predatory massacre!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:41 pm |
|
|
|
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
Quote: claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1168626026.451654.106280@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Millions of species have developed new features,
and new morphologies. We know, as well as we
can know anything, the FORM of the explanation
needed.
The "FORM" of the explanation? Other than vagueness what form do you
prescribe?
When a new species evolves it, nearly
always, acquires some new feature, or set
of features. Their function is usually fairly
clear. We can see how, for example, a
cheetah is designed for a very high speed
short-distant chase, often in daylight.
There is usually little mystery about the
explanation -- the benefits of the feature(s),
in that context, are obvious.
For a whole variety of reasons (largely
political -- with a small 'p') this does not
apply to humans. Scarcely ANY human
feature has found an evolutionary
explanation.
It seems like you're saying that since hominid
social/intellectual/cultural adaptations are not, "obvious," that,
therefrore, we should ignore them. This is just stupid.
Quote: However, it is particularly the case with
large brains and with language.
Yeah, so?
Quote:
The only form I employ is that of natural selection. IOW,
I keep it simple.
That's a joke. You can't explain even the
most simple things. You immediately
retreat in the a dense mass of complicated
and quite meaningless verbiage.
Dimwits avoid complication.
Quote:
Just state what individuals with what variants of
behavior and morphology will survive and thrive under *specific*
situational conditions. In contrast you have nothing but vague notions
in which your audience is required to fill-in the details according to
your imagination. Why would larger groups emerge on an island? Why
would they, supposedly, begin to pick up clubs and collectively fight
other groups of conspecifics?
Fighting with conspecifics is what very
many species do.
Yes. And, as is fully explained in my hypothesis hominids *also* have
experienced a form of conspecific competition (interspecies
competition: competition between members of the same species) that no
other species have experienced. See the two posts below
Take a look at a few wild
Quote: species sometime -- of mammals, birds, fish,
reptiles, insects . . whatever.
, infant
altriciality, naked skin, and the move to
sleeping on the ground.
My hypothesis is consistent with all of the evidence (if any) related
to these factors.
It simply ignores them, as though they did
not exist.
Specifically?
Eh? How can I be more specific? You ignore
almost ALL distinctive human features.
You provide NO explanation. How do you
want me to point at your nothingnesses?
It's your delusion.
Quote:
There is no sense to seeking to provide
an explanation of a complex phenomenon,
when you can't do so for relatively simple
ones that, almost certainly, evolved much
earlier.
Bullshit. Pure pseudoscience. You have no basis for assuming some
attributes evolved later.
Brain size.
Brain size doesn't dictate behavior.
Do you admit that brain size has increased
-- fairly steadily -- throughout hominid
evolution?
Of course.
Quote: Do you have ANY explanation
for that?
Of course. I've already presented it and you were unable to dispute.
See below.
Quote:
I have stated the rationale -- the isolation of
a pre-hominid population (of 'chimps') on a
fairly large island, where the predators died
out (largely through the usual natural causes).
Why large groups? IOW, why do those that prefer large groups have a
selective advantage over those that prefer small groups in your
scenario? You haven't addressed this issue.
Sleeping on the ground enabled the retention
of weapons (and tools). Remember?
Enabled? Listen dimwit. Just tell us why those that did do the
behavior would survive and reproduce and those that did not did not.
Those that did not carry weapons -- or have
them to hand at all times -- got injured or
killed. Ask anyone in Iraq or Somalia why
they carry around weapons.
No, retard. Start with chimps in late miocene ecology. Tell us why
those that are hominid ancestors survived in higher numbers than those
that did not have the behavior you subscribe.
Quote:
You haven't done this and I predict you won't.
Done what? You have nothing but vague dimwitted notions. You're
deliberately ignorant about the role that climate environment plays in
a scenario. There is absolutely no reason that chimps isolated on
predator free island would pick up weapons. It's a ridiculous notion
that underscores your ignorance about putting together a selective
scenario. That's the thing. There is no selection in your scenario.
You just declare that the adopted a new behavior. No selection. No
attempt to make sense of it.
Quote:
I've done it often. Your Alzheimer's is
getting worse.
That
immediately ramped up the threat level in all
inter-communal fights.
What are they supposedly fighting over?
What do you think the Sunnis and the Shias
are fighting over? Or the Tamils and the
other Sri Lankans . . . and so on around the
globe and all throughout recorded history?
My hypothesis describes the SELECTIVE factors that indicate why this
behavior first emerged. You do nothing but make vague analogies to the
evidence.
Quote:
Why would they even bother.
They wanted to live, and knew that if they
didn't fight, they'd die. Isn't all human
history good enough evidence for you?
You're such a dimwit you don't realize that you've just repeated the
old killer ape hypothesis. Accordingly this would indicate that humans
are inheritly massacre oriented. If you didn't permantently have your
head up your ass you'd realize that this is inconsistent with the
evidence.
Quote:
You are as bad as the standard PA folks.
It's politically correct to say that humans
need not be violent
The nature of human violence is distinctive of that of any other
species. My hypothesis explains the distinction. Your hypothesis
leaves us wondering why all species didn't take a similar evolutionary
path as humans.
You can't build a hypothesis based on ignorance of the evidence.
Quote: -- so, according to
them (and you) violence never happened
not at any time in human history nor in
hominid evolution. That's what they (and
you) want to believe. So that's what you
do believe. You just have to abolish all
known facts -- and that's never a problem.
No, retard. Human violence is distinctive. This indicates distinctive
selective factors in the hominid lineage. My hypothesis explains the
situational factors that underly the these distinctive situational
factors. Your hypothesis, in stark contrast, involves us taking your
word that the things you say happened did. There is nothing natural
about your hypothesis. There is nothing unnatural about mine.
Quote:
Your whole scenario relies too much on imagination and too little on
plain old natural selection.
You are almost totally ignorant of the
behaviour of all natural species.
Really? How so?
Quote:
Larger groups always
had an advantage over smaller ones, but now
it became huge.
Why? (A question you will never answer.)
With natural weapons (teeth, feet and hands)
the winner in a fight would often suffer
substantial damage.
Gawd you're an idiot. THIS IS TRUE FOR CHIMPS IN RAINFOREST HABITAT,
YOU MENTAL RETARD! THERE'S NOTHING DISTINCTIVE ABOUT THE SELECTIVE
FACTORS OF YOUR SCENARIO!!!
With the introduction
Quote: of weapons, the winner need not seriously
risk any hurt when killing opponents. That
made aggression highly profitable -- when
the advantage lay with the aggressors.
That advantage usually consisted of larger
numbers. The only solution was, as far as
possible, to cancel it out. That meant that
larger and larger groups were formed.
You're too simpleminded. Now tell us why everything you stated here
did not take place for chimps in rainforest habitat. You're too
dimwitted to even realize that these are the questions you have to
answer.
Quote:
Secondly, running away got
much more difficult. They no longer lived in
the bush and few trees in the habitat were
readily climbable. Fast running was incompatible
with weapon-retention.
You're whacked. I can't make any sense of this. You're just throwing
behaviors around and hoping something sticks.
Of what exactly can't you make sense?
It ignores the issue. Tell us why everything you stated here did not
take place for chimps in rainforest habitat. You're too dimwitted to
even realize that these are the questions you have to answer.
Quote:
And puttin them on an
island in and of itself does not address this issue.
It eliminates large predators (in and of itself).
So what?
That allows ground-sleeping, weapon-retention,
Allows, yes. Necessitates, no way.
Ridiculous. As soon as the large predators
die out, the proto-hominids will leave the
trees and go wherever there is food and
water. They'll then forget all about sleeping
in trees
Okay. No big deal.
Quote: -- and with the need to carry weapons
at all times
Give it up, retard. You've provide no rationale or them to adopt
weapons. This is just your delusion.
-- bipedalism will soon evolve.
Quote:
expansion into new habitats, and much else.
These are enormous changes in life-style and
will bring about great ones in morphology
and social structure.
Typical pseudoscientific statement.
Except that you can't find anything
wrong with it.
Typical dimwitted humans-got-social thinking. No selection. Just,
humans got social. This demonstrates that not only do you not have a
hypothesis but you don't even know how to properly frame the issues of
hominid evolution.
As selective scenario is suppose to involve selection, retard. Not
your unqualified declarations of past behavior.
Quote:
Nope. It is fairly obvious that a population
which is better at language use (other things
being equal) will do better than its opposition.
Why don't chimps talk?
Their bands are much too small to be able
to develop it (or to much need it).
Only a simpleton would suggest that group size dictated
language.
I'm certainly not claiming that. Language
evolved very slowly. It was useful, and
those better at it generally did better. But
it was rarely, on its own, a 'deciding factor'.
Pull your head out of your ass. Be honest with yourself. The truth is
your scenario fails to explain why language would have been adaptive.
Quote:
There's no selection with your scenario.
There's selection in every generation.
What, we're supposedly supposed to take your word on all this. You
have no selective scenario, you idiot.
Quote:
There is
virtually no communication between them.
The first stages in language were probably
in naming places and common things, for
communicating life-saving information:
"Lion under big tree, by white rock near fast
river". Every chimp band would have to
invent its own names, and codes. In other
words, that is not a language, and while
perhaps such an ability could be evolved,
we have seen nothing like it in any species.
Pure nonsense. Nothing you stated here explains why
chimps don't also have language.
It's as good an account as you are likely to
see. (Not that that says very much.)
It's no account at all.
The following was first published on SAP Sept. 30th 2002
Economic Competition of Apith Communities
http://tinyurl.com/y23tc5
"Peter F" <fell_spamtrap...@ozemail.com.au> wrote
Quote: intense intra-species competition
There certainly is intra-species competition in my
scenario. But this is true for all species at all
times. What is different about the intra-species
competition in my scenario is that the competition
is between different communities. These apith
communities (which are comprised of multiple bands
or families) are geographically separate from each
other. As such, they were largely unaware of each
others existence and they were completely unaware
that they were in competition with other communities.
This may seem counterintuitive because usually when
we think of competition we think of direct contact,
fighting, etc. How, then, could they have been in
competition with each other? The answer to this
question is that these apith communities were in
economic competition with each other.
In other words, in the same sense that extant human
communities are in ecomonic competition with each
other, town to town, city to city, state to state,
country to country, these first hominid communities
were in economic competition with each other. How
could communities comprised of multiple bands of
chimps be able to compete with other bands of chimps
if all of the members of these communities possessed
the limited mental capacity of chimps? In other
words, what type of behavior would cause the economic
success of one's own community and, at the same time,
cause the economic downfall of one's neighboring
community? The answer to this question is simple
once you understand the role the environment plays
with respect to being the main selective factor in
this environment.
More precisely, the main selective factor in this
environment was seasonal scarcity. What causes
seasonal scarcity? Two things, one of which, seasonal
dessication (dryness) was completely out of their
control. The other cause of seasonal scarcity was not
completely out of their control, it involved the fact
that with the onset of seasonal dessication in their
greater environment other species would come flooding
into their relatively well watered and well treed
community sites and begin to deplete the resources.
So now we can answer the question we asked above: what
type of behavior would cause the economic success of
one's own community and, at the same time, cause the
economic downfall of one's neighboring community? The
answer is that any behaviors that would prevent
inmmigration of other species to one's own community
site would preserve the resources in one's own
community site and, at one and the same time, increase
the migratory pressure on neighboring communities in
that the inmigrating species will follow the path of
least resistance to their foraging goals. As is more
explcitly explained in my hypothesis, these behaviors
would have involved territorialistic, mob oriented,
rock-throwing, stick wielding behaviors that would scare
off and prevent the inmigration of other species. So,
what it comes down to is that communities comprised of
individuals with collectively territorialistically
motivated behaviors would be better able to control their
borders and, as a result, more likely to survive periods
of seasonal scarcity than communities comprised of
individuals and bands that lacked these behaviors.
So, why bipedalism? Now the answer to this question is
obvious. Bipedalism enabled the mob-oriented
stick-wielding, rock-throwing behavior that, as explained
above, would have been so adaptive in this habitat.
Quote: of a kind where great numbers of bands of 'chimpy'
pre-humans battered and out-smarted each other into
many a mutually exclusive selective oblivion and
success.
Outsmarting each other is, really, not part of my
scenario. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:51 pm |
|
|
|
|
Lee Olsen wrote:
Quote: They are only up in the trees when predators are in the immediate
vicinity, dimwit.
How stupid can you get? What if the predator decides not to leave?
Lucy then will come down and beat him up?
What a plainly inane question. I suppose in those instances the apith
in question would be out of luck. Do you have a point?
Quote: I can't figure out what your point is. Assuming you have one.
Niccolo Caldararo: "You really need to do some reading (and I've said
this before). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make statements which most of us know are unsupported by
the data."
Who is Niccolo Caldararo? Why would anybody care about his opinion,
dimwit.
No response.
Why would you quote the opinion of somebody that has no expertise in
this field?
Quote: Niccolo Caldararo is a guy who can see through an illiterate buffoon
like you.
We're suppose to take your word on this? Fat chance that.
Quote: You might try going to the library for the first time in your life and
check out a book called BONES by Lew Binford.
Read it. It's conclusions are dimwitted.
Hearing voices again?
Feel free to relay to us the brilliant insights that you, supposedly,
gleened from your reading of this book.
No response.
Quote: Who said anything about his conclusions? I think
most of them stink also.
Then why did you present it?
Can't you read, there is a difference between observed facts and
conclusions drawn from them. Even an idiot like you should be able to
figure that out.
Keep in mind I don't have direct access to your imagination.
Quote:
That doesn't made his observations about
preadators hunting at night false. These can verified elsewhere:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2519leopards.html
NARRATOR: Tonight, on NOVA: As daylight fades, a silent hunter stalks.
For the first time ever, under the cover of complete darkness, see her
strike. With NOVA's special cameras, go on the hunt with Africa's most
successful big cat. Enter the hidden world of leopards of the night.
Do you have a point?
Yes, I falsified yours.
How so?
Quote:
Or check any good library (which I know you will never do). So much for
your lunatic idea apiths guarded territory or gardens day or night.
Specifically?
Your evidence that they did, specifically?
Specifically?
Quote:
Let's face it, your silly
hypothesis is the funniest comedy to hit sap since Ed's MAOAC.
Humans currently are effective at defending territory from hebivores.
Why would it have been different for the earliest hominids?
How early? The South African caves prove apiths could not defend any
better than antelope.
Prove? How so? As usual you're just making up facts to fit your
preconceived notions.
Niccolo Caldararo: "You really need to do some reading (and I've said
this before). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make statements which most of us know are unsupported by
the data."
Can't answer the question. You're a fool.
Message-ID: <1164704227.718683.98...
/groups/unlock?msg=04fbb3c26ba8e19a&hl=en&_done=/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/browse_frm/thread/3597d023d7604931%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26>@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com
Jim McGinn: "Both tigers and lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."
"The analysis shows that the sabertooth cats were a sister group to
the modern cats--that is, they diverged early on from the ancestors of
modern cats and are not closely related to any living felid species."
Barnett et al.: "Evolution of the extinct Sabretooths and the American
cheetah-like cat" Current Biology, Vol. 15, August 9, 2005.
Jim McGinn: "Well then I guess I stand corrected on this point."
Niccolo Caldararo: "You really need to do some reading (and I've said
this before). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make statements which most of us know are unsupported by
the data."
Does your lack of intelligence means I need to repeat the same
citations continuously?
Homo e could. Any thing else you would like to
know?
Do you use a crystal ball?
Nope, just a library.
Why do you never include speific references that apply to your point?
Vagueness does not a hypothesis make.
Barnett et al.: "Evolution of the extinct Sabretooths and the American
cheetah-like cat" Current Biology, Vol. 15, August 9, 2005.
Do you want the entire list repeated as an admission of your senile
mind?
Have you always been a lying asshole, or do you only do it when
trolling on sap?
You're such a desperate fool all you can do is keep repeating points
that I've already conceded. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:36 pm |
|
|
|
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
Quote: claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1168626026.451654.106280@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Millions of species have developed new features,
and new morphologies. We know, as well as we
can know anything, the FORM of the explanation
needed.
The "FORM" of the explanation? Other than vagueness what form do you
prescribe?
When a new species evolves it, nearly
always, acquires some new feature, or set
of features. Their function is usually fairly
clear. We can see how, for example, a
cheetah is designed for a very high speed
short-distant chase, often in daylight.
There is usually little mystery about the
explanation -- the benefits of the feature(s),
in that context, are obvious.
For a whole variety of reasons (largely
political -- with a small 'p') this does not
apply to humans. Scarcely ANY human
feature has found an evolutionary
explanation.
However, it is particularly the case with
large brains and with language.
Because of my hypothesis this is no longer the case.
You are making a dimwitted argument here, Paul. You are saying that
since IYO social/cultural/communicative adaptations are difficult that
therefore we should ignore them. This is just stupid.
Quote:
The only form I employ is that of natural selection. IOW,
I keep it simple.
That's a joke. You can't explain even the
most simple things. You immediately
retreat in the a dense mass of complicated
and quite meaningless verbiage.
That it's meaningless to you is reflective of your lack of competence
in this subject matter.
Quote: Just state what individuals with what variants of
behavior and morphology will survive and thrive under *specific*
situational conditions. In contrast you have nothing but vague notions
in which your audience is required to fill-in the details according to
your imagination. Why would larger groups emerge on an island? Why
would they, supposedly, begin to pick up clubs and collectively fight
other groups of conspecifics?
Fighting with conspecifics is what very
many species do.
Yes, and humans do it in a way that is distinctive from any other
species, bar none. My hypothesis addresses the evolutionary origins of
this. You don't. You just assume it started happening.
Quote: Take a look at a few wild
species sometime -- of mammals, birds, fish,
reptiles, insects . . whatever.
, infant
altriciality, naked skin, and the move to
sleeping on the ground.
My hypothesis is consistent with all of the evidence (if any) related
to these factors.
It simply ignores them, as though they did
not exist.
Specifically?
Eh? How can I be more specific? You ignore
almost ALL distinctive human features.
Name one.
Quote: You provide NO explanation. How do you
want me to point at your nothingnesses?
You can't. That's my point. You have no dispute with any part of my
hypothesis.
Quote:
There is no sense to seeking to provide
an explanation of a complex phenomenon,
when you can't do so for relatively simple
ones that, almost certainly, evolved much
earlier.
Bullshit. Pure pseudoscience. You have no basis for assuming some
attributes evolved later.
Brain size.
Brain size doesn't dictate behavior.
Do you admit that brain size has increased
-- fairly steadily -- throughout hominid
evolution? Do you have ANY explanation
for that?
Yes and yes. See my post entitled economic competition of apith
communities.
Quote: I have stated the rationale -- the isolation of
a pre-hominid population (of 'chimps') on a
fairly large island, where the predators died
out (largely through the usual natural causes).
Why large groups? IOW, why do those that prefer large groups have a
selective advantage over those that prefer small groups in your
scenario? You haven't addressed this issue.
Sleeping on the ground enabled the retention
of weapons (and tools). Remember?
Enabled? Listen dimwit. Just tell us why those that did do the
behavior would survive and reproduce and those that did not did not.
Those that did not carry weapons -- or have
them to hand at all times -- got injured or
killed. Ask anyone in Iraq or Somalia why
they carry around weapons.
God you're a dimwit. Where's your evolutionary scenario that would
indicate why chimps would suddenly begin carrying weapons. You have
nothing but vagueness.
Quote: You haven't done this and I predict you won't.
I've done it often. Your Alzheimer's is
getting worse.
That
immediately ramped up the threat level in all
inter-communal fights.
What are they supposedly fighting over?
What do you think the Sunnis and the Shias
are fighting over? Or the Tamils and the
other Sri Lankans . . . and so on around the
globe and all throughout recorded history?
Why would they even bother.
They wanted to live, and knew that if they
didn't fight, they'd die. Isn't all human
history good enough evidence for you?
You are as bad as the standard PA folks.
It's politically correct to say that humans
need not be violent -- so, according to
them (and you) violence never happened
not at any time in human history nor in
hominid evolution. That's what they (and
you) want to believe. So that's what you
do believe. You just have to abolish all
known facts -- and that's never a problem.
Your whole scenario relies too much on imagination and too little on
plain old natural selection.
You are almost totally ignorant of the
behaviour of all natural species.
You are ignorant of what is required for an evolutionary scenario.
Quote: Larger groups always
had an advantage over smaller ones, but now
it became huge.
Why? (A question you will never answer.)
With natural weapons (teeth, feet and hands)
the winner in a fight would often suffer
substantial damage. With the introduction
of weapons, the winner need not seriously
risk any hurt when killing opponents. That
made aggression highly profitable -- when
the advantage lay with the aggressors.
That advantage usually consisted of larger
numbers. The only solution was, as far as
possible, to cancel it out. That meant that
larger and larger groups were formed.
Why?
Quote: Secondly, running away got
much more difficult. They no longer lived in
the bush and few trees in the habitat were
readily climbable. Fast running was incompatible
with weapon-retention.
You're whacked. I can't make any sense of this. You're just throwing
behaviors around and hoping something sticks.
Of what exactly can't you make sense?
And puttin them on an
island in and of itself does not address this issue.
It eliminates large predators (in and of itself).
So what?
That allows ground-sleeping, weapon-retention,
Allows, yes. Necessitates, no way.
Ridiculous. As soon as the large predators
die out, the proto-hominids will leave the
trees and go wherever there is food and
water. They'll then forget all about sleeping
in trees -- and with the need to carry weapons
at all times -- bipedalism will soon evolve.
expansion into new habitats, and much else.
These are enormous changes in life-style and
will bring about great ones in morphology
and social structure.
Typical pseudoscientific statement.
Except that you can't find anything
wrong with it.
Nope. It is fairly obvious that a population
which is better at language use (other things
being equal) will do better than its opposition.
Why don't chimps talk?
Their bands are much too small to be able
to develop it (or to much need it).
Only a simpleton would suggest that group size dictated
language.
I'm certainly not claiming that. Language
evolved very slowly. It was useful, and
those better at it generally did better. But
it was rarely, on its own, a 'deciding factor'.
There's no selection with your scenario.
There's selection in every generation.
There is
virtually no communication between them.
The first stages in language were probably
in naming places and common things, for
communicating life-saving information:
"Lion under big tree, by white rock near fast
river". Every chimp band would have to
invent its own names, and codes. In other
words, that is not a language, and while
perhaps such an ability could be evolved,
we have seen nothing like it in any species.
Pure nonsense. Nothing you stated here explains why
chimps don't also have language.
It's as good an account as you are likely to
see. (Not that that says very much.)
Your solution for why hominids have distinct interspecies (between
members of the same species) conflict is to simply state that it
started happening. My solution deals with the underlying ecological
reasons why it began to happen:
What follows was first published in 2002
Peter F" <fell_spamtrap...@ozemail.com.au> wrote
Quote: intense intra-species competition
There certainly is intra-species competition in my
scenario. But this is true for all species at all
times. What is different about the intra-species
competition in my scenario is that the competition
is between different communities. These apith
communities (which are comprised of multiple bands
or families) are geographically separate from each
other. As such, they were largely unaware of each
others existence and they were completely unaware
that they were in competition with other communities.
This may seem counterintuitive because usually when
we think of competition we think of direct contact,
fighting, etc. How, then, could they have been in
competition with each other? The answer to this
question is that these apith communities were in
economic competition with each other.
In other words, in the same sense that extant human
communities are in ecomonic competition with each
other, town to town, city to city, state to state,
country to country, these first hominid communities
were in economic competition with each other. How
could communities comprised of multiple bands of
chimps be able to compete with other bands of chimps
if all of the members of these communities possessed
the limited mental capacity of chimps? In other
words, what type of behavior would cause the economic
success of one's own community and, at the same time,
cause the economic downfall of one's neighboring
community? The answer to this question is simple
once you understand the role the environment plays
with respect to being the main selective factor in
this environment.
More precisely, the main selective factor in this
environment was seasonal scarcity. What causes
seasonal scarcity? Two things, one of which, seasonal
dessication (dryness) was completely out of their
control. The other cause of seasonal scarcity was not
completely out of their control, it involved the fact
that with the onset of seasonal dessication in their
greater environment other species would come flooding
into their relatively well watered and well treed
community sites and begin to deplete the resources.
So now we can answer the question we asked above: what
type of behavior would cause the economic success of
one's own community and, at the same time, cause the
economic downfall of one's neighboring community? The
answer is that any behaviors that would prevent
inmmigration of other species to one's own community
site would preserve the resources in one's own
community site and, at one and the same time, increase
the migratory pressure on neighboring communities in
that the inmigrating species will follow the path of
least resistance to their foraging goals. As is more
explcitly explained in my hypothesis, these behaviors
would have involved territorialistic, mob oriented,
rock-throwing, stick wielding behaviors that would scare
off and prevent the inmigration of other species. So,
what it comes down to is that communities comprised of
individuals with collectively territorialistically
motivated behaviors would be better able to control their
borders and, as a result, more likely to survive periods
of seasonal scarcity than communities comprised of
individuals and bands that lacked these behaviors.
So, why bipedalism? Now the answer to this question is
obvious. Bipedalism enabled the mob-oriented
stick-wielding, rock-throwing behavior that, as explained
above, would have been so adaptive in this habitat.
Quote: of a kind where great numbers of bands of 'chimpy'
pre-humans battered and out-smarted each other into
many a mutually exclusive selective oblivion and
success.
Outsmarting each other is, really, not part of my
scenario.
Quote: Nothing wrong with that theoretical thinking, IMO.
On the other hand, many a dead-serious bombast coupled
with the fondness for vapid artificial argumentation,
have occasionally made me simultaneously
nauseous and fascinated.
Truth can be nauseating. (Case in point, if you've read
a biography on Darwin you'd know that nausea was a
constant in this life.)
Jim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lee Olsen |
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Quote: Lee Olsen wrote:
They are only up in the trees when predators are in the immediate
vicinity, dimwit.
How stupid can you get? What if the predator decides not to leave?
Lucy then will come down and beat him up?
What a plainly inane question. I suppose in those instances the apith
in question would be out of luck.
Do you ever tire of making retractions? If they couldn't guard one, it
is obvious they couldn't guard any.
Quote:
I can't figure out what your point is. Assuming you have one.
Niccolo Caldararo: "You really need to do some reading (and I've said
this before). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make statements which most of us know are unsupported by
the data."
Who is Niccolo Caldararo? Why would anybody care about his opinion,
dimwit.
Who the hell is Claudius Jim Denk McGinn, other than an alias for
someone too embarassed to use his real name? Coward. But then again, if
I posted the lunatic drivel you did, I would change my name also.
Nothing to respond to....
Quote:
Why would you quote the opinion of somebody that has no expertise in
this field?
Obviously he has a lot more expertise than you do.....
Message-ID: <1165825208.180342.263860@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn: "Much of the existing evidence is consistent with
gardens/groves, etc.
Hominid fossils tend to be found in association with trees and water
nearby. And hominid food preference are consistent with such."
Have you been mentally ill long?
Quote:
Niccolo Caldararo is a guy who can see through an illiterate buffoon
like you.
We're suppose to take your word on this? Fat chance that.
Says the loon imagining apiths guarded gardens.
Quote:
You might try going to the library for the first time in your life and
check out a book called BONES by Lew Binford.
Read it. It's conclusions are dimwitted.
Hearing voices again?
Feel free to relay to us the brilliant insights that you, supposedly,
gleened from your reading of this book.
No response.
You can't read? He wrote the book once, how many people have to write
something before you get it?
Quote:
Who said anything about his conclusions? I think
most of them stink also.
Then why did you present it?
Can't you read, there is a difference between observed facts and
conclusions drawn from them. Even an idiot like you should be able to
figure that out.
Keep in mind I don't have direct access to your imagination.
You certainly have access to plenty of imagination of your own, why
would you need mine?
Quote:
That doesn't made his observations about
preadators hunting at night false. These can verified elsewhere:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2519leopards.html
NARRATOR: Tonight, on NOVA: As daylight fades, a silent hunter stalks.
For the first time ever, under the cover of complete darkness, see her
strike. With NOVA's special cameras, go on the hunt with Africa's most
successful big cat. Enter the hidden world of leopards of the night.
Do you have a point?
Yes, I falsified yours.
How so?
How not so?
Quote:
Or check any good library (which I know you will never do). So much for
your lunatic idea apiths guarded territory or gardens day or night.
Specifically?
Your evidence that they did, specifically?
Specifically?
Specifically?
Quote:
Let's face it, your silly
hypothesis is the funniest comedy to hit sap since Ed's MAOAC.
Humans currently are effective at defending territory from hebivores.
Why would it have been different for the earliest hominids?
How early? The South African caves prove apiths could not defend any
better than antelope.
Prove? How so? As usual you're just making up facts to fit your
preconceived notions.
Niccolo Caldararo: "You really need to do some reading (and I've said
this before). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make statements which most of us know are unsupported by
the data."
Can't answer the question. You're a fool.
Message-ID: <1164704227.718683.98...
/groups/unlock?msg=04fbb3c26ba8e19a&hl=en&_done=/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/browse_frm/thread/3597d023d7604931%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26>@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com
Jim McGinn: "Both tigers and lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."
"The analysis shows that the sabertooth cats were a sister group to
the modern cats--that is, they diverged early on from the ancestors of
| | |