 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Anthropology - Paleo Forum » Meet "Ardi"... |
|
Page 3 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| deowll... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Paul Crowley" <dsfdsfdsfs at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote in message
news:hbc2l0$tm2$1 at (no spam) aioe.org...
[quote:db56e75ffa]deowll wrote:
"Lee Olsen" <paleocity at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd7ed3c0-ead4-42c9-bbc1-465fe2c9fadd at (no spam) b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 16, 2:47 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
Not a chance. Huge amounts of wood grows every
year -- and has grown during the past few million
years. Barely a trace of it remains in the fossil
record.
Liar, traces of wood are found at archaeological sites
everywhere, except where wood wasn't growing in the first
place. What do you think coal and petrified wood is? Pollen
and grass roots are even found at savanna sites. What are you
doing here, troll?
It's like talking to a small child -- with not
the faintest conception of geological timescales.
How many metric tonnes of wood are produced
annually per hectare in woodland? I don't know,
but let's say 'five'. If the site is productive
for 2 million years, that 10 million tonnes of
wood. Imagine a pile that high on one hectare.
Now see how much actually remains.
That's what I call "barely a trace".
As least as much to the point the stuff was
clearly showing up in the pictures showing what
was going on and could be found at the location
in which the remains of Ardi were being found.
There was fossil wood all over the place.
They did say that the cellular structure was by
and large not being preserved so you couldn't
identify the species in most cases but for our
purposes all we need is the shape.
They were mostly looking at small grains.
There is not a hope of establishing any
kind of substantial shape in such remains.
That is all I am saying.
[/quote:db56e75ffa]
You should have looked at the pictures posted on line before you started
giving openions. There were sizeable pieces of fossilized wood mixed in
among the sediment. It looked like you could collect a bucket full in a few
minutes if that was your objective.
[quote:db56e75ffa]By the way I was just reading John Hawks and he
doesn't seem to buy the idea that Ardi was a
bipid.
Where does he say, or suggest, that?
[/quote:db56e75ffa]
You could look at his blog like I did but I'll try to list the main points.
The limb dimensions of Ardi match up with an old world monkey and White and
Lovejoy both think Ardi walked on all fours on limbs. Ardi does have a thumb
on its foot. The legs aren't beefed up for carrying the entire body weight
so far as Hawks could tell. He also isn't sure about the reconstruction of
the highly fragmented pelvis though even if you change things around it
still beats a chimp pelvis hands down.
I think he may be right on in thinking that Ardi could have walked around on
all fours with no problems so I don't think you can just discount what he
says.
Let's look at chimps. They knuckle walk except for three that seemed to
prefer walking erect at least when in good health. Jocko is the best known.
One is dead and one is a zoo somewhere in Asia. Jocko's genes have been
tested and he is classed as a common chimp. The only abnormality that might
explain his behavior is the fact that he can completely straighten his legs.
He is supposed to have a small head for his body size but the only thing
that explains walking erect is that one trivial difference. No primatologist
looking at the skeleton of Jocko would know that he preferred life as a
biped.
White and Lovejoy are absolutely right that Ardi was much better adapted
for walking erect than any chimp including the three we know habitually did
walk erect. The pelvis and feet would have made it vastly easier to walk or
run as a biped than any chimp. The back is a bit of a guess but it should
have been better and the knees are?
John Hawks is absolutely right in thinking that there is nothing in the
animals anatomy that proves it was a biped. That is it should have been able
to scamper around on all fours with no problems.
That is the problem and one that was certain to show up sooner or later. We
now have an animal that could have been a biped if it wanted to be but we
have no way of telling for sure how often it wanted to walk as a biped
because it could have gotten along just fine on all fours.
There that should clear things up nicely. Clear as mud that is. The only way
to be sure is a track way and even then you might find tracks showing one
animal walking on all fours and another as a biped.
[quote:db56e75ffa]
Paul.[/quote:db56e75ffa] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 3:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 18, 3:50 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote:03eca00d84]OK, I should not have said 'not a chance'.
[/quote:03eca00d84]
You should not have said anything at all, your posts
are total imagination, you simply make things up as
you go along. Your ignorance is appalling.
[quote:03eca00d84]I should have said "it's around a 100
million to one chance". IOW, if I were
you I would not expect to find one.
[/quote:03eca00d84]
How do you think the wood spears were preserved in
Gemany and at Hoxne and the carved wood at Kalambo
Falls? Duh.
Now you bainless moron, if you only find one in a 100 million
of the wood spears because they are a rare event, then
1) it was not likely they were the only spears made, especially
when they have been confirmed in more than one country.
2) experiments have shown that not all stone tools were used
for butchering, some are best used for wood working.
Stone tools do not rot like wood, so if you find the wood-working
tools you can still infer many spears have been lost.
The question is, just how far back did this happen?
Crowley: "To avoid doubt, I am saying that early hominids
started to use weapons (i.e. clubs, crude 'spears',
stones) mainly made of wood."
You can't infer that because there is no early record of stone
wood-working tools, hominids are far older than known tools.
Nor is there evidence for "crude" early stone tools.
Start your 'imagination' machinery running when they do. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Crowley... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 4:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
deowll wrote:
[quote:e2c613dddb]It's like talking to a small child -- with not
the faintest conception of geological timescales.
How many metric tonnes of wood are produced
annually per hectare in woodland? I don't know,
but let's say 'five'. If the site is productive
for 2 million years, that 10 million tonnes of
wood. Imagine a pile that high on one hectare.
Now see how much actually remains.
That's what I call "barely a trace".
They were mostly looking at small grains.
There is not a hope of establishing any
kind of substantial shape in such remains.
That is all I am saying.
You should have looked at the pictures posted on line
before you started giving openions.
[/quote:e2c613dddb]
I did not see any pictures 'posted on line'.
And thanks for the URLs.
[quote:e2c613dddb]There were sizeable
pieces of fossilized wood mixed in among the sediment.
It looked like you could collect a bucket full in a few
minutes if that was your objective.
[/quote:e2c613dddb]
Trees usually end as large lumps of wood,
before nearly all of them rot to dust. But
what is the chance (a) that any lump of
wood is likely to have first been taken by
a hominid and shaped into a form that is
_recognisable_ as a club or other weapon;
and (b) is fossilised in that shape, and
(c) survives in that form to the present
day.
OK, I should not have said 'not a chance'.
I should have said "it's around a 100
million to one chance". IOW, if I were
you I would not expect to find one.
[quote:e2c613dddb]By the way I was just reading John Hawks and he
doesn't seem to buy the idea that Ardi was a
bipid.
Where does he say, or suggest, that?
You could look at his blog like I did
[/quote:e2c613dddb]
I did look at his blog and found nothing
along the lines of what you say you found.
I was hoping that you would have quoted
the words that gave you that impression.
I see you failed to find them. In many
ways that's understandable. But at least
be open about it. I have never see John
Hawks in a state so full of confusion.
He does not know what he is saying from
one sentence to the next.
[quote:e2c613dddb]but I'll try to list the main points.
[/quote:e2c613dddb]
There is no remotely sensible collection
of 'main points' -- neither in the original
papers, nor in Hawks, nor in your summary.
[quote:e2c613dddb]The limb dimensions of Ardi match up with an old world
monkey and White and Lovejoy both think Ardi walked on
all fours on limbs.
[/quote:e2c613dddb]
Do you mean " . . walked on all fours on
_tree_ limbs" . . ?
[quote:e2c613dddb]Ardi does have a thumb on its foot. The legs aren't
beefed up for carrying the entire body weight so far as
Hawks could tell.
[/quote:e2c613dddb]
So what the hell is the point of the bipedal
feet, bipedal pelvis, etc.?
[quote:e2c613dddb]He also isn't sure about the reconstruction of the
highly fragmented pelvis though even if you change
things around it still beats a chimp pelvis hands down.
[/quote:e2c613dddb]
Beat it for what?
[quote:e2c613dddb]I think he may be right on in thinking that Ardi could
have walked around on all fours with no problems so I
don't think you can just discount what he says.
[/quote:e2c613dddb]
WHERE does he say that? (Hint: this is the bit
where you go through the text, find the words,
and quote them.) Btw, we are not talking about
walking along tree branches -- where four limbs
used in every way possible will be needed --
we are talking about moving along the ground.
[quote:e2c613dddb]Let's look at chimps. They knuckle walk except for
three that seemed to prefer walking erect at least when
in good health. Jocko is the best known. One is dead
and one is a zoo somewhere in Asia. Jocko's genes have
been tested and he is classed as a common chimp. The
only abnormality that might explain his behavior is the
fact that he can completely straighten his legs. He is
supposed to have a small head for his body size but the
only thing that explains walking erect is that one
trivial difference. No primatologist looking at the
skeleton of Jocko would know that he preferred life as
a biped.
[/quote:e2c613dddb]
'Jocko' is a name I have seen only in your
posts. I'm not even going to do a Google
search. The antics of a one human-kept
chimp have very little bearing on the
behaviour of a wild species in a particular
niche in the natural world.
[quote:e2c613dddb]White and Lovejoy are absolutely right that Ardi was
much better adapted for walking erect than any chimp
including the three we know habitually did walk erect.
The pelvis and feet would have made it vastly easier to
walk or run as a biped
[/quote:e2c613dddb]
Surely no one claims that Ardi could run
as a biped?
A moment ago you were (following Hawks)
suggesting it could barely stand bipedally.
OK -- what you are doing is reflecting the
hopeless confusion that surrounds this
fossil. Just admit it.
[quote:e2c613dddb]than any chimp. The back is a
bit of a guess but it should have been better and the
knees are?
John Hawks is absolutely right in thinking that there
is nothing in the animals anatomy that proves it was a
biped. That is it should have been able to scamper
around on all fours with no problems.
[/quote:e2c613dddb]
Read your last two paragraphs again. Do you
not see a contradiction?
This kind of 'thinking' comes from a almost
complete absence of any kind of conceptual
framework. You (and PA people generally) have
not the faintest idea as to what is possible
or desirable. Anything goes -- in all manner
of possible fantasy worlds.
[quote:e2c613dddb]That is the problem and one that was certain to show up
sooner or later. We now have an animal that could have
been a biped if it wanted to be but we have no way of
telling for sure how often it wanted to walk as a biped
because it could have gotten along just fine on all
fours.
[/quote:e2c613dddb]
Hopeless -- and beyond hopeless.
Surely you (and PA people generally) accept
that there was a point where quadrupedalism
was dropped? -- I.e. it was no longer an
effective manner of locomotion? And that, at
that point, the newly-developed bipedalism
was pathetically weak?
OR are you going to maintain that there once
existed an animal that could walk efficiently
and run fast BOTH quadrupedally and bipedally?
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| deowll... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sorry, When I went surfing I found many pictures posted on line. Hawks
didn't post pictures because he didn't do this project.
I suscribe to his whatever through google reader. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| rwalker... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:55:41 -0500, "deowll" <deowll at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Sorry, When I went surfing I found many pictures posted on line. Hawks
didn't post pictures because he didn't do this project.
I suscribe to his whatever through google reader.
[/quote]
All the original research is available for free (with registration) at
the Science web site. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| deowll... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"rwalker" <rwalker at (no spam) despammed.com> wrote in message
news:2lqud55rq0o9r9qbc38bofokftve4f018n at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:55:41 -0500, "deowll" <deowll at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, When I went surfing I found many pictures posted on line. Hawks
didn't post pictures because he didn't do this project.
I suscribe to his whatever through google reader.
All the original research is available for free (with registration) at
the Science web site.
[/quote]
Absolutely. I downloaded and read the PDFs. They have some nice graphics. I
also subscribed to their feeds. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RichTravsky... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]RichTravsky wrote:
Ramidus exhibits reduced/feminized canines in males.
That is the data. No political correctness involved.
So any loss of weaponry is 'feminization'?
Let's list all the 'feminization' that has
taken place in armies, and by individual
soldiers, in recent times:
Where does it say that?
It is a clear assumption. The nonsense
continues with MORE -- including the
daft notion that female hominids must have
PREFERRED males with small canines
-- that being (in the minds of utter dopes
like Lovejoy) the only possible mechanism
for their disappearance.
It seems that PAs must necessarily lose all
sense of means and ends as part of their
training. Or is it an entry requirement?
[/quote]
It is not the assumption. The context is canine size and females have smaller
canines than males in general. Thus, reduction in canine size in the males
to where they approach the size in females is feminized.
[quote]. . no longer carrying clubs
. . giving up the wearing of swords
. . abandoning all their pikes
. . discarding all their javelins
. . no longer building up store of stones
. . melting down their cannon-balls
. . scrapping all their flint-muskets
. . and so on and on.
Modern armies (such as the Israeli) must
now all be really gentle -- unwilling to
hurt anyone
Compare your canines with a chimp's and get back to us
with the results...
Compare your flintlock musket with a
Kalashnikov. Or, if you have already put
it away (in a museum) in favour of a modern
weapon, would that mean you must be a
much nicer person, and more appealing to
the opposite sex?
[/quote]
Do you understand the difference between technology and biology? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 26, 5:15 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote]PA has forgotten it.
[/quote]
Message-ID: <Kk_jh.17117$j7.336852 at (no spam) news.indigo.ie>
Crowley: "You'd get better observations in any pub in
Dublin on any day in any week."
Message-ID: <jFM1h.15427$j7.333046 at (no spam) news.indigo.ie>
Crowley: "I would not use 'the published literature'
for toilet paper."
Since you don't read it, how do you know what is forgotten? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Crowley... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RichTravsky wrote:
[quote]It is not the assumption. The context is canine size and
females have smaller canines than males in general. Thus,
reduction in canine size in the males to where they
approach the size in females is feminized.
[/quote]
In any case, the worst aspects of this issue
are (a) the ludicrous nature of the one
'explanation' (males stopped competing for
females); and (b) the refusal among the rest
of standard PA types to provide (or even
consider) any explanation at all.
[quote]Compare your flintlock musket with a
Kalashnikov. Or, if you have already put
it away (in a museum) in favour of a modern
weapon, would that mean you must be a
much nicer person, and more appealing to
the opposite sex?
Do you understand the difference between technology and
biology?
[/quote]
The whole point of the hominid taxon is its
adoption of technology. Darwin knew this,
but (in line with its general retreat back
into superstition and the Dark Ages) modern
PA has forgotten it.
Some interesting recent psychological research:
http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2009/07/how-tools-become-part-of-body.html
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RichTravsky... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]RichTravsky wrote:
It is not the assumption. The context is canine size and
females have smaller canines than males in general. Thus,
reduction in canine size in the males to where they
approach the size in females is feminized.
In any case, the worst aspects of this issue
are (a) the ludicrous nature of the one
'explanation' (males stopped competing for
females); and (b) the refusal among the rest
[/quote]
The dental evidence leads to the hypothesis that the last common ancestors of
African apes and hominids were characterized by relatively low levels of
canine, postcanine, and body size dimorphism. These were probably the anatomical
correlates of comparatively weak amounts of male-male competition, perhaps
associated with male philopatry and a tendency for male-female codominance as
seen in P. paniscus and ateline species.
From this ancestral condition, we hypothesize that the P. troglodytes lineage
secondarily enhanced its canine weaponry in both sexes, whereas a general size
reduction of the dentition and cranium occurred in the P. paniscus lineage.
This suggests that the excessively aggressive intermale and intergroup behavior
seen in modern P. troglodytes is unique to that lineage and that this derived
condition compromises the living chimpanzee as a behavioral model for the
ancestral hominid condition. The same may be the case with Gorilla, whose social
system may be a part of an adaptation involving large body size, a specialized
diet, and marked sexual dimorphism.
In the hominid precursors of Ar. ramidus, the predominant and cardinal
evolutionary innovations of the dentition were reduction of male canine size and
minimization of its visual prominence. The Ar. ramidus dental evidence suggests
that this occurred as a consequence of selection for a less projecting and
threatening male upper canine. The fossils now available suggest that male canine
reduction was well underway by 6 million years ago and continued into the
Pliocene. Further fossils will illuminate the tempo and mode of evolution before 6
million years ago.
Feel free to propose your own interpretation.
[quote]of standard PA types to provide (or even
consider) any explanation at all.
[/quote]
Cite for this "refusal" ->
[quote]Compare your flintlock musket with a
Kalashnikov. Or, if you have already put
it away (in a museum) in favour of a modern
weapon, would that mean you must be a
much nicer person, and more appealing to
the opposite sex?
Do you understand the difference between technology and
biology?
The whole point of the hominid taxon is its
adoption of technology. Darwin knew this,
[/quote]
So you don't understand the difference between technology and biology...
But thanks for another keeper!
The whole point of the hominid taxon is its adoption of technology.
Since you declare taxons have points, what are the points of other taxons?
[quote]but (in line with its general retreat back
into superstition and the Dark Ages) modern
PA has forgotten it.
Some interesting recent psychological research:
[/quote]
But irrelevant...
> http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2009/07/how-tools-become-part-of-body.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Crowley... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RichTravsky wrote:
[quote]It is not the assumption. The context is canine size and
females have smaller canines than males in general. Thus,
reduction in canine size in the males to where they
approach the size in females is feminized.
In any case, the worst aspects of this issue
are (a) the ludicrous nature of the one
'explanation' (males stopped competing for
females); and (b) the refusal among the rest
The dental evidence leads to the hypothesis that the last
common ancestors of African apes and hominids were
characterized by relatively low levels of canine,
postcanine, and body size dimorphism.
[/quote]
It may be an hypothesis -- but that's all
it is.
[quote]These were probably the anatomical correlates of
comparatively weak amounts of male-male competition
[/quote]
All we have are reduced male canines. The
rest is supposition. And since there are no
similar primates, any 'correlation' is your
own guesswork.
[quote]From this ancestral condition, we hypothesize that the P.
troglodytes lineage secondarily enhanced its canine weaponry
in both sexes,
[/quote]
The primate pattern (indeed a common
mammalian pattern) is for males to have
larger canines than females (often very
much larger). So this hypothesis does not
have much support.
[quote]whereas a general size reduction of the
dentition and cranium occurred in the P. paniscus lineage.
This suggests that the excessively aggressive intermale
[/quote]
Who says it is 'excessive'? Numerous
mammalian and primate species show
extremely aggressive behaviour between
males.
[quote]and intergroup behavior seen in modern P. troglodytes is
unique to that lineage and that this derived condition
compromises the living chimpanzee as a behavioral model for
the ancestral hominid condition.
[/quote]
Politically correct crap.
[quote]The same may be the case with Gorilla, whose social system
may be a part of an adaptation involving large body size, a
specialized diet, and marked sexual dimorphism.
[/quote]
More politically correct crap.
[quote]In the hominid precursors of Ar. ramidus, the predominant
and cardinal evolutionary innovations of the dentition were
reduction of male canine size and minimization of its visual
prominence.
[/quote]
True.
[quote]The Ar. ramidus dental evidence suggests that this occurred
as a consequence of selection for a less projecting and
threatening male upper canine.
[/quote]
The dental evidence suggests no such
thing. Maybe you suggest it, but that's
your hypothesis.
[quote]of standard PA types to provide (or even
consider) any explanation at all.
Cite for this "refusal" -
[/quote]
Find ONE explanation (outlining the
selective benefits) as to how and why
this "less threatening" behaviour came
about.
[quote]The whole point of the hominid taxon is its adoption of
technology.
Since you declare taxons have points, what are the points of
other taxons?
[/quote]
Taxa (and species) can often be said to
have a "raison d'etre" -- encompassing
their principal function within their
ecology, and their means of achieving
it and their survival.
Dung-beetles bury dung. Giraffes use
their long necks to feed from high trees.
Wolves predate on the older and weaker
prey of large herds, using persistence
hunting, and so on.
Humans would be nothing without their
technology. The same MUST apply to
human ancestors -- since we split from
the chimp taxon. What conceivable
advantages do you think our first proto-
bipedal ancestors had over their quasi-
chimp cousins?
(Answers -- there will be none.)
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 7:46 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote]RichTravsky wrote:
It is not the assumption. The context is canine size and
females have smaller canines than males in general. Thus,
reduction in canine size in the males to where they
approach the size in females is feminized.
In any case, the worst aspects of this issue
are (a) the ludicrous nature of the one
'explanation' (males stopped competing for
females); and (b) the refusal among the rest
The dental evidence leads to the hypothesis that the last
common ancestors of African apes and hominids were
characterized by relatively low levels of canine,
postcanine, and body size dimorphism.
It may be an hypothesis -- but that's all
it is.
[/quote]
Better that than delusions from Paul Netloon who claims chimps
don't have the capacity to dig. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RichTravsky... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 11:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]RichTravsky wrote:
It is not the assumption. The context is canine size and
females have smaller canines than males in general. Thus,
reduction in canine size in the males to where they
approach the size in females is feminized.
In any case, the worst aspects of this issue
are (a) the ludicrous nature of the one
'explanation' (males stopped competing for
females); and (b) the refusal among the rest
The dental evidence leads to the hypothesis that the last
common ancestors of African apes and hominids were
characterized by relatively low levels of canine,
postcanine, and body size dimorphism.
It may be an hypothesis -- but that's all
it is.
[/quote]
A hypothesis based on more than one characteristic - body size dimorphism - and
comparision with extant apes.
[quote]These were probably the anatomical correlates of
comparatively weak amounts of male-male competition
All we have are reduced male canines. The
rest is supposition. And since there are no
similar primates, any 'correlation' is your
own guesswork.
[/quote]
All what have reduced canines? Ardipithecus? What?
[quote]From this ancestral condition, we hypothesize that the P.
troglodytes lineage secondarily enhanced its canine weaponry
in both sexes,
The primate pattern (indeed a common
mammalian pattern) is for males to have
larger canines than females (often very
much larger). So this hypothesis does not
have much support.
[/quote]
Did you miss the part where it said "enhanced" for one species? And reduced
in the other?
[quote]whereas a general size reduction of the
dentition and cranium occurred in the P. paniscus lineage.
This suggests that the excessively aggressive intermale
Who says it is 'excessive'? Numerous
mammalian and primate species show
extremely aggressive behaviour between
males.
[/quote]
Chimps make "war", remember?
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/origins/goodall.html
...
Frequently tender and compassionate, humanity's closest living relatives are
also capable of scheming, deceiving, and waging war. It came as a shock to
Jane in 1974 when patrols of chimpanzees from the Kasakela community--one of
four groups in the 20-square-mile park--began attacking chimps from the Kahama
community to the south. She was stunned by reports of stealthy warriors moving
through the forest in single file, hair bristling from fear and excitement,
stepping from stone to stone to avoid making noise in what came to be known as
the Four Year War.
...
[quote]and intergroup behavior seen in modern P. troglodytes is
unique to that lineage and that this derived condition
compromises the living chimpanzee as a behavioral model for
the ancestral hominid condition.
Politically correct crap.
[/quote]
Why?
[quote]The same may be the case with Gorilla, whose social system
may be a part of an adaptation involving large body size, a
specialized diet, and marked sexual dimorphism.
More politically correct crap.
[/quote]
You mean gorillas don't have marked sexual dimorphism, specialized diet,
and large body size?
[quote]In the hominid precursors of Ar. ramidus, the predominant
and cardinal evolutionary innovations of the dentition were
reduction of male canine size and minimization of its visual
prominence.
True.
[/quote]
But up above you discount that.
[quote]The Ar. ramidus dental evidence suggests that this occurred
as a consequence of selection for a less projecting and
threatening male upper canine.
The dental evidence suggests no such
thing. Maybe you suggest it, but that's
your hypothesis.
[/quote]
Just above you say "true"...
[quote]of standard PA types to provide (or even
consider) any explanation at all.
Cite for this "refusal" -
Find ONE explanation (outlining the
selective benefits) as to how and why
this "less threatening" behaviour came
about.
[/quote]
You mean reduced inter species competition isn't a good thing? Explain why
[quote]The whole point of the hominid taxon is its adoption of
technology.
Since you declare taxons have points, what are the points of
other taxons?
Taxa (and species) can often be said to
have a "raison d'etre" -- encompassing
[/quote]
They do? Since when?
[quote]their principal function within their
ecology, and their means of achieving
it and their survival.
Dung-beetles bury dung. Giraffes use
their long necks to feed from high trees.
Wolves predate on the older and weaker
prey of large herds, using persistence
hunting, and so on.
Humans would be nothing without their
technology. The same MUST apply to
[/quote]
So the human "principal function" is to make tools?
[quote]human ancestors -- since we split from
the chimp taxon. What conceivable
advantages do you think our first proto-
bipedal ancestors had over their quasi-
chimp cousins?
(Answers -- there will be none.)
[/quote]
Sense from Polly - there will be none. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 20, 3:23 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote]
When did PA start to forget the purpose
of the science?
[/quote]
Asks the loon who gets his brand of science
from bathroom walls.
Message-ID: <Kk_jh.17117$j7.336852 at (no spam) news.indigo.ie>
Crowley: "You'd get better observations in any pub in
Dublin on any day in any week."
Message-ID: <jFM1h.15427$j7.333046 at (no spam) news.indigo.ie>
Crowley: "I would not use 'the published literature'
for toilet paper."
[quote]
Paul.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Crowley... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RichTravsky wrote:
[quote]It is not the assumption. The context is canine size and
females have smaller canines than males in general. Thus,
reduction in canine size in the males to where they
approach the size in females is feminized.
In any case, the worst aspects of this issue
are (a) the ludicrous nature of the one
'explanation' (males stopped competing for
females); and (b) the refusal among the rest
The dental evidence leads to the hypothesis that the last
common ancestors of African apes and hominids were
characterized by relatively low levels of canine,
postcanine, and body size dimorphism.
It may be an hypothesis -- but that's all
it is.
A hypothesis based on more than one characteristic -
body size dimorphism - and comparision with extant
apes.
[/quote]
Not so. How do you think the _estimates_
of the body sizes of males and females of
Ardipithecus were made?
[..]
[quote]This suggests that the excessively aggressive intermale
Who says it is 'excessive'? Numerous
mammalian and primate species show
extremely aggressive behaviour between
males.
Chimps make "war", remember?
[/quote]
So do many other primates and mammals.
The chimp version looks worse only because
(a) it's easy to see the analogy with humans
(b) long life-spans result in long "wars"
(c) territories are held by related males --
unusually among mammals -- meaning death
rates can be higher, and
(d) they have particularly effective weaponry.
[..]
[quote]and intergroup behavior seen in modern P. troglodytes is
unique to that lineage and that this derived condition
compromises the living chimpanzee as a behavioral model for
the ancestral hominid condition.
Politically correct crap.
Why?
[/quote]
It suggests (quite falsely) that chimps are
unusual, and that (along with humans)
they are wholly exceptional in nature.
The supposed 'normal' pattern would be
something like the Garden of Eden, where
the lion would lie down with the lamb.
People responsible for this kind of crap
have seemingly never encountered nature
in any form.
[..]
[quote]In the hominid precursors of Ar. ramidus, the predominant
and cardinal evolutionary innovations of the dentition were
reduction of male canine size and minimization of its visual
prominence.
True.
But up above you discount that.
[/quote]
I did not. The reduction in male canine
size is close to a simple observation
[quote]The Ar. ramidus dental evidence suggests that this occurred
as a consequence of selection for a less projecting and
threatening male upper canine.
The dental evidence suggests no such
thing. Maybe you suggest it, but that's
your hypothesis.
Just above you say "true"...
[/quote]
Try to read. This sentence tells us
(nonsensically) what _caused_ the
reduction.
[quote]of standard PA types to provide (or even
consider) any explanation at all.
Cite for this "refusal" -
Find ONE explanation (outlining the
selective benefits) as to how and why
this "less threatening" behaviour came
about.
You mean reduced inter species competition isn't a
good thing? Explain why
[/quote]
God help us. It might be a good thing
if we could all go back into the Garden
of Eden. However there are the major
impediments of God's will, and getting
every human to agree to be good. (This
latter is the problem encountered by all
the great revolutionary social experiments
-- such as the Communist.)
In this science (on the rare occasions
that it can remember to be a science)
we look for explanations relying on
SELECTIVE BENEFITS. You have
forgotten that.
[..]
[quote]Humans would be nothing without their
technology. The same MUST apply to
So the human "principal function" is to make tools?
human ancestors -- since we split from
the chimp taxon. What conceivable
advantages do you think our first proto-
bipedal ancestors had over their quasi-
chimp cousins?
(Answers -- there will be none.)
Sense from Polly - there will be none.
[/quote]
When did PA start to forget the purpose
of the science?
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:54 pm
|
|