Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > >> I know evasiveness when I see it. I see enough of it. If you were
> > >> being honest you would have at least acknowledged that your scenario
> > >> DOES NOT claim a reduction in intraspecific conflict.
> > >
> > > It certainly does not. Why should it?
> > Look at the subject line of this thread.
> So what? We know that canines got much
We know more than just this, of course.
That means that the species replaced
> them with something else.
So, let me get this straight, in your mind loss of canines dictates the
pointy stick scenario. No explanations necessary. No change in
environment/climate. A bunch of chimps just suddenly figured out how
useful it to poke cats and hyena with sticks (or does this happen
originally on your magically appearing predator free island in which
case they'd have first started poking other bunches of chimps with
these pointy sticks). They used these pointy sticks so often that they
started becoming bipedal. This is your scenario, right?
I don't know how the hell you expect anybody to take this seriously.
> They were
> certainly not in a position to change the
> behaviour of the predators they had to
> contend with. And, since they survived,
> they were hardly less aggressive generally
> -- nor towards each other (whenever they
> had energy to spare).
I can't figure out what your point is in these last two sentences.
> > <snip>
> > >> You knew what I was getting at. Or you should have.
> > >
> > > It seems (as far as I can gather) that you think
> > > a politically-correct scenario is a good thing,
> > > AND that we all think (or should think) that it is
> > > a good thing -- and therefore more scientifically
> > > probable.
> > Strange comment since I'm the one saying hominids have been conducting war
> > for 8 million years and not just 8 thousand and anthropologists would have
> > us believe.
> I don't get it. If they were fighting wars,
> what were they using in place of their
> large canines?
I've discussed this explicitly. What, specifically don't you get?
I suggest going to Google Groups and search for these discussions.
> > <snip>
> > >> It makes it more likely to reflect human realities. When was the last
> > >> time you had to wrestle one of your neighbors for a meal?
> > >
> > > You can bet that if there was no police force,
> > > etc., etc., I and you and everyone else would
> > > have to do it every day
> > I agree. And which of our respective scenarios better predicts the
> > emergence of a species that has a police force?
> No one should expect an evolutionary
> scenario to predict police forces, nor
> representative government, space
> travel -- or not until it has first managed
> to explain bipedalism, naked skin, sub-
> cutaneous fat, and other obvious
> physical features.
You are obviously talking out your ass here, Paul. There is no magical
law that dictates that species will assume adaptations in a certain
chronological order. You have a very creative approach to evolutionary
theory. (This is not a compliment.)
> > >> > they have a working police force in Early-
> > >> > Hominid-Land? Laws? Courts? Legitimate
> > >> > Government? Democracy? Respect for Law
> > >> > and Order?
> > >>
> > >> Does your scenario predict any of this? Mine does.
> > >
> > > Then it is both wrong and crap. All we want
> > > from any evolutionary scenario is to get as
> > > far as, say, australian aborigines.
> > My model is intended to predict the origins of all hominids, including
> > aborigines. The whole framework of your approach to these issues is
> > archaic. It's reflective of nineteenth century mentality. Aborigines are
> > *not* indicative of ancient hominids. They are very sophisticated in their
> > ability to survive in sparse habitat, more like eskimoes in their lifestyle.
> > The term aborigine is reflective of nineteenth century view that some people
> > are indicative of early man. It's just bad science.
> Fair enough. I fully accept that.
Maybe there's hope for you yet, Paul.
> human societies do vary in the complexity
> of their social structure. Some today can
> only work with millions (or perhaps billions)
> whereas others have long survived with a
> few hundred. Most early hominid societies
> (before, say, about 4 mya) probably got by
> with no more than a few thousand; many
> possibly managed with no more than a
> couple of hundred (IF PNG is a reliable
> guide). Such societies would not have
> needed a police force, etc. That's all an
> evolutionary theory (or scenario) needs
> to explain.
You seem to not grasp the fact that we are talking about, essentially,
> > >> And it doesn't
> > >> involve islands that suddenly emerge. And I don't have to disregard
> > >> microwear data (this is inexcusable, btw).
> > >
> > > Microwear bullshit you mean. Those guys
> > > see what they expect to see, and only publish
> > > what their readership wants to read.
> > Intentional ignorance.
> How much reliable information do you think
> can be got from studies of microwear?
Why in the world would anybody ask such a plainly stupid question?
Paul, you seem to not comprehend how plainly obvious it is that you are
trying to evade the evidence.
> > >> Goodall's observations
> > >> are an invaluable source of preadaptive behaviors. Take Goodall's
> > >> observations and overlay them on the dry-season influenced, late
> > >> miocene, habitat;
> > >
> > > That would have made no difference. Climate
> > > changes all the time (we can see it happening).
> > > So vegetation changes and species re-locate.
> > > End of story.
> > Your an idiot. There's a big difference between changes in weather and
> > changes in climate.
Evolution only works through individuals.
> And they experience 'weather' rather than
> 'climate change'. They prosper or move, or die,
> or breed more or less successfully, depending
> on the 'weather'. One thing they don't do is
> physically adapt to it. We can see huge
> regions of the globe which have experienced
> climate change (e.g. the Sahara). How many
> species can you name that came into
> existence as a result of any such change?
This is a desperate argument. You seem blissfully ignorant of the
scientific requirements that underly an evolutionary hypothesis.