Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Jim McGinn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > > > There's another problem for Paul's hypothesis. His model
> > > > not only doesn't have a reduction in intra-specific competition
> > > > it has an increase.
> > >
> > > Not so. We have no idea about the level of
> > > 'warfare' within the LCA. The best assumption
> > > is that it was something similar to that in their
> > > living descendents
> > Well then despite the vagueness of your response (or because of it)
> > my point still stands.
> Where am I being vague?
> You stated that my 'model' has an increase in
> intra-specific competition. (I read that as being
> shown in violent conflict.) But that is FALSE.
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.
> > And now look who's being argumentative.
> Should I bother to correct your false
> statements about my scenario?
You knew what I was getting at. Or you should have.
> > > (homo and modern chimps)
> > > -- i.e. nearly constant and pretty savage.
> > Not in my model.
> Congratulations. Your model is more politically
> correct. That makes it much better, and much
> more likely to be true.
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?
> > In my model the communalism brings about long periods of
> > relative peace at most locations, just like present day human society.
> Been to Somalia recently?
Been to Palm Springs lately?
> Ever read any
> history? Ever read Thomas Hobbes? Did
> 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. And it doesn't
involve islands that suddenly emerge. And I don't have to disregard
microwear data (this is inexcusable, btw).
> > Sure
> > there's constant conflict against inmigrating food competitors and
> > occasionally, maybe every ten years, there is the threat of predatory
> > siege/massacre. But for the most part they have periods of constant
> > civility.
> You are as bad (if not worse) than the Politically-
> Correct Margaret-Meads of Standard PA. You
> seem to believe in the fantasy land of a Golden
> Age before nasty Capitalism ruined it all.
Where is Deitiker when you need him. Go to Google Groups and do a
seach on capital ape theory. My hypothesis explains the emergence of
the most primitive form of hominid capitalism. It explains how it
first became adaptive. Capitalism began when and because the first
> I suppose I should have realised that. Your near-
> complete lack of any sense of evolutionary
> principles could only mean that you live in a
> dream world.
Funny, that's exactly what I was going to say to you. It just so
happens you're talking to somebody that is second to none on this
subject. And it took a lot of hours in the library to get here.
You're about where I was 15 years ago. Why don't you put your money
where your mouth is a show the world how superior you are to me in this
respect. I suggest the perfect forum for this is sci.bio.evolution.
Go for it, dude.
> > > The warred with each other, 'cos it was in their
> > > nature -- as it seems to be with modern chimps
> > > and modern homo, and in many other species.
> > > Those good at it had more offspring. Those
> > > who were bad at it, died.
> > Pure nonsense. Chimps aren't any more likely to be embattled
> > than any other species. It's pure nonsense to suggest they'd
> > just begin warring with each other.
> And you STILL haven't read any of Jane Goodall's
Hardly any difference between what Goodall observed and similar
observations of wolves, or many other species. 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; include the migratory food competitors and large
social predators of the Ethiopian fauna and then you have a hypothesis
of hominid evolution.
In the least it should be obvious to you that Goodall's observations
are missing some of the elements of a hominid evolution scenario in
that they aren't evolving human adaptations. How is this not obvious.
> > > > Why canines would not also be useful in addition to pointy
> > > > sticks is never explained.
> > >
> > > I have often explained it -- although anyone with
> > > the beginnings of an understanding of evolution
> > > would not need an explanation. Large canines
> > > COST. Any expensive feature will rapidly
> > > disappear when selection in its favour ceases to
> > > to be strong. Teeth of any size are expensive.
> > > Look at the reduction in the size in human teeth
> > > over the last 25 Kyr. Huge canines are hugely
> > > expensive.
> > It's just a tooth! Where're you getting this BS.
> God help us! Teeth are enormously important
> -- as everyone who has ever studied evolution
> knows. They are the point where the organism
> interacts most crucially with its environment:
> how it gets its food -- and in the case of chimps
> and many mammals: how it protects itself, and
> competes with its conspecifics so that it can
> Further, you are clearly have no sense whatever
> of the size of male chimp canines.
Oh come on Paul. Now you're getting ridiculous.
> When a male chimp loses ONE canine, that's
> effectively the end of its life. It can no longer
> defend itself -- nor reproduce, and it will have
> much difficulty feeding.
All the more reason to reject your scenario in that the contiued
intrspecific conflict would suggest they'd maintain these defensive
weapons. Compare the cost of these canine teeth with the costs
associated with the adaptations necessary to make hand held weapons a
part of their everyday existence. You're not even in the ballpark.
> > > I don't expect you to understand this point
> > > (or if you do, you won't remember it) since it's
> > > basic to any evolutionary thinking.
> And, of course, you do not get it.
It's silly that you would pretend to understand evolution better than
me. Go to Google groups and search under my name in sci.bio.evolution.
Paul, it's the vagueness of your thinking that allows you to, somehow,
come to the conclusion that you have expertise in Evolutionary
principles. It's a much bigger subject than you can even begin to
imagine. First you have to clarify your thinking. And the, if your
are extremely honest and work at if very hard, you have some chance of
defeating the delusions that dictate your incompetence. It's only your
ignorance that shields you from the realization of how far you have to
go. Trust me, I know.