sci.anthropology.paleo
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths

Subject: Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
From: "Jim McGinn"
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:03:17 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
"quercophile" <ed.byron.adams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:1133910044.114861.49850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Jim McGinn wrote:
> .  Afterall,
>> homids don't normally go around ambushing their immediate neighbors.
>> Hominid conflict seems to take place on a much larger scale.  Wouldn't 
>> you,
>> at least, agree with this last statement?
>
> As I've said, I think the New Guinea highlanders provide a wonderful
> model of early hominid behavior, without the overlay of law,
> nation-states and domesticated horses that cloud the observations.

If the New Guinea highlanders can be described as lacking in law, 
nation-states, and domesticated animals then one can only wonder why you 
consider this a, "wonderful," model of early hominid evolution in that law, 
nation-states, and domesticated animals are almost universal amongst extant 
humans.

> They
> do ambush their neighbors. Death from such ambushes constitute one of
> the leading causes of death among many tribes there.

And it's nonexistent in virtually every other hominid group.  What does this 
tell you?

> Furthermore, the xenophobia and isolation from their neighbors produced
> such low gene flows between them that members of different tribes are
> easily identified by phenotypically true traits such as hair texture,
> skin hue and stature.

And this is more consistent with chimps than humans.  Right?  Isn't this 
what Goodall's observations confirm?

> Among protohomids this same genetic isolation
> allowed genetic drift to work and the intertribal hostility meant that
> selection for better warmaking capacity such as more accurate and more
> powerful throwing get selected through direct replacement of adjacent
> tribes.

You need to explain what the phrase, "allowed genetic drift to work," means. 
(Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion.  It actually has no meaning at 
all.)

> IMO, bipedality was a a hitchhiker on this process. It also
> accounts for the loss of prominent canines, the original subject of
> this thread.

My premise is that hominid/human evolution is the result of what happens 
when chimps are forced to reside in highly seasonal monsoon habitat.

Your premise is that hominid evolution takes place in the kind of seasonless 
habitat that we find in New Guinea.

If your premise was true we'd expect the New Guinea highlanders to have more 
of the traits and behaviors we associate with hominids (law, nation-states 
and domesticated animals) not less.  Your model is refuted by this evidence.

Regards,

Jim 



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>