"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> Sure. It's a paraphrase. Getting away from
> Why would you assume they needed to get away from trees?
It's getting away from 'sleeping trees' (as I'm
sure you knew). There are (and were) numerous
areas where hominids could live, which would
not have had such trees. An ability to expand
into them was an enormous selective benefit.
> In my
> hypothesis treeless habitat is dominated by large migratory mammals and
> large predators. Treed habitat was their haven. Except for occasional
> forays to get from one treed location to another there was little
> benefit to leaving treed habitat for early hominids (Apith).
But that's exactly how chimps live.
(a) IF your scenario had any basis, then
hominids would have had a morphology
identical to chimps;
(b) Your 'hominids' would never be able
to avoid continual inter-breeding with
chimps. Speciation would be impossible.
>> <Snip of stuff discussed enlessly before>
>> Actually a hominid society without ANY
>> language is perfectly conceivable. Do
>> you deny this?
> Since even chimps can be said to have some degree of language, yes, I
> deny it.
Dodge. Worms could be said to have
"some degree of language".
>>> Obviously it evolved like anything else.
>> Yes, but the point is that it does not appear
>> to be necessary for hominid existence.
> Don't assume that what appears in your imagination appears in everybody
> else's imaginations.
Almost everyone who has considered these
issues shares my point of view. No one (as far
as I know) shares yours. Many people have
suggested that (for example) Homo erectus did
not have language . . . on the basis of certain
physiological features. Many others have
thought that language did not develop until
>> It is a
>> 'luxury' -- an 'add -on', very slowly developed
>> and expanded over millions of years.
> In my hypothesis it is essential. More importantly my hypothesis
> provides the selective context from which it can begin to evolve.
You don't have an hypothesis. You
have one or two exceedingly vague ideas
-- mostly relying upon some huge but
basic misconceptions about human
evolution and evolution in general.
>> That is
>> why no one (including you) can explain it,
>> nor account for it.
>> Language does not fit into any evolutionary
>> theory, because it is could not have formed
>> part of any selective mechanism which
>> distinguished hominids from other taxa.
> Any theory of hominid evolution that does not describe the selective
> basis for language and any and all hominid peculiarities is worthless.
Then it's a shame that there are none.