Re: Birdbrain blog: Yet Another Missing Evolutionary Link

In message <1187100425.576536.100080@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
On Aug 13, 8:08 pm, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 13, 10:04 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



> Ron O wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 12:59 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Aug 12, 12:00 pm, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > > On Aug 12, 1:42 pm, Jason Spaceman > > > ><notrea...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > wrote:

> > > > > From the article:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­­------
> > > > > It has recently been discovered that Homo Habilis DID NOT > > > > >
> > > > > Homo Erectus as previously thought. Darwinian evolutionary biology
> > > > > postulated that Homo Habilis evolved into Homo Erectus, the > > > > >precurser
> > > > > to modern man, but it has now come to light that the species lived
> > > > > side-by-side for hundreds of thousands of years, making > > > > >such evolution
> > > > > highly unlikely.

> > > > Gee whiz. Why are there still monkeys? Why are there a lot of
> > > > species of monkeys? Why are there still great apes, why are there
> > > > still three extant different types of great apes? It must have been
> > > > impossible for us to have evolved from an ape like ancestor.

> > > > Such sound logic seems to have a few holes in it.

> > > > I don't know if there are any known cases of it, but the hypothesis
> > > > that is being shot down would be the case where one species > > > >H. habilis
> > > > evolves into another pretty different species without leaving any sub
> > > > populations behind or scattered around the earth. It would be a case
> > > > of sympatric speciation with the added extinction of the previous
> > > > species and would have to involve the entire population in all its
> > > > geographic distribution. H. habilis would also have to not have
> > > > evolve sub species or species more similar to itself than H. erectus
> > > > that survived the extinction of the parent habilis species. I doubt
> > > > that anyone thought this scenario very likely.

> > > > Has anyone admitted to actually believing such a scenario for the
> > > > evolution of H. erectus from H. habilis? I can't recall anyone
> > > > advocating such an unlikely scenario and I've been following human
> > > > evolution for over 30 years.

> > > > Ron Okimoto

> > > Weren't some h. erectus fossils found in Java dated to 50,000 years
> > > ago? By the time they found h. florensiensis, they were talking about
> > > three other human species co-existing with home sap sap: the hobbit,
> > > neanderthals, and h. erectus. It would seem to rather suggest that
> > > homo habilis coexisted with at least some surviving populations of
> > > homo erectus, whether or not the transition was h. erectus -> h,
> > > habilis -> h. sapiens sapiens.

> > > My hypothesis is that Birdnow is not a human, but an ass. While this
> > > hypothesis is falsifiable in principle, the accumulating evidence is
> > > pretty overwhelmingly in support of this model. It is difficult to
> > > imagine what evidence at this point could indicate otherwise.

> > > Kermit- Hide quoted text -

> > As far as I know the prevailing model for the majority of speciation
> > events is allopatric spciation. This just means that an isolated
> > population that is part of an existing species with a much wider
> > range, evolves into a new species. If it evolves into using a new
> > niche it can coexist with the parent species even after the new
> > species moves out into the same territory. If it is just better at
> > doing what the parent species did it can replace the parent species.
> > If the parent species has a wide distribution and multiple isolated
> > populations like the H. erectus ranging over most of the old world
> > including the Indonesian islands. The parent species can persists a
> > long time. They just might not make it for very long once the new
> > competition arrives.

> I'm curious just how much "competition" actually occurred between
> hominid species? The word competition makes it sound like they were
> out there snagging fruit out of the other guy's hand. Is there any
> evidence that species directly competed for food resources, or was it
> more a case of one species being better adapted to a changing
> environment than another?

> Especially when it came to H sapiens versus Neanderthals, did the
> sapiens actually drive Neanderthals to extinction by eating food that
> the Neanderthals would have eaten if the sapiens hadn't been in >town?- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

It would be speculation. We have data indicating that the forests
were receding during this time. Habilis would have probably occupied
the forest margins, but it might have been competing with other great
apes for denser forested areas. It would have been more chimp like
than gorilla like. Two chimp species survived human occupation of
Africa, but the habilines didn't. Habilis is credited with pebble
tool technology while erectus tools were more sophisticated up to hand
axe technology. I can't imagine what erectus thought of habilis, but
if chimps are any indication, where they tried to occupy the same
territory they probably beat the heck out of each other. Gombe has
the incidence where the group split into two independent units. The
larger group systematically hunted the smaller group down and
eliminated them all even though they shared the same territory as a
single group for generations. Our ancestors were probably no more
willing to share than chimps.

Curious... I know of chimps having the equivalent of gang warfare.
But ISTR seeing films of chimps and baboons coexisting in close
proximity, or other quadripedal grazers doing the same. (Could this
be an example of "familiarity breed contempt? j/k) I presume that
chimps would perceive another same-species tribe as some form of
threat (they be stealin' our wimmin, etc). I guess the big unknown is
what would cause one species to perceive the other species as a
threat. For example, if H sapiens or Neanderthals ever viewed the
other as prey, that would certainly do it.

According to what I've read, chimpanzees and baboons do at times associate peacefully in close proximity, to the extent of infants of the two species playing together. At other times the adult chimpanzees will turn round and predate the infant baboons.
--
alias Ernest Major

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Human brain on an evolutionary sprint!
    ... of constant competition from many other species the ... competition it's inconcievable that large groups could ... >> relatively aggressive food competitors of late ... choices overlap those of chimps and that might ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... > Which other species have the capacity to ... Chimps do it all the time. ... The chimp-like early hominids would ... >> isolation scenario that would predict this. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Human brain on an evolutionary sprint!
    ... > WHAT other species? ... >> competition it's inconcievable that large groups could ... > The principal ones are chimps and baboons. ... > Only primates get up into trees. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Help me settle an argument...
    ... Chimps and gorillas are often morphologically ... How could either species ... Beards protect chins, but were needed ... thus lighter bones with the same muscles imply more ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... > My model for communal territorialism involves constant intracooperative ... > the same kind of periodic malthusian scarcity that all species ... The 'communal territorialism' shown by chimps ... I don't see hominids being ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading