Mosaic Habitat is the Same as Monsoon Forest Habitat

[Jim McGinn]

pdeitik@worldnet.att.net (Philip Deitiker) wrote

> . . . most people in modern paleoanthropology would argue
> that if anything the transition was from an arboreal ape
> to a mosaic ape,

Yes, or as Potts describes in his paper, Environmental
Hypotheses of Hominin Evolution, (YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL
ANTHROPOLOGY 41:93-136 [1998]), "Essentially all textbooks
prior to 1996 explained the origin of these traits in terms of
adaptation to relatively open savanna, defined by the presence
of grass, discontinuous trees, overall aridity, and seasonal
rainfall (e.g., Klein, 1989; Wolpoff,
1980)."

Now they've shifted to a mosaic habitat. Mosaic habitat, like
savanna habitat, is drier and more open than the LCA's
ancestral rainforest habitat. But it is much wetter than a
savanna habitat, has a shorter dry season, and the vegetation
therein consists of much larger patches of woodland that grade
into areas occupied by shrubs and grasses. This also has been
described as a monsoon forest habitat.

The thing that is most conspicuously absent in discussions by
conventional theorists about either savanna habitat or mosaic
habitat is the implications associated with seasonal dryness,
or what I describe as seasonal dessication--a severe season of
dryness and scarcity of resources. Nevertheless evidence of
this phenomena has been available for quite some time now. As
Potts describes in the paper quoted above, "The influence of
short-term habitat variation on savanna organisms, including
early humans, is discussed by Foley (1987). Foley notes that
although early hominins occupied wooded-to-open savanna, the
most significant aspect of this type of habitat is its marked
seasonality," and "Seasonality, moreover, was a consistent
part of the contexts in which hominin evolution occurred.
Seasonal variations are critical to maintaining the savanna
mosaic of Africa . . ."

Jim

[Spiznet]

jimmcginn@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message
news:<ac6a5059.0307210933.16453764@posting.google.com>...
> pdeitik@worldnet.att.net (Philip Deitiker) wrote
>
> > . . . most people in modern paleoanthropology would argue
> > that if anything the transition was from an arboreal ape
> > to a mosaic ape,
>
> Yes, or as Potts describes in his paper, Environmental
> Hypotheses of Hominin Evolution, (YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL
> ANTHROPOLOGY 41:93-136 [1998]), "Essentially all textbooks
> prior to 1996 explained the origin of these traits in terms
> of adaptation to relatively open savanna, defined by the
> presence of grass, discontinuous trees, overall aridity, and
> seasonal rainfall (e.g., Klein, 1989; Wolpoff,
> 1980)."
>
> Now they've shifted to a mosaic habitat. Mosaic habitat,
> like savanna habitat, is drier and more open than the LCA's
> ancestral rainforest habitat. But it is much wetter than a
> savanna habitat, has a shorter dry season, and the
> vegetation therein consists of much larger patches of
> woodland that grade into areas occupied by shrubs and
> grasses. This also has been described as a monsoon forest
> habitat.
>
> The thing that is most conspicuously absent in discussions
> by conventional theorists about either savanna habitat or
> mosaic habitat is the implications associated with seasonal
> dryness, or what I describe as seasonal dessication--a
> severe season of dryness and scarcity of resources.
> Nevertheless evidence of this phenomena has been available
> for quite some time now. As Potts describes in the paper
> quoted above, "The influence of short-term habitat variation
> on savanna organisms, including early humans, is discussed
> by Foley (1987). Foley notes that although early hominins
> occupied wooded-to-open savanna, the most significant aspect
> of this type of habitat is its marked seasonality," and
> "Seasonality, moreover, was a consistent part of the
> contexts in which hominin evolution occurred. Seasonal
> variations are critical to maintaining the savanna mosaic of
> Africa . . ." Jim

So the way to investigate this could be taken in several
directions:

1) see how any living ape/monkey species survive in seasonal
climates and compare/contrast social structures to tropical
"non-seasonal" rainforest species.

2) compile lists of current plant life/ animal ecologies of
the various biomes to try and put LCA, a'piths, etc into
appropriate ecological context. (Arguing for 2 weeks
about the Masai's lion when apith's were never on open
savannah is silly)

3) reconstruct prehistoric fauna/flora from careful study of
hominid site data. The hominid remains are much rarer than
the rest of the bones collected, these sites should be easy
to correlate with the appropriate biome (although we are
obviously going to find a skew towards remains found near
water due to fossil preservation enhancement).

4) apes are a high-maintenance group of mammals. They are
going to be near the top of any eco-system they inhabit.
They are not going to survive long in an area where they do
not have an series of advantages that allow fairly low
predation and fairly easy food access.

5) Jim's question is a good one- how do post-rainforest apes
survive once in seasonal climate (could be adaptions over 1
my + years, of course). a-do intra-species or inter-species
territorial struggles intensify? b-cleverer use of
gathering technologies (sticks to dig with?) c-bipedalism
allows for easier seasonal migrations? Or do they stay put?
d-developments towards hunting/scavenging (not season
dependant) over fruitivore diet (season dependent)? e-...

6) as 8mya heads toward 4mya, East Africa climatic conditions
continue to dry and begin to cool as well. These trends
continue from 4mya - Holocene, but there is considerably
more fossil record. If there is still confusion as to the
period with the fossil record, how will we be able to
extrapolate backward to where this record is next to
non-existent?

thanks for the food for thought! -Mark

[Philip Dei]

On 21 Jul 2003 22:07:48 -0700, mark@spiznet.com
(Spiznet) wrote:

>5) Jim's question is a good one- how do post-rainforest apes
> survive once in seasonal climate (could be adaptions over
> 1 my + years, of course). a-do intra-species or
> inter-species territorial struggles intensify? b-cleverer
> use of gathering technologies (sticks to dig with?)
> c-bipedalism allows for easier seasonal migrations? Or do
> they stay put? d-developments towards hunting/scavenging
> (not season dependant) over fruitivore diet (season
> dependent)? e-...

His argument is a paper tiger. Is Mosaic Ape a spin on savanah
ape is one authors opinion. Another author has placed mosaic
ape in a climate instability model in which there are
generation long flips in climate. I think that for most of
africa mosaic ape works because the extent of savanah is
greatest today, and the majorit of africa was one more
woodland, more broken savanah with large are called lake chad
that might have attracted hominids to its shores and other
places in africa there savanah transitioned to lowland
habitats with higher amounts of hydration supporting differing
levels of arbolization. The basic problem in these debate
styles are that different authors want to force an issue. I
think without definitive proof of where homo ancestors are
found this is a moot argument. At present we have bouri
hominids, the pMRCA of humans extends from upper congo
(according to me) to botswana (according to others, and I
think they are trying to force the savanah issue), but still
no definitive proof of where humans evolved some wish to lead
the issue. Mosaic ape without requiring a large savanah
component is a good explanation for generalization in humans.
It may have had a large component.

Finally, Mr. McGinn has been trying to force the issue for a
long time to get people to pay attention to his manifesto
style theory of evolution. Many of us here have been through
the whole evolutionary process in itself dealing with his
more or less complete misunderstanding/refutiation of
biology. I have no desire to get into another futile
argument with the man that devolves in an ad-hominim attack
campaign that ends with me kill-filing him for another year.
Do a google on McGinn and Manifesto in s.a.p. and you can
see this man at his fullest. AFAIK I don't accept anything
he says until he apologies for his past acts and come cleans
on all the bunk about his manifesto, otherwise I still think
he is trying to lead anyone who will listen long enough down
the same path. His basic idea is that Marc and Elaine are
correct for positing some wild-ass scheme of evolution,
simply they did not do it right, and someone needs a
wild-ass scheme done right (force the issue). I and others
here are more observation scientist and since I don't know
what the combined data means I am looking for more data to
detail better explanations, not lead them.

[Jim McGinn]

pdeitik@worldnet.att.net (Philip Deitiker) wrote

> >5) Jim's question is a good one- how do post-rainforest
> > apes survive once in seasonal climate (could be
> > adaptions over 1 my + years, of course). a-do
> > intra-species or inter-species territorial struggles
> > intensify? b-cleverer use of gathering technologies
> > (sticks to dig with?) c-bipedalism allows for easier
> > seasonal migrations? Or do they stay put? d-developments
> > towards hunting/scavenging (not season dependant) over
> > fruitivore diet (season dependent)? e-...
>
> His argument is a paper tiger.

Uh, okay, this is your opinion. Now tell us why.

Is Mosaic Ape a spin on
> savanah ape is one authors opinion. Another author has
> placed mosaic ape in a climate instability model in which
> there are generation long flips in climate.

Yes, Vrba. Now tell us how this is relevant.

I think that for
> most of africa mosaic ape works because the extent of
> savanah is greatest today, and the majorit of africa was one
> more woodland, more broken savanah with large are called
> lake chad that might have attracted hominids to its shores
> and other places in africa there savanah transitioned to
> lowland habitats with higher amounts of hydration supporting
> differing levels of arbolization. The basic problem in these
> debate styles are that different authors want to force an
> issue. I think without definitive proof of where homo
> ancestors are found this is a moot argument.

You don't trust the fossil evidence?

At present we have bouri hominids, the pMRCA
> of humans extends from upper congo (according to me) to
> botswana

So, let me get this straight, you think extant genetic
evidence is, somehow, relevant to understanding the LCA of 6
to 8 mya. Right?

(according to others, and I think they are trying
> to force the savanah issue), but still no definitive proof
> of where humans evolved some wish to lead the issue. Mosaic
> ape without requiring a large savanah component is a good
> explanation for generalization in humans. It may have had a
> large component.

This is called variability selection, as described by Potts.
It's proven to be impossible to verify the supposition that a
more varied habitat will produce generalizatin in humans, or
any species. Moreover, humans cannot be accurately described
as simply more generalistic than apes.

>
> Finally, Mr. McGinn has been trying to force the issue for
> a long time to get people to pay attention to his
> manifesto style theory of evolution. Many of us here have
> been through the whole evolutionary process in itself
> dealing with his more or less complete
> misunderstanding/refutiation of biology. I have no desire
> to get into another futile argument with the man that
> devolves in an ad-hominim attack campaign that ends with
> me kill-filing him for another year.

Good. Why don't you killfile me now and go off on one of your
cross-posting campaigns.

> Do a google on McGinn and Manifesto in s.a.p. and you can
> see this man at his fullest. AFAIK I don't accept anything
> he says until he apologies for his past acts and come cleans
> on all the bunk about his manifesto, otherwise I still think
> he is trying to lead anyone who will listen long enough down
> the same path. His basic idea is that Marc and Elaine are
> correct for positing some wild-ass scheme of evolution,

All I did was draw attention to the fact that you all were
arguing against Marc and Elaine's thinking but you weren't
offering a viable alternative.

> simply they did not do it right, and someone needs a
> wild-ass scheme done right (force the issue). I and others
> here are more observation scientist and since I don't know
> what the combined data means I am looking for more data to
> detail better explanations, not lead them.

I, for one, am in full support of your desire to get more
data. BTW, if you find any data that disputes my
scenario/hypothesis let us know.

[Philip Dei]

On 22 Jul 2003 08:32:53 -0700, jimmcginn@yahoo.com (Jim
McGinn) wrote:

>> His argument is a paper tiger.
>
>Uh, okay, this is your opinion. Now tell us why.

Based on past experience, I refuse to get in a discussion with
you, again, and you are about 2 steps from my kill file, also.

[Ross Macfa]

pdeitik@worldnet.att.net (Philip Deitiker) wrote in message
news:<3f1cf885.219277@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> On 21 Jul 2003 22:07:48 -0700, mark@spiznet.com
> (Spiznet) wrote:
>
...
> Finally, Mr. McGinn has been trying to force the issue for
> a long time to get people to pay attention to his
> manifesto style theory of evolution. Many of us here have
> been through the whole evolutionary process in itself
> dealing with his more or less complete
> misunderstanding/refutiation of biology. I have no desire
> to get into another futile argument with the man that
> devolves in an ad-hominim attack campaign that ends with
> me kill-filing him for another year. Do a google on McGinn
> and Manifesto in s.a.p. and you can see this man at his
> fullest. AFAIK I don't accept anything he says until he
> apologies for his past acts and come cleans on all the
> bunk about his manifesto, otherwise I still think he is
> trying to lead anyone who will listen long enough down the
> same path. His basic idea is that Marc and Elaine are
> correct for positing some wild-ass scheme of evolution,
> simply they did not do it right, and someone needs a
> wild-ass scheme done right (force the issue). I and others
> here are more observation scientist and since I don't know
> what the combined data means I am looking for more data to
> detail better explanations, not lead them.

I scraped the surface of Jim's "Manifesto" twice in 5 years, &
while he has become a little cleverer in how he couches his
language (i.e. some of it is actually coherent, unlike McGinn
a la 1998), beneath the surface there is a complete absence of
any substance at all. He has undertaken no primary research,
has rarely if ever read any primary research papers, & is
unable to reference even any secondary sources. Yet he will
still, if you allow him to lull you into a false sense of
security, try to pass his ramblings off as the work of a
"World-Class Evolutionary Theorist".

Save yourself the trouble. Take our word for it, based on
years of observation: Jim McGinn is a pig-ignorant fool with
an ego as large as his knowledge is insignificant.

Save your breath Jim, you are deep within my bit-bucket &
shall remain there at least until 2008. Once every 5 years is
enough to demonstrate your mettle to me...

Ross Macfarlane

[Jim McGinn]

Philip Deitiker <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
news:<alnqhvormi6hgef0gaa57p1cu1lltbt2cl@4ax.com>...
> On 22 Jul 2003 08:32:53 -0700, jimmcginn@yahoo.com (Jim
> McGinn) wrote:
>
> >> His argument is a paper tiger.
> >
> >Uh, okay, this is your opinion. Now tell us why.
>
> Based on past experience, I refuse to get in a discussion
> with you,

How about if I let you win this time?

again, and you are about 2 steps from my kill
> file, also.

Gee golly, I wouldn't want that to happen. Without the
benefits of your insight I don't see how I can possibly
proceed.

Jim

[Spiznet]

jimmcginn@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message
news:<ac6a5059.0307210933.16453764@posting.google.com>...
> pdeitik@worldnet.att.net (Philip Deitiker) wrote
>
> > . . . most people in modern paleoanthropology would argue
> > that if anything the transition was from an arboreal ape
> > to a mosaic ape,
>
> Yes, or as Potts describes in his paper, Environmental
> Hypotheses of Hominin Evolution, (YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL
> ANTHROPOLOGY 41:93-136 [1998]), "Essentially all textbooks
> prior to 1996 explained the origin of these traits in terms
> of adaptation to relatively open savanna, defined by the
> presence of grass, discontinuous trees, overall aridity, and
> seasonal rainfall (e.g., Klein, 1989; Wolpoff,
> 1980)."
>
> Now they've shifted to a mosaic habitat. Mosaic habitat,
> like savanna habitat, is drier and more open than the LCA's
> ancestral rainforest habitat. But it is much wetter than a
> savanna habitat, has a shorter dry season, and the
> vegetation therein consists of much larger patches of
> woodland that grade into areas occupied by shrubs and
> grasses. This also has been described as a monsoon forest
> habitat.
>

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/adams3.html DETAILED KEY
TO VEGETATION TYPES. Detailed key to vegetation types,
corresponding to numbers on regional maps. A brief description
of the physiognomy of each vegetation type is given, together
with the nearest corresponding vegetation type/s on the global
map of Olson et al. (1983). Note that the descriptions of
cover are partly based on a concept of 'cover strata',
selectively taking the percentage cover above a particular
horizontal plane, as if the leaves and branches above it were
casting down a shadow onto this imaginary plane. <removed>

--------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
TROPICAL AND SUBTROPICAL (mean temperature of coldest
month above
15.5°C for forest vegetation, and mean temperature of coldest
month above 10°C for all other physiognomic types).

--------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
16. Tropical rainforest (evergreen or semi-evergreen forest of
humid tropics, usually tall) (corresponds to Olson
seasonal tropical forest and broad-leaved humid forest.
Also includes swamp forest).

Leaf cover above a level 8m off ground, >60% . No more that
50% loss of canopy leaf cover at any one time during
average year.

(1a= Rainforest of well-drained soils <25% loss of canopy
leaf cover, 1b=semi-evergreen forest 25-50% loss of canopy
leaf cover,
--------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

17. Monsoon or dry forest (medium height, deciduous or mainly
deciduous forest of warm climates) (not corresponding to
an Olson category; approximately a sub-division of
seasonal tropical forest)

Leaf /branch cover above a level 8m off the ground, >60%
during peak month of leafiness. >50% loss of canopy leaf cover
at some stage in average year, except for Australian
Eucalyptus dry forests, where limit of rainforest is defined
by where Eucalyptus becomes >50% of canopy.
-------------------------------------------------------------
----------

18. Tropical woodland (relatively low, open tree canopy,
usually deciduous) (Corresponds to subdivision of Olson
tropical savanna and woodland;).

Leaf /branch cover above 8m off ground, 60%-20%.
--------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

19. Tropical thorn scrub and scrub woodland (low, woody,
usually deciduous) (Incorporates Olson succulent and thorn
woods, and also overlaps with warm or hot shrub and
grassland)

Leaf /crown cover above 8m off ground less than 20%, but total
leaf cover between 0.8-8m off ground greater than 20%.
--------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

20. Tropical semi-desert (sparse scrub or sparse grassland)
(Corresponds to subdivision of Olson desert and
semi-desert)

Less than 2% vegetation cover above 80cm off the ground. 25-4%
vegetation cover between 0 and 80cm off the ground, during an
average year.
--------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

21. Tropical grassland (fairly closed grassland without many
trees or shrubs) (Corresponds to subdivision of Olson
tropical savanna and woodland, and overlaps with warm or
hot shrub and grassland)

(6a= dense sward tropical grasslands, 6b= sparse sward
tropical grasslands)

Leaf/branch cover above 80cm off ground less than 2%. But
total cover above ground level, greater than 25%.
--------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

22. Tropical extreme desert (very sparse vegetation, or
completely barren) (Corresponds to subdivision of Olson
desert and semi-desert)

Total cover above ground level, less than 4% at any time
during average year.
--------------------------------------------------------------
----------

23. Savanna (dense grassland with a scattering of trees and/or
bushes) (subdiv of Olson tropical savvanna & woodland).

(9a=Tree-dominated savanna, 9b=bush-dominated savanna)

Leaf/branch cover above 80cm of the ground, 2-20%.

I don't know what happened to category 4. But you can see that
due to the reality of climates 2 & 3 (even 4) and their
considerable extent in Miocene & Pliocene Africa, there is a
significant leap to get from rainforest to savannah. -Mark

[Jim McGinn]

rmacfarl@alphalink.com.au (Ross Macfarlane) wrote

> I scraped the surface of Jim's "Manifesto" twice in 5 years,
> & while he has become a little cleverer in how he couches
> his language (i.e. some of it is actually coherent, unlike
> McGinn a la 1998), beneath the surface there is a complete
> absence of any substance at all. He has undertaken no
> primary research, has rarely if ever read any primary
> research papers, & is unable to reference even any secondary
> sources. Yet he will still, if you allow him to lull you
> into a false sense of security, try to pass his ramblings
> off as the work of a "World-Class Evolutionary Theorist".
>
> Save yourself the trouble. Take our word for it, based on
> years of observation: Jim McGinn is a pig-ignorant fool with
> an ego as large as his knowledge is insignificant.
>
> Save your breath Jim, you are deep within my bit-bucket &
> shall remain there at least until 2008. Once every 5 years
> is enough to demonstrate your mettle to me...
>
> Ross Macfarlane

[Jim McGinn]

rmacfarl@alphalink.com.au (Ross Macfarlane) wrote

> I scraped the surface of Jim's "Manifesto" twice in 5 years,

There was no substance to your disputes. You were like a
little kid that was forced to eat some new food he'd never
eaten before. Moreover you were (are) so completely ignorant
of climatological factors, ecological factors, and even
paleontological factors that it was like I would have had to
have educated you to get you to understand it.

& while
> he has become a little cleverer in how he couches his
> language (i.e. some of it is actually coherent, unlike
> McGinn a la 1998), beneath the surface there is a complete
> absence of any substance at all.

Bullshit. Conventional theory has no substance at all. In
fact, ever since you were forced (by me) to back off from your
open-savanna, locomotory proficiency notions you've
essentially had no hypothesis at all for early hominids.

He has
> undertaken no primary research, has rarely if ever read any
> primary research papers, & is unable to reference even any
> secondary sources.

Any idiot can reference secondary sources.

> Yet he will still, if you allow him to lull you into a false
> sense of security, try to pass his ramblings off as the work
> of a "World-Class Evolutionary Theorist".
>
> Save yourself the trouble. Take our word for it, based on
> years of observation: Jim McGinn is a pig-ignorant fool with
> an ego as large as his knowledge is insignificant.
>
> Save your breath Jim, you are deep within my bit-bucket &
> shall remain there at least until 2008. Once every 5 years
> is enough to demonstrate your mettle to me...

I already asked you to put forth a content based criticism of
my hypothesis. You could find nothing to dispute and instead
of being honest and revealing that you went off the emotional
deep end, like you're doing here.

You know, people are going to start to wonder why it is that
if you all are so sure my hypothesis is wrong why you can't
dispute it

Jim

[Spiznet]

rmacfarl@alphalink.com.au (Ross Macfarlane) wrote in
message news:<
> pdeitik@worldnet.att.net (Philip Deitiker) wrote in message
> news:< <snip>... I and others
> > here are more observation scientist and since I don't know
> > what the combined data means I am looking for more data to
> > detail better explanations, not lead them.
>
>...He has undertaken no primary research, has rarely if ever
>read any primary research papers, & is unable to reference
>even any secondary sources. Yet he will still, if you allow
>him to lull you into a false sense of security, try to pass
>his ramblings off as the work of a "World-Class Evolutionary
>Theorist".
>
> Ross Macfarlane

I understand, but the style of 'conversations" here seems to
place a premium of conflict rather than understanding. So he
fits right in. And sometimes insights can come from strange,
"un-approved" places. But certainly we want to be able to
refer to sources.

Am interested in piecing together the ecology/climate of the
late Miocene/early Pliocene when LCA & bipedalism apparently
arose. Everyone agrees that at some point the tropical
rainforest covered all of Africa. The late Miocene saw some
"drying", then in the Pliocene came "cooling". PD has
referenced some primary literature yesterday on the tail end
of this period.

These changes to climate may have been brought about by
tectonic plate activities of India and African Rift valley, I
would have to research this to commit to this.

I need to spend more time visualizing a clear & detailed
ecosystem in order to predict the selective pressures that
would have occurred.

Climate changes, other ecological pressures (new
predators,prey availability, etc.) , and population isolation
are considered the main drivers of evolution. (I would add to
this the random mutational "improvement" that just makes
things go easier even in the static environment.)

So, if the 8-6mya LCA found himself in a closed monsoon forest
on the edge of the true rainforest (which is where this
climate exists today), he would have had to deal with its
associated dry season, the changes to animal predators/ animal
prey/ plant stuffs, tree species, etc.

All of these climatic/biome changes are certainly going to
apply pressures to evolve.

And the question now becomes: what advantage does bipedality
give to the LCA in seasonal woodland forest rather than
tropical rainforest.

This occurs millions of years before we ever see a grassland
ala "Walking with Cavemen". And even at 4mya its not solid
anymore, is it? But definitely by 2.5mya...bring on the lions!

-Mark

[Deowll]

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac6a5059.0307220732.77ec7bc2@posting.google.com...
> pdeitik@worldnet.att.net (Philip Deitiker) wrote
>
> > >5) Jim's question is a good one- how do post-rainforest
> > > apes survive once in seasonal climate (could be
> > > adaptions over 1 my + years, of course). a-do
> > > intra-species or inter-species territorial struggles
> > > intensify? b-cleverer use of gathering technologies
> > > (sticks to dig with?) c-bipedalism allows for easier
> > > seasonal migrations? Or do they stay put?
> > > d-developments towards hunting/scavenging (not season
> > > dependant) over fruitivore diet (season dependent)?
> > > e-...
> >
> > His argument is a paper tiger.
>
> Uh, okay, this is your opinion. Now tell us why.
>
> Is Mosaic Ape a spin on
> > savanah ape is one authors opinion. Another author has
> > placed mosaic ape in a climate instability model in which
> > there are generation long flips in climate.
>
> Yes, Vrba. Now tell us how this is relevant.
>
> I think that for
> > most of africa mosaic ape works because the extent of
> > savanah is greatest today, and the majorit of africa was
> > one more woodland, more broken savanah with large are
> > called lake chad that might have attracted hominids to its
> > shores and other places in africa there savanah
> > transitioned to lowland habitats with higher amounts of
> > hydration supporting differing levels of arbolization. The
> > basic problem in these debate styles are that different
> > authors want to force an issue. I think without definitive
> > proof of where homo ancestors are found this is a moot
> > argument.
>
> You don't trust the fossil evidence?
>
> At present we have bouri hominids, the pMRCA
> > of humans extends from upper congo (according to me) to
> > botswana
>
> So, let me get this straight, you think extant genetic
> evidence is, somehow, relevant to understanding the LCA of 6
> to 8 mya. Right?
>
It is. Reading it right after you get it is going to be
the problem.

> (according to others, and I think they are trying
> > to force the savanah issue), but still no definitive proof
> > of where humans evolved some wish to lead the issue.
> > Mosaic ape without requiring a large savanah component is
> > a good explanation for generalization in humans. It may
> > have had a large component.
>
> This is called variability selection, as described by Potts.
> It's proven to be impossible to verify the supposition that
> a more varied habitat will produce generalizatin in humans,
> or any species. Moreover, humans cannot be accurately
> described as simply more generalistic than apes.
>
Why not?
> >
> > Finally, Mr. McGinn has been trying to force the issue
> > for a long time to get people to pay attention to his
> > manifesto style theory of evolution. Many of us here
> > have been through the whole evolutionary process in
> > itself dealing with his more or less complete
> > misunderstanding/refutiation of biology. I have no
> > desire to get into another futile argument with the man
> > that devolves in an ad-hominim attack campaign that ends
> > with me kill-filing him for another year.
>
> Good. Why don't you killfile me now and go off on one of
> your cross-posting campaigns.
>
> > Do a google on McGinn and Manifesto in s.a.p. and you can
> > see this man at his fullest. AFAIK I don't accept anything
> > he says until he apologies for his past acts and come
> > cleans on all the bunk about his manifesto, otherwise I
> > still think he is trying to lead anyone who will listen
> > long enough down the same path. His basic idea is that
> > Marc and Elaine are correct for positing some wild-ass
> > scheme of evolution,
>
> All I did was draw attention to the fact that you all were
> arguing against Marc and Elaine's thinking but you weren't
> offering a viable alternative.
>
Many viable alternatives have been given to most of the ideas
presented further more you don't have to know what the truth
is to see when somebody is trying to make the facts fit their
theories and failing badly.

> > simply they did not do it right, and someone needs a
> > wild-ass scheme done right (force the issue). I and others
> > here are more observation scientist and since I don't know
> > what the combined data means I am looking for more data to
> > detail better explanations, not lead them.
>
> I, for one, am in full support of your desire to get more
> data. BTW, if you find any data that disputes my
> scenario/hypothesis let us know.

I don't think anyone can present data that will, in your view,
achieve that goal.

The thing I admire most about Raymond Dart was that he put
forward and idea for human evolution which was widely
published. When better data showed his conclusions were based
on an incorrect interpretation of the the fossil evidence he
walked away from that idea and went on to other things.
Current data suggests that hominids did in fact use bone for
tools at least on occasion so he wasn't compeletely wrong to
start with but he limited what he said to something that had
some supporting evidence. He could tell the facts from fancy.
That is a big weakness in this news group.

[Lorenzo L.]

Jim McGinn wrote:

Who cares?

[Philip Dei]

On 23 Jul 2003 09:51:16 -0700, mark@spiznet.com
(Spiznet) wrote:

>I understand, but the style of 'conversations" here seems to
>place a premium of conflict rather than understanding.

Its not always like that but it is like that most of the time.
There was a period when most of the kooks had cleaned out of
here, and the McGinn and Keeter came in, Marc Reemergred, and
we end up in these endless unprodcutive debates about someones
kooked up theory.

> So he fits right in. And sometimes insights can come from
> strange, "un-approved" places. But certainly we want to be
> able to refer to sources.

Yes they do, but those insights are often not wrapped in
arrogance. For example Gisele made some point a few years ago
that were way out in left feild, she did not powder them up
with 'world class evolutionary biologist'. Well she was not
exactly right, but she was close enough to know that something
was real wrong with the data set and a few of points may now
be considered valid. McGinn, in his original manifesto was a
masterpiece of bad logic, non-sequitori thinking, all wrapped
up in personal epitaths and scrambled like an egg-foo-young
for confusion. I took alot of time, much more than LLL and
some others thought I should giving him the opportunity, in
fact, holding his hand, trying to show him how material should
be written up for flow and clarity. All I got was extreme
greif for trying to help him. More or less he thought his
writing style was effective propoganda, so about a year later
I undertook the task of him as an example of how material as
content is actually propoganda, this sent him in to a state of
qualifyable insanity and out of which the term "McGinnian
Death Spiral" was coined. In every instance that he presented
or defended his argument I exposeed the style he was using for
the type of propoganda that it was until no specific thing he
could say would be understood through that context. His only
recourse was to explode all over
s.a.p. which he did.

>Am interested in piecing together the ecology/climate of the
>late Miocene/early Pliocene when LCA & bipedalism apparently
>arose. Everyone agrees that at some point the tropical
>rainforest covered all of Africa. The late Miocene saw some
>"drying", then in the Pliocene came "cooling". PD has
>referenced some primary literature yesterday on the tail end
>of this period.

When I see something of interest I will post it. Whether I
agree with it or not, I think the best recourse to the
arguments kooks is that all who want not to be like them at
least read the literature for themselves. If you have interest
in a particular paper I can also up load the paper to Mol
Anthro or Pal Anthro.

>These changes to climate may have been brought about by
>tectonic plate activities of India and African Rift valley, I
>would have to research this to commit to this.
>
>I need to spend more time visualizing a clear & detailed
>ecosystem in order to predict the selective pressures that
>would have occurred.
>
>Climate changes, other ecological pressures (new
>predators,prey availability, etc.) , and population isolation
>are considered the main drivers of evolution. (I would add to
>this the random mutational "improvement" that just makes
>things go easier even in the static environment.)
>
>So, if the 8-6mya LCA found himself in a closed monsoon
>forest on the edge of the true rainforest (which is where
>this climate exists today), he would have had to deal with
>its associated dry season, the changes to animal predators/
>animal prey/ plant stuffs, tree species, etc.

What will eventually come fo good study is the understanding
that we understand to little at present to come to good
conclusions. Most important the LCA between erectoids and
afarensis is not clear, nor is the time when the species or
ergastor/erectoids appeared and where they lived. While these
papers give different perspectives, until we have more
definitive information of the earlies homo most will be
speculative. The caveot to this is that anyone who tries to
force the issue is generally creating a scientificall lead
argument, which probably should be disregarded. It is OK for
one to have an opinion, gut feeling, interpretation of where
and when one thinks important transitional hominids evolved,
its a different thing to try to force your thinking on others
and insult them if they don't agree with you.

>All of these climatic/biome changes are certainly going to
>apply pressures to evolve.

All except 1, if homo evolved in the northern congo region it
would be immune to almost all geograhic biome shifts, with the
exception of some 5 to 7' shifts in temperatures, shifts that
generally have minimal effects in rain forest because of the
humidity. The pMRCA despite what recent papers say concerning
click speakers from several loci studies MRCA back to the
biaka, who used to be click speakers. They live in the
northern congo region.

>And the question now becomes: what advantage does bipedality
>give to the LCA in seasonal woodland forest rather than
>tropical rainforest.

See above. And it is very interesting that the pMRCA of
humans, chimpanzees and gorillas all pMRCA to the same general
geographic location.

>This occurs millions of years before we ever see a
>grassland ala "Walking with Cavemen". And even at 4mya its
>not solid anymore, is it? But definitely by 2.5mya...bring
>on the lions!

I have to take a more distal perspective, that perspective
would also include scenarios where humans evolved largely
within woodlands and offshoot specialist moved onto savanahs.
There are all kind of caveots to this theory. But the MRCA of
gorillas, the first apparent offshot is old compared to Chimp
and human, then the MRCA of pan is old and then we have
several specific splits in homo, and possibly a budding of
paranthrops. Could humans be the end of a very old core
population that gradually evolved bipedality. Could there have
been a continual line of gradual evolution toward increased
generalization within the arboreal contexted that threw off
specialist like gorillas and chimps, afarensis and africanus.
And finally in the end poof it could not bear the weight
variation and finally radiated what was left. See this is also
a valid scenario. One has to keep in mind all most all of what
we know about africa come from a sliver of land know as the
rift valley.
1. Rift valley is a good site for exposing fossils
2. It also happens to cut through dryer grassland regions
of africa.
3. Volcanic activity has produced an abundance of alkali rich
soils that are particularly good at preserving bone that
has been buried.
4. Volcanic activity has also been implicated in mudslides and
landslides in heavy rains that can cause the overall rapid
burial of humans in anearobic soils which cannot be later
consumed by either digging or foraging scavengers.

As a result 90% of the rest of africa is a dearth of
information, how the find on lake chad and its similarity to
habiloids and dmanisi 2 hominid may shed some light on what is
goind on in western africa.

[Jim McGinn]

"Lorenzo L. Love" <lllove@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:<3F1ED66B.3070902@thegrid.net>...
> Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> Who cares?

Apparently you do, or else why would you respond at all?

[Jim McGinn]

mark@spiznet.com (Spiznet) wrote

> 1. Tropical rainforest (evergreen or semi-evergreen forest
> of humid tropics, usually tall)

<snip>

> 2. Monsoon or dry forest (medium height, deciduous or mainly
> deciduous forest of warm climates)

<snip>

> 3. Tropical woodland (relatively low, open tree canopy,
> usually deciduous)

<snip>

> 4. Tropical thorn scrub and scrub woodland (low, woody,
> usually deciduous)

<big snip>

> 9. Savanna (dense grassland with a scattering of trees
> and/or bushes) (subdiv of Olson tropical savvanna &
> woodland).

<snip>

> I don't know what happened to category 4. But you can see
> that due to the reality of climates 2 & 3 (even 4) and their
> considerable extent in Miocene & Pliocene Africa, there is a
> significant leap to get from rainforest to savannah.

Wow! You hit the nail on the head with this post. Yes, there
certainly is a significant leap from Rainforest to Savanna.

Imagine the late miocene. All of Africa, except the west
equatorial region, and all of south Asia (and maybe Europe
too?) would be 2, 3, or 4 habitat. It would be completely
dominated by large, migratory species (most of which did not
exist prior to 8.1 mya), and the predators that track them.
There would be no fences to prevent this migration. And at the
locations that, nowadays, we'd expect to find human cities and
towns we'd find isolated patches of forest. In the dry season
migration would be toward these more well watered patches of
forest, with the return of the rains the migration would be
back out again.

BTW, according to some of the conversations I've had with
other members in this NG (Rick) I think the following is the
categories they'd assign:

1. Tropical rainforest
2. Savanna
3. Savanna
4. Savanna
5. Savanna
6. Savanna
7. Savanna
8. Savanna
9. Savanna

:)

Jim

[Jim McGinn]

Philip Deitiker <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote

> >I understand, but the style of 'conversations" here seems
> >to place a premium of conflict rather than understanding.
>
> Its not always like that but it is like that most of the
> time. There was a period when most of the kooks had cleaned
> out of here, and the McGinn and Keeter came in, Marc
> Reemergred, and we end up in these endless unprodcutive
> debates about someones kooked up theory.
>
> > So he fits right in. And sometimes insights can come from
> > strange, "un-approved" places. But certainly we want to be
> > able to refer to sources.
>
> Yes they do, but those insights are often not wrapped in
> arrogance. For example Gisele made some point a few years
> ago that were way out in left feild, she did not powder them
> up with 'world class evolutionary biologist'. Well she was
> not exactly right, but she was close enough to know that
> something was real wrong with the data set and a few of
> points may now be considered valid. McGinn, in his original
> manifesto was a masterpiece of bad logic, non-sequitori
> thinking, all wrapped up in personal epitaths and scrambled
> like an egg-foo-young for confusion. I took alot of time,
> much more than LLL

Lorenzo Love, a veritable bastion of content.

and some others thought I
> should giving him the opportunity, in fact, holding his
> hand, trying to show him how material should be written up
> for flow and clarity. All I got was extreme greif for trying
> to help him.

Well, if it's any consolation, the grief was mutual.

More or less he thought his writing style was
> effective propoganda, so about a year later I undertook the
> task of him as an example of how material as content is
> actually propoganda, this sent him in to a state of
> qualifyable insanity and out of which the term "McGinnian
> Death Spiral" was coined. In every instance that he
> presented or defended his argument I exposeed the style he
> was using for the type of propoganda that it was until no
> specific thing he could say would be understood through that
> context. His only recourse was to explode all over
> s.a.p. which he did.

Yes, but then I got smart. I learned to use a kill filter. And
I put everybody's name in it who ever bothered me. And then I
urged other regular participants on this NG to do the same.
Then I interjected inflamatory rhetoric into any thread of
people that bothered me to divert attention away from people
in my kill filter. Then I started another NG called
PaleoAnthro and urged everybody to take advantage of our
"primary literature" and ignore SAP and its kooks. Then I
joined a twelve step program. Then Bob Keeter kept hounding
me. Then I dropped out of the twelve step program. Then I
started cross-posting to other NGs so as to muck up SAP
with Ed Conrad, Jabriol, and other creationists. Then I
got rid of my killfilter (it wasn't having the intended
effec). Then I, I, uh . . ., hey, wait a minute. This
wasn't me!

Hmm. It seems that somebody's been on a death spiral, and I
don't think it's me.

>
> >Am interested in piecing together the ecology/climate of
> >the late Miocene/early Pliocene when LCA & bipedalism
> >apparently arose. Everyone agrees that at some point the
> >tropical rainforest covered all of Africa. The late Miocene
> >saw some "drying", then in the Pliocene came "cooling". PD
> >has referenced some primary literature yesterday on the
> >tail end of this period.
>
> When I see something of interest I will post it. Whether I
> agree with it or not, I think the best recourse to the
> arguments kooks is that all who want not to be like them at
> least read the literature for themselves. If you have
> interest in a particular paper I can also up load the paper
> to Mol Anthro or Pal Anthro.
>
> >These changes to climate may have been brought about by
> >tectonic plate activities of India and African Rift valley,
> >I would have to research this to commit to this.
> >
> >I need to spend more time visualizing a clear & detailed
> >ecosystem in order to predict the selective pressures that
> >would have occurred.
> >
> >Climate changes, other ecological pressures (new
> >predators,prey availability, etc.) , and population
> >isolation are considered the main drivers of evolution. (I
> >would add to this the random mutational "improvement" that
> >just makes things go easier even in the static
> >environment.)
> >
> >So, if the 8-6mya LCA found himself in a closed monsoon
> >forest on the edge of the true rainforest (which is where
> >this climate exists today), he would have had to deal with
> >its associated dry season, the changes to animal predators/
> >animal prey/ plant stuffs, tree species, etc.
>
> What will eventually come fo good study is the understanding
> that we understand to little at present to come to good
> conclusions. Most important the LCA between erectoids and
> afarensis is not clear, nor is the time when the species or
> ergastor/erectoids appeared and where they lived. While
> these papers give different perspectives, until we have more
> definitive information of the earlies homo most will be
> speculative. The caveot to this is that anyone who tries to
> force the issue is generally creating a scientificall lead
> argument, which probably should be disregarded.

You're so obvious it cracks me up.

It is OK for
> one to have an opinion, gut feeling, interpretation of where
> and when one thinks important transitional hominids evolved,
> its a different thing to try to force your thinking on
> others and insult them if they don't agree with you.

Did your computer not come with a delete key?

> >All of these climatic/biome changes are certainly going to
> >apply pressures to evolve.
>
> All except 1, if homo evolved in the northern congo region
> it would be immune to almost all geograhic biome shifts,
> with the exception of some 5 to 7' shifts in temperatures,
> shifts that generally have minimal effects in rain forest
> because of the humidity. The pMRCA despite what recent
> papers say concerning click speakers from several loci
> studies MRCA back to the biaka, who used to be click
> speakers. They live in the northern congo region.
>
> >And the question now becomes: what advantage does
> >bipedality give to the LCA in seasonal woodland forest
> >rather than tropical rainforest.
>
> See above. And it is very interesting that the pMRCA of
> humans, chimpanzees and gorillas all pMRCA to the same
> general geographic location.
>
> >This occurs millions of years before we ever see a
> >grassland ala "Walking with Cavemen". And even at 4mya its
> >not solid anymore, is it? But definitely by 2.5mya...bring
> >on the lions!
>
> I have to take a more distal perspective, that perspective
> would also include scenarios where humans evolved largely
> within woodlands and offshoot specialist moved onto
> savanahs. There are all kind of caveots to this theory. But
> the MRCA of gorillas, the first apparent offshot is old
> compared to Chimp and human, then the MRCA of pan is old and
> then we have several specific splits in homo, and possibly a
> budding of paranthrops. Could humans be the end of a very
> old core population that gradually evolved bipedality. Could
> there have been a continual line of gradual evolution toward
> increased generalization within the arboreal contexted that
> threw off specialist like gorillas and chimps, afarensis and
> africanus. And finally in the end poof it could not bear the
> weight variation and finally radiated what was left. See
> this is also a valid scenario.

Phil, oh prince of insufficient brain cells, above you stated
the following: " . . . until we have more definitive
information of the earlies homo most will be speculative. The
caveot to this is that anyone who tries to force the issue is
generally creating a scientificall lead argument, which
probably should be disregarded." Question: was there a change
in the state of knowledge in PA that took place after you
typed this quote but before you typed the paragraph above?

> One has to keep in mind all most all of what we know about
> africa come from a sliver of land know as the rift valley.
> 1. Rift valley is a good site for exposing fossils
> 2. It also happens to cut through dryer grassland regions of
> africa.
> 3. Volcanic activity has produced an abundance of alkali
> rich soils that are particularly good at preserving bone
> that has been buried.
> 4. Volcanic activity has also been implicated in mudslides
> and landslides in heavy rains that can cause the overall
> rapid burial of humans in anearobic soils which cannot be
> later consumed by either digging or foraging scavengers.
>
> As a result 90% of the rest of africa is a dearth of
> information, how the find on lake chad and its similarity to
> habiloids and dmanisi 2 hominid may shed some light on what
> is goind on in western africa.

Phil, all kidding aside, you really gotta learn to live and
let live. Seriously. This stuff is all crap. It's not worth
mf. Trust me. I know. For your own sake. For your
family's sake.

Sincerely,

Jim

[Richard Wa]

Spiznet wrote:

> rmacfarl@alphalink.com.au (Ross Macfarlane) wrote in
> message news:<
> > pdeitik@worldnet.att.net (Philip Deitiker) wrote in
> > message news:< <snip>... I and others
> > > here are more observation scientist and since I don't
> > > know what the combined data means I am looking for more
> > > data to detail better explanations, not lead them.
> >
> >...He has undertaken no primary research, has rarely if
> >ever read any primary research papers, & is unable to
> >reference even any secondary sources. Yet he will still, if
> >you allow him to lull you into a false sense of security,
> >try to pass his ramblings off as the work of a "World-Class
> >Evolutionary Theorist".
> >
> > Ross Macfarlane
>
> I understand, but the style of 'conversations" here seems to
> place a premium of conflict rather than understanding. So he
> fits right in. And sometimes insights can come from strange,
> "un-approved" places. But certainly we want to be able to
> refer to sources.

And that is a major problem with the 'alternative' theorists
on this group. Speculation is just fine. Contrary to what some
seem to think scientists - even PAs - do it all the time. But
to the greatest extent possible they try and ground it on a
body of established data. The imprtance of a trifling detail
like this is lost on many here....

>
>
> Am interested in piecing together the ecology/climate of the
> late Miocene/early Pliocene when LCA & bipedalism apparently
> arose. Everyone agrees that at some point the tropical
> rainforest covered all of Africa. The late Miocene saw some
> "drying", then in the Pliocene came "cooling". PD has
> referenced some primary literature yesterday on the tail end
> of this period.

Do you have access to a good library. The following have
several articles on the subject and the bibios will provide
lots of primary lit.

Vrba, Elisabeth S; Denton, George H; Partridge, Timothy C;
Burckle, Lloyd H (eds) (1995)Paleoclimate and Evolution, with
Emphasis on Human Origins New Haven : Yale Univ Press

Bromage, Timothy G; Schrenk, Friedemann (eds) (2000). African
Biogeography, Climate Change and Human Evolution. Oxford :
Oxford Univ Press

To add a little time depth and get a feel for how things have
developed over the last half century look at

Bishop, Walter W; Clark, J Desmond (eds) (1967). Background to
Evolution in Africa Chicago : Univ of Chicago Press

Howell, F Clark; Bourliere, Francois (eds) (1966).
African Ecology and Human Evolution. Chicago : Aldine
Publishing Company

Coppens, Yves; Howell, F Clark; Isaac, Glynn L; Leakey,
Richard EF (eds) 1976. Earliest Man and Environments in the
Lake Rudolf Basin: Stratigraphy, Palaeoecology and Evolution.
Chicago : Univ of Chicago Press

Up here in Alberta my local university - the University of
Alberta - has developed the odd notion that since the public
is paying most of the freight the public should have access to
the library - including borrowing privileges. It is a very
good library though like all of them it has irritating gaps
and is gripped by the 'serials crisis' Increasingly serials
are being accessed only through the web - Science Direct etc
etc. This is getting to be a problem since us 'externals' are
restricted to the 'dead tree' side of things. But I am
grateful for the access I do have. It has been a godsend. I
hope you enjoy similar access.

Rick Wagler

[Philip Dei]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 13:42:04 GMT, Richard Wagler
<taxidea3@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Up here in Alberta my local university - the University of
>Alberta - has developed the odd notion that since the public
>is paying most of the freight the public should have access
>to the library - including borrowing privileges. It is a very
>good library though like all of them it has irritating gaps
>and is gripped by the 'serials crisis' Increasingly serials
>are being accessed only through the web - Science Direct etc
>etc. This is getting to be a problem since us 'externals' are
>restricted to the 'dead tree' side of things. But I am
>grateful for the access I do have. It has been a godsend. I
>hope you enjoy similar access.

If you walk into the TMC library and sit down at a station,
noone is going to stop you from DLing a paper and reading it
let alone the Journal stacks. I suspect many people have
access, but few use it. It is a problem.

[Spiznet]

jimmcginn@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message news:<
> Philip Deitiker <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote
<snip> Then I got rid of
> my killfilter (it wasn't having the intended effec). Then I,
> I, uh . . ., hey, wait a minute. This wasn't me!
>
> > It is OK for one to have an opinion, gut feeling,
> > interpretation of where and when one thinks important
> > transitional hominids evolved, its a different thing to
> > try to force your thinking on others and insult them if
> > they don't agree with you.
>
<snip>
> > I have to take a more distal perspective, that perspective
> > would also include scenarios where humans evolved largely
> > within woodlands and offshoot specialist moved onto
> > savanahs. There are all kind of caveots to this theory.
> > But the MRCA of gorillas, the first apparent offshot is
> > old compared to Chimp and human, then the MRCA of pan is
> > old and then we have several specific splits in homo, and
> > possibly a budding of paranthrops. Could humans be the end
> > of a very old core population that gradually evolved
> > bipedality. Could there have been a continual line of
> > gradual evolution toward increased generalization within
> > the arboreal contexted that threw off specialist like
> > gorillas and chimps, afarensis and africanus. And finally
> > in the end poof it could not bear the weight variation and
> > finally radiated what was left. See this is also a valid
> > scenario.
>
> Phil, oh prince of insufficient brain cells, above you
> stated the following: " . . . until we have more definitive
> information of the earlies homo most will be speculative.
> The caveot to this is that anyone who tries to force the
> issue is generally creating a scientificall lead argument,
> which probably should be disregarded." Question: was there
> a change in the state of knowledge in PA that took place
> after you typed this quote but before you typed the
> paragraph above?
>
> > One has to keep in mind all most all of what we know
> > about africa come from a sliver of land know as the rift
> > valley.
> > 1. Rift valley is a good site for exposing fossils
> > 2. It also happens to cut through dryer grassland regions
> > of africa.
> > 3. Volcanic activity has produced an abundance of alkali
> > rich soils that are particularly good at preserving
> > bone that has been buried.
> > 4. Volcanic activity has also been implicated in mudslides
> > and landslides in heavy rains that can cause the
> > overall rapid burial of humans in anearobic soils which
> > cannot be later consumed by either digging or foraging
> > scavengers.
> >
> > As a result 90% of the rest of africa is a dearth of
> > information, how the find on lake chad and its similarity
> > to habiloids and dmanisi 2 hominid may shed some light on
> > what is goind on in western africa.
>

Jim-

I think hes saying that you need to make a distinction between
the firm, noncomittal "objective" "scientific" persona that is
going to give the safe, 100% irrefutable answer (even if it
amounts to 0% info) on a topic, and the speculative
"theory-runner" persona who is willing to take any and all
evidence, patch them together and produce paradigms from many,
variably refutable premises.

I like the second approach, too. But I take my constructs as
such and am constantly looking for evidence to refute myself
(and it seems you are as well).

This monsoon forest/ seasonal forest thing is really good! The
shift from evergreen to deciduous trees alone could account
for bipedalism...

-Mark

[Spiznet]

mark@spiznet.com (Spiznet) wrote in message news:<
> jimmcginn@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message news:<

> > Yes, or as Potts describes in his paper, Environmental
> > Hypotheses of Hominin Evolution, (YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL
> > ANTHROPOLOGY 41:93-136 [1998]), "Essentially all textbooks
> > prior to 1996 explained the origin of these traits in
> > terms of adaptation to relatively open savanna, defined by
> > the presence of grass, discontinuous trees, overall
> > aridity, and seasonal rainfall (e.g., Klein, 1989;
> > Wolpoff,
> > 1980)."

> http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/adams3.html

> DETAILED KEY TO VEGETATION TYPES.
<snip>
>
> I don't know what happened to category 4. But you can see
> that due to the reality of climates 2 & 3 (even 4) and their
> considerable extent in Miocene & Pliocene Africa, there is a
> significant leap to get from rainforest to savannah. -Mark

Oops I meant "I don't know what happened to category 8."

But then I looked further and it says in another place on the
site that 8 is categorized as "savannah/mosaic"! So there is
even one more biome between 1 & 9:

1<> 2<> 3<> 4<> 8<> 9.

(the middle ones are desert/arid biomes and are even more
hostile than
9.)

[Jim McGinn]

mark@spiznet.com (Spiznet) wrote

> > <snip>...
> > I and others
> > > here are more observation scientist and since I don't
> > > know what the combined data means I am looking for more
> > > data to detail better explanations, not lead them.
> >
> >...He has undertaken no primary research, has rarely if
> >ever read any primary research papers, & is unable to
> >reference even any secondary sources. Yet he will still, if
> >you allow him to lull you into a false sense of security,
> >try to pass his ramblings off as the work of a "World-Class
> >Evolutionary Theorist".
> >
> > Ross Macfarlane
>
> I understand, but the style of 'conversations" here seems to
> place a premium of conflict rather than understanding. So he
> fits right in.

Newton had to kick some ass before anybody would listen. He
had problems similar to mine. To understand his theories one
must have a good understanding of math. The mathematical
education that we currently take for granted didn't exist back
then. It's very hard to sell a theory of gravity based on
mathematics to people that don't know math and who otherwise
have a superstitious understanding of cause and effect. The
current paradigm of evolutionary theory is filled with similar
superstitious thinking.

> And sometimes insights can come from strange, "un-approved"
> places. But certainly we want to be able to refer to
> sources.

It's kind of funny when you consider the thought processes
that underly these silly claims--which are untrue--that I
don't reference secondary sources. He reads my stuff. He
realizes he can't dispute it (much of it is over his head).
And then, in frustration, the accusations start to fly:

> "He has undertaken no primary research,"

True. I'm a theorist. I leave the primary research to others.
(I imagine if I was a researcher who found something
controversial he'd accuse me of not doing and "primary"
theoretical work.)

> "has rarely if ever read any primary research papers"

Desperation. How does he supposedly know this. Truth is I
probably read 5 times as much primary literature as he
does. However, a relatively small percentage of it is
specific to PA.

> is unable to reference even any secondary sources.

Except for Gerrit and Marc I've probably referenced more
secondary sources than any other regular participant on
this NG. But let's say for purposes of argument that I
didn't. So what. Real scholars (and, no, Ross, you are not
a "real scholar") are only concerned with references to the
extent that it involves specific claims by an author. If he
can't make specific disputes about what I'm saying then why
in the world would he ask for references? This isn't a high
school term paper. Only an amateur would dispute references
without making specific reference to a specific claim by
the author. Duh!

>
> Am interested in piecing together the ecology/climate of the
> late Miocene/early Pliocene when LCA & bipedalism apparently
> arose. Everyone agrees that at some point the tropical
> rainforest covered all of Africa. The late Miocene saw some
> "drying", then in the Pliocene came "cooling". PD has
> referenced some primary literature yesterday on the tail end
> of this period.

Be sure to use the search engine on Google Groups. I've posted
a lot of stuff on this topic.

>
> These changes to climate may have been brought about by
> tectonic plate activities of India and African Rift valley,
> I would have to research this to commit to this.
>
> I need to spend more time visualizing a clear & detailed
> ecosystem in order to predict the selective pressures that
> would have occurred.

You're on the right track. This is the thing that's hardest
for people to conceptualize. It's just hard for us to imagine
a region dominated by large, free-roaming mammals, seasonal
dessication, and implications thereof, etc. It's a very
different world that presently exist.

> Climate changes, other ecological pressures (new
> predators,prey availability, etc.) , and population
> isolation are considered the main drivers of evolution. (I
> would add to this the random mutational "improvement" that
> just makes things go easier even in the static environment.)
>
> So, if the 8-6mya LCA found himself in a closed monsoon
> forest on the edge of the true rainforest (which is where
> this climate exists today), he would have had to deal with
> its associated dry season, the changes to animal predators/
> animal prey/ plant stuffs, tree species, etc.

It's important to realize that, IMO, the main geographic
aspect of this hypothesis, city-sized, town-sized patches of
forest, would only occur in the context of seasonal
dessication, monsoon forest. Here's another post that
elaborates on this theme. (Read it carefully.)

http://makeashorterlink.com/?H11F62065

> All of these climatic/biome changes are certainly going to
> apply pressures to evolve.
>
> And the question now becomes: what advantage does bipedality
> give to the LCA in seasonal woodland forest rather than
> tropical rainforest.
>
> This occurs millions of years before we ever see a
> grassland ala "Walking with Cavemen". And even at 4mya its
> not solid anymore, is it? But definitely by 2.5mya...bring
> on the lions!

Jim

[Spiznet]

Richard Wagler <taxidea3@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<
>
> Do you have access to a good library. The following have
> several articles on the subject and the bibios will provide
> lots of primary lit.
>
<snip>
>
> Rick Wagler

Rick- Thanks for the time to put these sources together. I
will get ahold of them! -Mark

[Michael Cl]

"Spiznet" <mark@spiznet.com> wrote in message
news:cb2e44af.0307240732.2e90beb7@posting.google.com... [snip]
> Jim-
>
> I think hes saying that you need to make a distinction
> between the firm, noncomittal "objective" "scientific"
> persona that is going to give the safe, 100% irrefutable
> answer (even if it amounts to 0% info) on a topic, and the
> speculative "theory-runner" persona who is willing to take
> any and all evidence, patch them together and produce
> paradigms from many, variably refutable premises.
>
> I like the second approach, too. But I take my constructs as
> such and am constantly looking for evidence to refute myself
> (and it seems you are as well).
>
> This monsoon forest/ seasonal forest thing is really good!
> The shift from evergreen to deciduous trees alone could
> account for bipedalism...

I think you need to read some archives. Didn't your mamma
teach you how to recognize a damned fool?

> -Mark

[Jim McGinn]

mark@spiznet.com (Spiznet) wrote

> Jim-
>
> I think hes saying that you need to make a distinction
> between the firm, noncomittal "objective" "scientific"
> persona that is going to give the safe, 100% irrefutable
> answer (even if it amounts to 0% info) on a topic, and the
> speculative "theory-runner" persona who is willing to take
> any and all evidence, patch them together and produce
> paradigms from many, variably refutable premises.

Phil epitomizes the second of these two: the "speculative
'theory-runner' persona who is willing to take any and all
evidence, patch them together and produce paradigms from many,
variably refutable premises." Let's examine some of his words:

************ <begin cut and paste> ************

M.S.
> All of these climatic/biome changes are certainly going to
> apply pressures to evolve.

M.T.All except 1, if homo evolved in the northern congo region
it would be immune to almost all geograhic biome shifts,
with the exception of some 5 to 7' shifts in temperatures,
shifts that generally have minimal effects in rain forest
because of the humidity.

JMc ** What is he saying here? Does this make any sense at
all? Think about it. How is this supposedly relevant to what
is being discussed in this thread?

The pMRCA despite what recent papers say concerning click
speakers from several loci studies MRCA back to the biaka,
who used to be click speakers. They live in the northern
congo region.

** Now, suddenly, he's referring to extant (present day) pMRCA
data. Why? What's the relevance to something that took place
millions of years ago? Supposedly the relevance is so obvious
that it doesn't need to be pointed out. IMO, this is a perfect
example of somebody who, to use your words, " . . . is willing
to take any and all evidence, patch them together and produce
paradigms . . ."

>And the question now becomes: what advantage does bipedality
>give to the LCA in seasonal woodland forest rather than
>tropical rainforest.

See above. And it is very interesting that the pMRCA of
humans, chimpanzees and gorillas all pMRCA to the same general
geographic location.

** You mention bipedality and seasonal habitat. Then Phil
mentions extant pMRCA data and says this is, "very
interesting." Well, it may be interesting. But it isn't
relevant. Phil's insight more closely resembles the ramblings
of a drunk than they do a scientist.

>This occurs millions of years before we ever see a
>grassland ala "Walking with Cavemen". And even at 4mya its
>not solid anymore, is it? But definitely by 2.5mya...bring
>on the lions!

I have to take a more distal perspective,

** Now he's telling us he's taking a "distal
perspective." (Phil likes to use a lot of big words. But
he uses them poorly.)

that perspective would also include scenarios where humans
evolved largely within woodlands and offshoot specialist moved
onto savanahs.

** Offshoot specialists moving onto the savanna? What is
anybody supposed to do with this kind of vague speculation,
oh, that's right, this is not vague speculation this is a,
"more distal perspective."

There are all kind of caveots to this theory.

** What theory?

But the MRCA of gorillas, the first apparent offshot is old
compared to Chimp and human, then the MRCA of pan is old and
then we have several specific splits in homo, and possibly a
budding of paranthrops. Could humans be the end of a very old
core population that gradually evolved bipedality.

** Listen to this BS. He's suggesting that cladistics can be
employed to infer evolutionary cause and effect. This is
Budweiser talking.

Could there have been a continual line of gradual evolution
toward increased generalization within the arboreal contexted
that threw off specialist like gorillas and chimps, afarensis
and africanus.

** More vague speculation about a generalization trend. If he
had *any* understanding at all about speciation
processes--especially as they relate to the concept of
niche--he would have a sense of how problematic is such a
notion. I pointed this out to him years ago. He doesn't get it
and he never will.

And finally in the end poof it could not bear the weight
variation and finally radiated what was left.

** Here he's employing terminology that was intended to
describe and conceptualize populational and speciation
processes and wielding it like a magic wand to achieve the
illusion that he's said something substantive. This is the
pure pseudo-science.

See this is also a valid scenario.

** And then, in the classic Dieteker style, he declares it a
"valid scenario." Supposedly we're to overlook the fact that
it really doesn't amount to a scenario at all.

One has to keep in mind all most all of what we know about
africa come from a sliver of land know as the rift valley.

** Yeah, so? What's your point?

1. Rift valley is a good site for exposing fossils
2. It also happens to cut through dryer grassland regions
of africa.
3. Volcanic activity has produced an abundance of alkali rich
soils that are particularly good at preserving bone that
has been buried.
4. Volcanic activity has also been implicated in mudslides and
landslides in heavy rains that can cause the overall rapid
burial of humans in anearobic soils which cannot be later
consumed by either digging or foraging scavengers.

As a result 90% of the rest of africa is a dearth of
information, how the find on lake chad and its similarity to
habiloids and dmanisi 2 hominid may shed some light on what is
goind on in western africa.

** Here he's just parroting back a bunch of procedural
terminology and pretending he's saying something substantive.

************ <end cut and paste> ************

> I like the second approach, too.

Phil is a bombastic blowhard. Bombastic blowhard's like to
parrot back their interpretation of scientific methodologies
because it creates the impression in their audience's mind
that they are saying something important, scientific, or
complicated when really they aren't. When faced with the fact
that he can't dispute the basic premises of somebody else's
argument he will begin talking about the limitations of the
data. But, magically, these limitations don't apply to his own
vague, poorly considered, speculations.

Ultimately what he is saying here is that the very real
limitations of data in this discipline dictate the conclusion
that, therefore, hypotheses must be vague and we can eliminate
any hypotheses that aren't vague on that basis alone. Believe
it or not this *really* is what he's saying here. Pure
pseudo-science.

> But I take my constructs as such and am constantly
> looking for evidence to refute myself (and it seems you
> are as well).

Yes. You are doing the right thing. You are not jumping to the
conclusion that this new hypothesis is right. In contrast to
Phil, Rick, and Gerrit who would have us believe that this new
hypothesis can be eliminated on the basis that it make
specific predictions, you are locating specific predictions of
my hypothesis and attempting to refute them. For example, one
of the predictions of my hypothesis is that the shift in
climate happened around 8 mya and that it involves the
introduction of the element of seasonal dessication that is
associated with Monsoon habitat. If it can be demonstrated
that this climatic factor, seasonal dessication, was
introduced sooner than 8 mya, let's say 10 mya, or later,
let's say 6 mya, then this hypothesis will have been refuted.
If not then it will have failed to be refuted. And this is
only one of a number of potential points of refutation with
this hypothesis offers. Others involve ape behavior, migratory
behavior, predatory behavior, extant evidence of humans (does
it actually explain the evidence) and other fossil based
predictions.

Scientific procedures are relatively straight forward. We have
no need for bombastic blowhards who reexplain these
methodologies and pretend they've said something substantive.
Don't fall for it.

> This monsoon forest/seasonal forest thing is really good!
> The shift from evergreen to deciduous trees alone could
> account for bipedalism...

Not IMO. I think you are assuming that bipedalism is a more
effienct/proficient locomotory strategy than the
knuckle-walking that was ancestral to Apiths. Experimental
evidence (I think it's Lovejoy) indicates there was no
locomotory advantage to the earliest derivations of
bipedalism. (Think about this.) The supposition that
bipedalism is advantageous in open habitat is really little
more than a romantic, savanna-based fantasy. (And this fantasy
becomes especially fantastic when we consider the selective
implications of slight shouldered apiths in comparison to
larger, stronger shouldered chimps confronting predators in
treeless habitat.)

Jim

[Jim McGinn]

"Michael Clark" <biteme@spammer.com> wrote

> > This monsoon forest/ seasonal forest thing is really good!
> > The shift from evergreen to deciduous trees alone could
> > account for bipedalism...
>
> I think you need to read some archives. Didn't your mamma
> teach you how to recognize a damned fool?

Mikey, why don't you and your mamma put your heads together
and provide some links to this effect?

Jim