The Myth That Group Selection Has Been Disproven

[Jim McGinn]

quercophile wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> > 3) Myth: The freeing of the hands that bipedalism enabled
> > in our earliest chimpanzee-like ancestors might have
> > enabled the use of weapons or tools to achieve hunting
> > or scavenging.
> >
> > Fact: These earliest hominids were millions of years away
> > from having the intellect, cooperative behaviors, and
> > manipulative abilities necessary to for such a diminutive
> > creature to have competed with the large agressive social
> > hunters and scavengers that are evident in the fossil
> > record of east Africa beginning in the middle miocene,
> > about 8 mya. (Moreover, only in the context of a scenario
> > that involves communalism could we ever expect them to
> > evolve such intellectual and cooperative abilities.)
>
> I generally agree with all your other assertions but find
> this one questionable. Why is social cooperation or acute
> intellectual abilities necessary for tool use, such as
> picking up and rock and chucking it or swinging a stick?
> People have seen chimpanzees throwing objects at intruders
> and tool use in other contexts has also been seen.

I think I may have mistated something. I agree with you that
social cooperation and/or intellectual abilities at levels of
proficiency higher than those of a chimpanzee are not
necessary for activities involving rock-throwing and/or stick
swinging. As you point out, people have seen chimpanzees
throwing objects at intruders, and even rudimentary tool use
(smashing nuts with stones, fishing termite grubs with sticks,
etc.) is evident. And my own hypothesis indicates this
behavior as the preadaptive behavior that brought about the
evolution of bipedalism in the earliest hominids.

The supposition that I was debating in the passage above was,
therefore, not that rudimentary rock-throwing and
stick-wielding underlies the emergence of bipedalism but that
the emergence of bipedalism involved hunting/scavenging. My
hypothesis explicates how I think rock-throwing, stick-
wielding behavior would have been selectively advantageous in
the earliest years of hominid evolution. And--as I've made
perfectly clear many times over--it has nothing even remotely
to do with hunting, scavenging, or even directly evading
predators. It has to do with a community as a whole achieving
preservation of communal resources--food--by way of
preventing inmigrating species from inmigrating and depleting
these resources (mostly fruit trees). Thereby the community
as a whole may better insure that it has access to resources
through the dry season and thereby avoid starvation, thirst,
and the predatory implications associated with the same.

> Moving to bipedality is an enormous challenge. The only
> payoff I can see for paying the inevitable costs is greater
> utility for the upper limbs.

And I agree with you on this point. Bipedalism, which emerges
very early in the hominid fossil record, could only have
evolved if, to use your words, "greater utility of the upper
limbs," provided some kind of very significant survival
advantage. (The reasons for why I dismiss mobility have been
discussed explicitly in other posts.) What are these survival
advantages? Conventional theorists jumped to the conclusion
that this indicated that early man was a tool-using hunter
scavenger. They also concluded, incorrectly IMO, that hominid
communalism emerged only recently (most say no sooner than
12,000 kya). According to my hypothesis the emergence of
bipedalism and the emergence of communal territorialism go
hand in hand beginning 8.1 mya.

The biggest question, by far, about hominid origins involves
the selective origins of hominid consciousness/intelligence.
My scenario provides the context by which this explanation can
be achieved.

There is nothing about my hypothesis that is inconsistent with
a scientifically accurate understanding of evolution. With
respect to its acceptance the biggest problem my hypothesis
has involves the fact that few scientists possess a
scientifically accurate understanding of evolution. Instead
they possess what can best be described as a dogmatism riddled
caricature of evolution based loosely on Darwin's thinking.
Maybe one of the biggest misconceptions associated with this
caricature-- especially as it effects the acceptance of my
hypothesis-- involves prejudices against group selection. To
put it in a nutshell, there are a lot of people out there that
believe that group selection has been disproven and therefore
my scenario can be dismissed because of it's communal
selective aspects alone. In reality no such disproof has ever
been achieved and group selective scenarios are at least as
viable as selection at any other level of biological
phenomena.

Jim

[Quercophil]

Jim,

Have you ever considered what species is the most intense
competitor for an incipient humna as it started to diverge
from the LCA? I would submit that it is other primates.

I've often wondered why intergroup violence bas been ignored
as a driver of human evolution. I'll offer as threads that
support this idea.
1) Jane Goodall's observation of one troop of chimps
systematically killing all of the males and older females
of an adjacent troop, co-opting the fecund females and
absorbing their territory.
2) The state of continuous warfare that existed among New
Guinea highland tribes, where intergroup homicide was among
the leading causes of death and gene flow so low that
tribes took on distinctive appearances (height, hue, hair
texture, etc.) in the few thousand years of human
occupation of that island.
3) An honest look at the history and prehistory of our
species, from the spread of the Indo-European language
group to the known successsive replacements of one tribe
for another in occupying the same piece of real estate.

This mechanism could explain bipedcalism as the increased
utility of using arms (even etymology supports my argument)
drove increased diversity between the development of the upper
and lower limbs.

It is a behavior that would have increased selective power as
drying made existing territories less productive and well
watered. (It would also explain our species extravagant use of
water in the face of drying since only tribes that could gain
and hold the water hole survived.

Selection by this behavior could explain increased
encephalization, neotony and the extremely low reproductive
potential of our species, all extremes that could only be
explained by novel pressures. It could explain the paradoxical
behaviors of cooperation, self sacrifice and compassion
exhibited by the same species that also practices xenophobia
and genocide.

[Spiznet]

you need to talk to Jim McGinn, the Ecological Gatekeeper.

[Jim McGinn]

quercophile wrote:
> Jim,
>
> Have you ever considered what species is the most intense
> competitor for an incipient humna as it started to diverge
> from the LCA?

Yes. And I reasoned that it was the wrong question to ask. The
right questions involve what behaviors are adaptive, how they
are adaptive, and are they predictive of the behaviors we see
in ourselves.

I would
> submit that it is other primates.

They might have had some opposition to other primates. But my
scenario has more to do with communal selection. Accordingly
it really doesn't matter what species was their opposition.
What matters is that their fate is tied to the level of
"wealth" in their community. A "poor" community is vulnerable
to predatory massacres (as explicated in my hypothesis). A
"rich" community survives and persists. Richness and poorness
is a factor of whether or not and to what degree the
community has enough resources to make it through the dry
season without drawing the attention of predators. The main
adaptive behavior is war/sports behavior (rock throwing,
stick wielding) directed against large mammalian
food-competitors all year long. All of this is fully
explained in the context of my hypothesis, which can be found
by doing searches here in this NG.

>
> I've often wondered why intergroup violence bas been ignored
> as a driver of human evolution. I'll offer as threads that
> support this idea.
> 1) Jane Goodall's observation of one troop of chimps
> systematically killing all of the males and older females
> of an adjacent troop, co-opting the fecund females and
> absorbing their territory.
> 2) The state of continuous warfare that existed among New
> Guinea highland tribes, where intergroup homicide was
> among the leading causes of death and gene flow so low
> that tribes took on distinctive appearances (height, hue,
> hair texture, etc.) in the few thousand years of human
> occupation of that island.
> 3) An honest look at the history and prehistory of our
> species, from the spread of the Indo-European language
> group to the known successsive replacements of one tribe
> for another in occupying the same piece of real estate.
>
> This mechanism could explain bipedcalism as the increased
> utility of using arms (even etymology supports my argument)
> drove increased diversity between the development of the
> upper and lower limbs.

I agree with your thinking on this.

>
> It is a behavior that would have increased selective power
> as drying made existing territories less productive and well
> watered. (It would also explain our species extravagant use
> of water in the face of drying since only tribes that could
> gain and hold the water hole survived.

Here's an interesting fact. Did you know that dry seasons
(monsoon climate) did not exist on this planet until it
emerged suddenly at 8.1 mya and specifically in East Africa.
We'll probably never find fossil evidence of the true LCA but
I'd bet it is at 8.1 mya.

> Selection by this behavior could explain increased
> encephalization,

How? Be specific. How is it adaptive?

> neotony and the extremely low reproductive potential of our
> species, all extremes that could only be explained by novel
> pressures. It could explain the paradoxical behaviors of
> cooperation, self sacrifice and compassion exhibited by the
> same species that also practices xenophobia and genocide.

I think you generally have the right idea. The real difficult
part is figuring out how, specifically, it is adaptive. This
is where the communal selective aspects of my scenario come
into play.

Jim

[Quercophil]

Jim McGinn wrote:
But my scenario
> has more to do with communal selection. Accordingly it
> really doesn't matter what species was their opposition.
> What matters is that their fate is tied to the level of
> "wealth" in their community. A "poor" community is
> vulnerable to predatory massacres (as explicated in my
> hypothesis). A "rich" community survives and persists.
> Richness and poorness is a factor of whether or not and to
> what degree the community has enough resources to make it
> through the dry season without drawing the attention of
> predators. The main adaptive behavior is war/sports behavior
> (rock throwing, stick wielding) directed against large
> mammalian food-competitors all year long. All of this is
> fully explained in the context of my hypothesis, which can
> be found by doing searches here in this NG.

Wouldn't this behavior require increased encephalization
before bipedalism, so that the proto-humans would have the
predictive ability to forsee what other grazers and browsers
in their territory could do to their resources during the
dry period?

> How? Be specific. How is it adaptive?
>
Jane Goodall's observations of chimps showed that most of the
killing of the adjacent tribe was done by ambush. This is
generally true of the New Guinea highlanders as well.
Incidentally, this is why social anthropologists for years
maintained that the New Guinea tribes did not practice "war"
because they narrowly defined it as large formal contests with
arms. Setting ambushes for adjacent tribes and defense against
such could set off an encephalization race in which the more
clever killed off the less.

You have to admit that in the evolutionary game of "increase
your gene frequency" the Goodall chimps that took over
adjacent territory and co-opted the fecund females won.

[Jim McGinn]

quercophile wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:
> But my scenario
> > has more to do with communal selection. Accordingly it
> > really doesn't matter what species was their opposition.
> > What matters is that their fate is tied to the level of
> > "wealth" in their community. A "poor" community is
> > vulnerable to predatory massacres (as explicated in my
> > hypothesis). A "rich" community survives and persists.
> > Richness and poorness is a factor of whether or not and to
> > what degree the community has enough resources to make it
> > through the dry season without drawing the attention of
> > predators. The main adaptive behavior is war/sports
> > behavior (rock throwing, stick wielding) directed against
> > large mammalian food-competitors all year long. All of
> > this is fully explained in the context of my hypothesis,
> > which can be found by doing searches here in this NG.
>
> Wouldn't this behavior require increased encephalization
> before bipedalism, so that the proto-humans would have the
> predictive ability to forsee what other grazers and browsers
> in their territory could do to their resources during the
> dry period?

Good question. (The right question.) But, IMO, the answer is,
no. If it was necessary for them to have the predictive
ability--consciousness, intelligence, etc.--for them to have
effected the end result (resource preservation) then this
scenario would never get off the ground in the first place. I
think that originally they were just acting off their
territorial instincts. (In my original explanation I referred
to it as peskiness or to them as pesky apes. You might try
searching on mcginn, peskiness etc.) IOW, those that had
behaviors that effected communal territorialism would
have--inadvertently--produced behaviors that effected resource
preservation which was adaptive due to the unique situational
factors in this environment.

>
> > How? Be specific. How is it adaptive?
> >
> Jane Goodall's observations of chimps showed that most of
> the killing of the adjacent tribe was done by ambush. This
> is generally true of the New Guinea highlanders as well.
> Incidentally, this is why social anthropologists for years
> maintained that the New Guinea tribes did not practice "war"
> because they narrowly defined it as large formal contests
> with arms. Setting ambushes for adjacent tribes and defense
> against such could set off an encephalization race in which
> the more clever killed off the less.

I think this is nonsense reasoning. There's nothing about this
scenario that requires complex reasoning. Encephalization,
IMO, has to do with the highly complex reasoning associated
with the political aspects of surviving in a society. It
mostly has to do with the ability to read other peoples
intentions and to predict their actions.

>
> You have to admit that in the evolutionary game of "increase
> your gene frequency" the Goodall chimps that took over
> adjacent territory and co-opted the fecund females won.

Yes, but why would you assume that those that won had larger
brains. There are drawbacks to larger brains. They process
more information and can be, therefore, slower. Large human
brains are overkill for the scenario you described. What may
have been more adaptive in this scenario is fast thinking
rather than the complex thinking associated with big brains.

(Oh, BTW, Goodall has a amateurish just-so-story notion of
natural selection.)

Jim

[Quercophil]

Jim McGinn wrote:

> Good question. (The right question.) But, IMO, the answer
> is, no. If it was necessary for them to have the predictive
> ability--consciousness, intelligence, etc.--for them to have
> effected the end result (resource preservation) then this
> scenario would never get off the ground in the first place.
> I think that originally they were just acting off their
> territorial instincts. (In my original explanation I
> referred to it as peskiness or to them as pesky apes. You
> might try searching on mcginn, peskiness etc.) IOW, those
> that had behaviors that effected communal territorialism
> would have--inadvertently--produced behaviors that effected
> resource preservation which was adaptive due to the unique
> situational factors in this environment.

Do you have any examples of interspecific territorialism. All
the examples I can think of are intraspecific.

> I think this is nonsense reasoning. There's nothing about
> this scenario that requires complex reasoning.
> Encephalization, IMO, has to do with the highly complex
> reasoning associated with the political aspects of surviving
> in a society. It mostly has to do with the ability to read
> other peoples intentions and to predict their actions.

Of course reading other's intentions and predicting their
actions has great utility in the conduct of warfare.
Furthermore warfare would keep the same process of group
selection operating, where your explanation would substitute
individual selection within the group to explain
encephalization. I'm not sure one can even find examples in
our current situation to demostrate that smart people have a
breeding advantage.

> Yes, but why would you assume that those that won had larger
> brains. There are drawbacks to larger brains. They process
> more information and can be, therefore, slower. Large human
> brains are overkill for the scenario you described. What may
> have been more adaptive in this scenario is fast thinking
> rather than the complex thinking associated with big brains.
>
> (Oh, BTW, Goodall has a amateurish just-so-story notion of
> natural selection.)

That's a novel assertion that large brains slow the thinking
or reaction process. Got any references? The encephalization
of Homo and the associated neotony is a huge cost. I don't
think incremental advantages are going to pay the bill.

I don't know that Goodall ever offered much in the way of
interpretation. One can only infer from her references.

[Jim McGinn]

quercophile wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> > Good question. (The right question.) But, IMO, the answer
> > is, no. If it was necessary for them to have the
> > predictive ability--consciousness, intelligence, etc.--for
> > them to have effected the end result (resource
> > preservation) then this scenario would never get off the
> > ground in the first place. I think that originally they
> > were just acting off their territorial instincts. (In my
> > original explanation I referred to it as peskiness or to
> > them as pesky apes. You might try searching on mcginn,
> > peskiness etc.) IOW, those that had behaviors that
> > effected communal territorialism would
> > have--inadvertently--produced behaviors that effected
> > resource preservation which was adaptive due to the unique
> > situational factors in this environment.
>
> Do you have any examples of interspecific territorialism.
> All the examples I can think of are intraspecific.

Maybe the best exmple is amongst ourselves. Modern humans
don't allow large mammals (with the exception of cattle in
India) to roam freely in our cities.

> > I think this is nonsense reasoning. There's nothing about
> > this scenario that requires complex reasoning.
> > Encephalization, IMO, has to do with the highly complex
> > reasoning associated with the political aspects of
> > surviving in a society. It mostly has to do with the
> > ability to read other peoples intentions and to predict
> > their actions.
>
> Of course reading other's intentions and predicting their
> actions has great utility in the conduct of warfare.
> Furthermore warfare would keep the same process of group
> selection operating, where your explanation would substitute
> individual selection within the group to explain
> encephalization.

Good point. It's both. Societies comprised of individuals that
are discriminating (politics, individual selection in a sense)
are societies that will have the unity and structure to be
successful in war (group selection). They are both
intertwined.

> I'm not sure one can even find examples in our current
> situation to demostrate that smart people have a breeding
> advantage.

I think this is constantly evident.

> > Yes, but why would you assume that those that won had
> > larger brains. There are drawbacks to larger brains. They
> > process more information and can be, therefore, slower.
> > Large human brains are overkill for the scenario you
> > described. What may have been more adaptive in this
> > scenario is fast thinking rather than the complex thinking
> > associated with big brains.
> >
> > (Oh, BTW, Goodall has a amateurish just-so-story notion of
> > natural selection.)
>
> That's a novel assertion that large brains slow the thinking
> or reaction process. Got any references?

I don't think it is novel. I thought it was rather obvious.

> The encephalization of Homo and the associated neotony is a
> huge cost. I don't think incremental advantages are going to
> pay the bill.

I don't know what you mean by incremental.

> I don't know that Goodall ever offered much in the way of
> interpretation. One can only infer from her references.

She ain't no evolutionary theorist, I'll say that much.

Jim

[Quercophil]

Jim McGinn wrote:

> >
> > Do you have any examples of interspecific territorialism.
> > All the examples I can think of are intraspecific.
>
> Maybe the best exmple is amongst ourselves. Modern humans
> don't allow large mammals (with the exception of cattle in
> India) to roam freely in our cities.

The warfare explanation then has the advantage of actual
example among our closest relatives where interspecific
territoriality has none.

>
> > I'm not sure one can even find examples in our current
> > situation to demostrate that smart people have a breeding
> > advantage.
>
> I think this is constantly evident.

That's not my impression. Offhand from direct observation, I
would say that primes selection among our specices is for
athleticism among males and beauty among females. I don't see
much of the brain-reproductive success connection.

> > > Yes, but why would you assume that those that won had
> > > larger brains. There are drawbacks to larger brains.
> > > They process more information and can be, therefore,
> > > slower. Large human brains are overkill for the scenario
> > > you described. What may have been more adaptive in this
> > > scenario is fast thinking rather than the complex
> > > thinking associated with big brains.

> >
> > That's a novel assertion that large brains slow the
> > thinking or reaction process. Got any references?
>
> I don't think it is novel. I thought it was rather obvious.

It's novel to me. I don't believe I've heard the suggestion
before. Got any references.

> > The encephalization of Homo and the associated neotony is
> > a huge cost. I don't think incremental advantages are
> > going to pay the bill.

> I don't know what you mean by incremental.

Even if smart protohumans have more reproductive success
within the group, (A dubious assertion, IMO) they could have
only had incrementally better success. Other factors could
easily overwhelm it.

A favorite of the AAT enthusiasts, the lack of water
thriftiness in humans can be explained by the intergroup
violence model since holding the source of water during dry
periods means the holders do not need thriftiness. If you were
relying on driving off other herbivore competitiors, I believe
water thriftiness would still be a selective force.

[Jim McGinn]

quercophile wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Do you have any examples of interspecific
> > > territorialism. All the examples I can think of are
> > > intraspecific.
> >
> > Maybe the best exmple is amongst ourselves. Modern humans
> > don't allow large mammals (with the exception of cattle in
> > India) to roam freely in our cities.
>
> The warfare explanation then has the advantage of actual
> example among our closest relatives where interspecific
> territoriality has none.

Oh, I misread your previous question. I confused the meaning
of intra and inter.

Okay, now I get what you're saying. You saying that
interspecif, human groups vs. human groups, is more viable
bcause it is so apparent in our own species.

I agree that it is apparent in our own species. In fact it's
rather obvious. And I agree that this is evidence that must
be considered. The problem, IMO, is that we tend to look at
it from the somewhat modern hominid-centric perspective of a
species that has been ecologically dominant for possibly as
long as 2 plus million years. And there's a whole load of
reason why human vs. human war seems unlikely to species that
originally was literally an ape. Even if we put stone tools
and sticks in their hands it's hard to imagine
them--especially when viewed against the mammalian assemblage
of late miocene east Africa--being dominant in any place but
the more well treed (and well-watered) locations of their
monsoon forest habitat. I think any reasonable person who
studied it intentally will come away from it without any
doubt that such a diminutive creature would not have been
dominant enough to begin hominid vs. hominid war. The species
in this environment were constantly at war with each other.
Much more than the eras (let's say tracking back from 8 mya
going all the way back to 50 mya) that preceeded. This was,
in no small part, due to the dry season of this monsoon
dominated habitat. This monsoon habitat at 8.1 mya and first
emerged in east Africa.

In a sense we can think of a dry season as creating a
hypercompetitive environment. Take a look at a fossile
assemblage of Late miocene africa. There are some pretty
tough, large mammals indicated. And a lot of them. (We can
discern their prevalence from the abundance of their fossils
in comparison to those of hominids.) Other groups of hominids
would have been the least of their problems. The world was a
much different place back then for our earliest hominid
ancestors. They resided at treed localities that were like
little islands in a surrounding sea of very large, aggressive,
predators. And every dry season these large mammals would come
crashing through their treed locality eating everything in
sight and serving as an invitation to large predators. Given
these realities I think it's obvious there was no free time to
devote to such extravances as hominid vs. hominid war.

This is one of anywhere between 5 and ten good reasons to
dispute the supposition that hominid vs. hominid war would
have been possible for our chimpanzee-like eariest ancestors.
But still remains: if it didn't start with hominid vs. hominid
then how did the behavior--war--get started in the hominid
lineage? My hypothesis answers this question. As explained, it
evolved as a means by which the earliest hominids could
protect resources and survive the dry season. And this most
involved the employment of rocks, sticks, and mob oriented
attack behavior to serve as a deterrent to potential
inmigrating species. (Note: it was mostly symbolic. Wave a few
sticks, throw a few rocks, make a show of force. That was
usually all that was necessary to serve as a deterrent to
inmigrating mammals. It's not like these animals were any
smarter then than they are now.) The degree that a community
(or even subcommunity) prevented inmigration was the degree
that the community as a whole would have a better chance of
avoiding being caught up in the predatory massacres that
happened during the depth of the dry season, every year.

>
>
> >
> > > I'm not sure one can even find examples in our current
> > > situation to demonstrate that smart people have a
> > > breeding advantage.
> >
> > I think this is constantly evident.
>
> That's not my impression. Offhand from direct observation, I
> would say that primes selection among our specices is for
> athleticism among males and beauty among females. I don't
> see much of the brain-reproductive success connection.

There's a lot more to a successful human brain than just
intellect. Athleticism is not a brain free activity. And there
is no shortage of brain power underlying all aspects of what's
involved with beauty. Besides, most human brain power is
devoted to processes that are subconscious to us. The
complexity of human communication is not something you are
normally aware of, for instance. But it is there. And it
requires a tremendous amount of processing power. Don't take
it for granted.

>
> > > > Yes, but why would you assume that those that won had
> > > > larger brains. There are drawbacks to larger brains.
> > > > They process more information and can be, therefore,
> > > > slower. Large human brains are overkill for the
> > > > scenario you described. What may have been more
> > > > adaptive in this scenario is fast thinking rather than
> > > > the complex thinking associated with big brains.
>
> > >
> > > That's a novel assertion that large brains slow the
> > > thinking or reaction process. Got any references?
> >
> > I don't think it is novel. I thought it was rather
> > obvious.
>
> It's novel to me. I don't believe I've heard the suggestion
> before. Got any references.

None that come to mind. It seems to me that all that's
required on this question is common sense.

>
> > > The encephalization of Homo and the associated neotony
> > > is a huge cost. I don't think incremental advantages are
> > > going to pay the bill.
>
> > I don't know what you mean by incremental.
>
> Even if smart protohumans have more reproductive success
> within the group, (A dubious assertion, IMO) they could have
> only had incrementally better success. Other factors could
> easily overwhelm it.

Our brains are was allows us to fit within the context of our
societies. If your brain is unable to keep up you are
essentially an outcast of society. There's nothing incremental
about this.

>
> A favorite of the AAT enthusiasts, the lack of water
> thriftiness

Why do we assume a lack of thritiness. I witness a tremendous
degree of conservation, as an aspect of a society.

in
> humans can be explained by the intergroup violence model
> since holding the source of water during dry periods means
> the holders do not need thriftiness.

Yikes? Why would it supposedly mean that. Typical AAT.

If you were relying on driving off other herbivore
> competitiors, I believe water thriftiness would still be a
> selective force.

Water thriftiness? On a collective level humans are very
thrifty with water.

jim

[Jim McGinn]

'Man The Hunted' (Hart & Sussman, 2005). They explain in
great detail just how many predators, furred, feathered and
scaled, were around at the time of the early hominids. There
were many more species than now, and many were also larger
and more fearsome.