|
|
Re: Speciation - how do you know?
Magnus Sterky (magnus.sterky@mailbox.hogia.net)
Wed, 16 Oct 1996 23:14:03 +0200
Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> In article <3262F767.77B9@scn.org> bh162@scn.org "Phillip Bigelow" writes:
>
> > Crowley answered:
> > > Do male gorillas have all that musculature just to gather leaves?
> >
> > Oh Paul...Paul...
> > Why do you have this fixation on male anthropoids in your answer?
>
> We know a lot about gorillas: their detailed anatomy, their food,
> lifestyle, niche, habitat, competition, predators, etc. Yet
> we have very little idea as to why male gorillas are so muscular.
> So how are we going to come to sound conclusions about an animal
> that is long extinct about whose detailed anatomy, food, lifestyle,
> niche, etc., we know next to nothing?
>
> Why do you think male gorillas are so muscular? And why are
> female gorillas no weaklings either? If we had good research on
> that we might be able to apply it to Neanderthals.
>
> > Tell us: Was the neanderthal female more stockily-built relative
> > to the Homo sapiens sapiens female? In your answer (read, "your
> > mindless speculation"), please rationalize to us how this fits
> > in with your idea of intra-species competition.
>
> The concensus is that Neanderthals were stocky (like Inuit or Saami)
> because an adaptation to the climate. No one knows why they were
> generally so muscular. Maybe the females had to engage in hand to
> hand fighting as well. Maybe it was something to do with predators.
> Whatever it was, it was NOT chasing after swift-footed prey. *That*
> is the only "mindless speculation" around here. Shame that it's
> also part of the received thinking to which you are so mindlessly
> attached.
>
> Paul.
Dear Sirs,
As not yet even an amateur, I claim the rights to think from other
points of view than the professional.
I find most of the conclusions about food, competition, prey, bone
structures etc. to be a bit too singleminded, without considering what
probaly has been the most important factor for both Hs and Hn.
The brain, what about the brain? What makes everybody so reluctant to
think about the brain? Do you seriously mean that these guys used only
muscles to get food, when they could use their brain, reducing the
effort, being smart making strategy, tactics, arranging traps etc.?
Basically the smartest move then and probaly still valid, is to live at
the seaside, since biological life at seaside is much richer both side
of the waterline than furter out both sides. The easier to find food,
the more time to figure out ways to work less for the food, to get more
time to figure out ways to work less for the food ......
Are there ANY findings, DNA or whatever that indicates that the capacity
of the brain should have exploded some 10.000 years ago, and before that
everybodys brain may have been as big, not to say bigger in the case of
Hn? If the capacity did explode 10.000 years back, did it happen all
over the world at once, including Australia and some other fairly
isolated places? (If yes, are you serious?)
So please, why only talk about bones and muscles? Compared to a lion or
mammuth, all homowhatever are small and weak.
--
Magnus Sterky
magnus.sterky@mailbox.hogia.net
|