 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / January 2005Stonethrowing most compelling behaviour to create language
Saw a documentary tonight called "Do you Speak American?" by Mr. McNiel which got me to thinking that with all the time I spent on Stonethrowing theory and how it created bipedalism, that I neglected to ever talk about how Stonethrowing created language. By "creating" I mean the most compelling candidate behaviour that needs a language. You do not need to talk to other persons when running or walking. But you need to talk to other persons when engaged in a hunt exercise that needs a person over in that bush area and another in the hill and another in the tree and you need alot of commotion and talk to encircle a rabbit. And you need alot of communication when you have a group of stonethrowers that are going to arrest a kill by lions and then hyenas and other prey or predators. So Stonethrowing requires a language. Chimpanzees are known to be occasional throwers but not throwers for a living. Chimpanzees do not have a language as humans have language. So of all the behaviours of prehumans, it is stonethrowing that requires the rise and convergence of evolution to make throwing more proficient. So not only did Stonethrowing create bipedalism but it also created language to coordinate the hunt. And also to aid in the manufacture of stone tools and where to find the rocks. It is possible therefore that language started to occur concomitant or even before bipedalism appeared. It is possible that a prehuman ape was a stonethrower and had a crude language yet was still quadraped. So language may have started before bipedalism and walking. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I tink that is rather narrow. Any kind of group activity would have been enhanced by use of language. --George > I tink that is rather narrow. Any kind of group activity would have > been enhanced by use of language. --George You misunderstand the logic. The logic asks what behaviour requires there to be language. Mating does not require language for most animals do it without language. Living in social groups does not require language for most social animals do not have language. Walking or running do not require language for the majority of animals do both and never needed language. But one behaviour, new to the animals on Earth, is stonethrowing, and it requires language in order to progress to higher levels of skill and proficiency. You need language to stonethrow away lions or hyenas from a kill site. You need language to convey where the rocks are to be found. You need language to work the rocks and carry them. You need language to position the throwers when attacked by other bands of stonethrowers. Human behaviour is varied but one behaviour of Stonethrowing requires language in order for it to progress. If humans never Threw, humans would never have language and would still be quadraped. Although I think Throwing created bipedalism first before it created language but that is a tough question to answer whether bipedalism came before language or whether it came after language. I still think the sequence of events was Stonethrowing and then 2 million years later came bipedalism having been created from stonethrowing and about 1/2 million years after bipedalism arose language. So my timeline is that Oreopithecus began Stonethrowing some 8 million years ago giving rise to a biped Oreopithecus who was a avid stonethrower. And then Orrorin some 6 million years ago was a Stonethrower and agile biped who began using language. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > > I tink that is rather narrow. Any kind of group activity would have > > been enhanced by use of language. --George > > You misunderstand the logic. The logic asks what behaviour requires > there to be language. Mating does not require language for most animals > do it without language. True. But *communitcation* is essential. > Living in social groups does not require > language for most social animals do not have language. True. But *communitcation* is essential. > Walking or > running do not require language for the majority of animals do both and > never needed language. True. There is no need of communitcation at all. > But one behaviour, new to the animals on Earth, is stonethrowing, and it > requires language in order to progress to higher levels of skill and > proficiency. Not true. Monkeys throw stones at strangers in the forest, and twigs and leaves and fruit and.... their aim is quite good. :) For example: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/congotrek/ Go to dispatches, Report #11 And another: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/685381.stm Also, note in the right hand column: "Monkeys 'stone man to death'." >You need language to stonethrow away lions or hyenas from a > kill site. Why? What difference from above? >You need language to convey where the rocks are to be found. Nope. They are usually found on the ground. Monkeys have been known to keep a cache of them up in the trees. What language are you proposing monkeys speak? > You need language to work the rocks and carry them. Nope. See above. >You need language to > position the throwers when attacked by other bands of stonethrowers. Nah, you only have to know how to scaddadle outa there... > Human behaviour is varied but one behaviour of Stonethrowing requires > language in order for it to progress. You haven't made a good argument for it so far as I can see... > If humans never Threw, humans would never have language and would still > be quadraped. Then you'll have to explain to me why monkeys still don't have language and are still quadruped. >Although I think Throwing created bipedalism first before > it created language but that is a tough question to answer whether > bipedalism came before language or whether it came after language. Sorry, I don't see the connection... > I still think the sequence of events was Stonethrowing and then 2 > million years later came bipedalism having been created from > stonethrowing and about 1/2 million years after bipedalism arose > language. As above... > So my timeline is that Oreopithecus began Stonethrowing some 8 million > years ago giving rise to a biped Oreopithecus who was a avid > stonethrower. And then Orrorin some 6 million years ago was a > Stonethrower and agile biped who began using language. > > Archimedes Plutonium You have a lot more explaining to do to convince me that there is anything special connected between throwing stones and language. Big game hunting... Now, thats another story... Val > > > I tink that is rather narrow. Any kind of group activity would have > > > been enhanced by use of language. --George [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > True. But *communitcation* is essential. When I wrote the above I had in mind bees as an exception but I should consider bees in more depth. I mean the bee dance that occurs to tell others at the hive where the honey is located. So is the bee dance a form of language or is it a signal. And can we differentiate language from signal. Ants have scent trails and I consider that as a signal and not a language. But the bee dance is something I would have to consider very much as a language, and if so, then what bee behaviour is required to have the dance as language, vis a vis, language is required for stonethrowing behaviour to advance in humans. So the question of bee dance is problematic for the stonethrowing theory requirement of language. > > Walking or > > running do not require language for the majority of animals do both and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Not true. Monkeys throw stones at strangers in the forest, and twigs and > leaves and fruit and.... their aim is quite good. :) Val, I think you need to check that source again because my sources tell me that only Chimps are known to Throw but never overarm. Chimps throw underarm, never overarm. And I have said many times before that when a species begins to Throw, overarm throwing is a later stage of proficiency and it starts with underarm. So when Oreopithecus began throwing overarm was 8 million years ago, but Oreopithecus like the modern chimp started throwing underarm probably 9 million years ago. So in Underarm throwing the primate is still quadraped, but when the primate starts Overarm throwing long distance then that primate is biped. There are many degrees of skill in throwing and the most primitive is what modern chimps do-- Underarm throwing and with underarm throwing it is still quadraped. But if Earth were abandoned of all humans and the modern day chimp evolved then in about a million years hence in the future, the chimpanzee will be throwing Overarm and be biped because of the throwing. > For example: I have seen many examples of field observation *claims* but they are only discussing chimpanzees. Your reference to Natl. Geographic takes to long to download. But I would hazard to guess you got it mixed up, in that no monkeys or any ape other than chimpanzee is known to Throw and the chimpanzee throws underarm, not the advanced throwing that is Overarm. > >You need language to stonethrow away lions or hyenas from a > > kill site. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > keep a cache of them up in the trees. What language are you proposing > monkeys speak? Monkeys, apes, chimps do not throw overarm. What little they do throw in comparison to the history of humanity and prehumanity would be equivalent to the Oreopithecus before 8 million years ago. The Oreopithecus of 8 million years was a skilled and adept Overarm thrower, both in short distance lobbing of a huge and heavy rock over the head, and in the long distance throw of many meters away. Overarm throwing starts with the short distance lobb of a huge and heavy rock. Tell me, when have you seen a monkey or chimp lob a heavy rock over their heads come crashing down on a predator or a rival to a mating. > > You need language to work the rocks and carry them. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Then you'll have to explain to me why monkeys still don't have language and > are still quadruped. I think you need to go back and check on your references Val, because my references state that only chimpanzees engage in Throwing and it is only Underarm throwing. But no monkeys are known to throw, either underarm or overarm. So I think it is only Chimpanzees. To drop litter from trees is really not throwing is it, for some birds even do that. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > > > > I tink that is rather narrow. Any kind of group activity would have > > > > been enhanced by use of language. --George [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > so, then what bee behaviour is required to have the dance as language, vis a > vis, language is required for stonethrowing behaviour to advance in humans. Language contains grammer and syntax; you know, nouns, verbs etc. Language contains thousands of words. Humans, and possibly elephants, dolphins and whales, have language. Communication contains scents, posturing, noises etc. All animals have some form of communication. You are confusing language with communication. > So the question of bee dance is problematic for the stonethrowing theory > requirement of language. Throwing stones does not require language. Only the ability to pick up and toss. > > > Walking or > > > running do not require language for the majority of animals do both and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Val, I think you need to check that source again because my sources tell me > that only Chimps are known to Throw but never overarm. You've just thrown in a stipulation of overhand throwing. Source is very good. Monkeys throw stones, and other objects. I've observed it myself, and I personally know that their aim is good. :) All apes should be able throw overhand, as that ability comes from being able to braciate. > Chimps throw underarm, never overarm. And I have said many times before that > when a species begins to Throw, overarm throwing is a later stage of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > throwing the primate is still quadraped, but when the primate starts Overarm > throwing long distance then that primate is biped. And I would say that the way they throw is a matter of choice, and learning. Apes have been around a very long time, and most probably have the ability, if not the inspiration, to throw overhand. > There are many degrees of skill in throwing and the most primitive is what > modern chimps do-- Underarm throwing and with underarm throwing it is still > quadraped. I agree somewhat with the first part... but I would say that chimps are not limited through being mainly quadruped to throwing underhand... > But if Earth were abandoned of all humans and the modern day chimp > evolved then in about a million years hence in the future, the chimpanzee will > be throwing Overarm and be biped because of the throwing. It would be an interesting experiment. Who would you think would record it? > > For example: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or any ape other than chimpanzee is known to Throw and the chimpanzee throws > underarm, not the advanced throwing that is Overarm. Not true. > > >You need language to stonethrow away lions or hyenas from a > > > kill site. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and heavy rock. Tell me, when have you seen a monkey or chimp lob a heavy rock > over their heads come crashing down on a predator or a rival to a mating. Humans, chimps and Oreopithecus are apes. All apes have the ability to throw overhand, or sidearm, or underhand. If they choose not to, is of no consequence. And now you are throwing in that the object to throw must be heavy? Chimps can probably pick up and throw objects heavier than what a human can. > > > You need language to work the rocks and carry them. > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Archimedes Plutonium I think you need to check out alot more than some sources. An education in the field is required. Monkeys throw things: that is a *fact*. All apes can throw things, no matter the style: that is a *fact*. Language is not required to throw things: that is a *fact*. Work from that. Val Y'know, I read the header, and the first thing I thought was, "This guy's got it all backward! It seems more likely, as someone who has been married multiple times, the language is the most compelling behaviour to create stonethrowing." YMMV (some snipping to save space) > Language contains grammer and syntax; you know, nouns, verbs etc. Language > contains thousands of words. Humans, and possibly elephants, dolphins and > whales, have language. Communication contains scents, posturing, noises > etc. All animals have some form of communication. You are confusing > language with communication. I am not satisfied with that sort of defining because communication is within language, so can we have a satisfactory definition or concept of a behaviour if one is a subset of the other? I do not think so. I wonder if a satisfactory definition can be found by using the concept of genetically borne with a behaviour. Ants follow scent trails is genetic. Animals making noises is genetic. But is bee dance to navigate the sky genetic or is it learned? We have the capability of language but we are not borne with language, for we learn it. I do not know, so, do bees learn the dance or are they borne with it? Has anyone tried answering that question about bees? To me the bee dance should be considered a language, even though it does not have grammar or syntax, provided the bee dance is learned and not genetic. > > So the question of bee dance is problematic for the stonethrowing theory > > requirement of language. > > Throwing stones does not require language. Only the ability to pick up and > toss. I agree. My point is, or was, that in order for Throwing to progress to greater skill involves groups of throwers in coordination, in unison, in teamwork and that requires language. Without language, teamwork is too difficult if not impossible and the only teamwork behaviour of prehumans would have been Throwing in the hunt for food or the warding off of predators. > > Val, I think you need to check that source again because my sources tell > me [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and I personally know that their aim is good. :) All apes should be able > throw overhand, as that ability comes from being able to braciate. Thanks, for my theory has been reinvigorated because of your discussion. I had neglected to consider "first throwings". I mean some 10 or 9 million years ago of Oreopithecus or pre-Oreopithecus. I had neglected to consider throwing from "in trees". Where the apelike creatures took rocks up into the trees. That is a big hole or gap in my discussion of Stonethrowing theory to date. But thanks to Val, I must fill that hole. Tell me, do monkeys actually carry stones and rocks up into trees to later throw them? And do they really throw when in trees, whether branches or sticks or feces or fruits or debris? Do monkeys really throw or do they *Drop*? So I have to do a science concept of Throw as compared to Drop. And I would guess that pre-Oreopithecus was a Dropper and then Oreopithecus was a genuine Thrower. A genuine thrower can throw whilst on ground. Val, have you seen any monkeys throwing whilst on the ground? I have never heard of baboons throwing whilst on ground. Yes, I have a huge gap and hole to fill as to the transition from dropping while in trees to that of throwing whilst on the ground. I am not sure that underarm and overarm have any difference whilst dropping in trees, but there sure is a huge difference between overarm and underarm whilst on ground. Again, I have only witnessed and heard that chimpanzees throw but they throw only underarm. I have not heard any chimpanzee throwing overarm for their disproportionate lower arm to upper arm makes it awkward. I have not heard of any other ape throwing either underarm or overarm especially gorilla and orangutan. I have never heard of monkeys throwing in any form. So we need to know the difference between dropping from trees and throwing. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > (some snipping to save space) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > language, so can we have a satisfactory definition or concept of a behaviour if > one is a subset of the other? I do not think so. Language is a *system* of communication that has a *set of rules* to govern the combining of its components. The "bee dance" has been exhaustively studied and it seems to be a complex set of three-dementional directions to a food source, but does not seem to have any other function. This kinda stuff is learned in first year linguistics courses... > I wonder if a satisfactory definition can be found by using the concept of > genetically borne with a behaviour. Ants follow scent trails is genetic. > Animals making noises is genetic. But is bee dance to navigate the sky genetic > or is it learned? Seems that it is also inherited. Bees that are not raised together but are of the same species can understand the directions given by the other. > We have the capability of language but we are not borne with language, for we > learn it. I do not know, so, do bees learn the dance or are they borne with it? > Has anyone tried answering that question about bees? To me the bee dance should > be considered a language, even though it does not have grammar or syntax, > provided the bee dance is learned and not genetic. Bees have been studied lots. Do a google search... > > > So the question of bee dance is problematic for the stonethrowing theory > > > requirement of language. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > impossible and the only teamwork behaviour of prehumans would have been > Throwing in the hunt for food or the warding off of predators. Ah-hah! Progress. *Anything* that requires co-ordination or teamwork requires communication, but not necessarily language. Chimps are known to hunt monkeys in groups and they don't use throwing to take down their prey. It is *not* true that the only teamwork behavior would have been throwing... > > > Val, I think you need to check that source again because my sources tell > > me [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > big hole or gap in my discussion of Stonethrowing theory to date. But thanks to > Val, I must fill that hole. "Pre-Oreopithecus" was still an ape. Apes have been around for more than 30 million years... Ape-like creatures? ...those are monkeys... You've got a lot more gaps to fill in... trust me on that one. > Tell me, do monkeys actually carry stones and rocks up into trees to later > throw them? And do they really throw when in trees, whether branches or sticks > or feces or fruits or debris? Do monkeys really throw or do they *Drop*? Yes, they do. They really do throw. I'm sure they drop things too.... > So I have to do a science concept of Throw as compared to Drop. And I would > guess that pre-Oreopithecus was a Dropper and then Oreopithecus was a genuine > Thrower. A genuine thrower can throw whilst on ground. That would be hard to prove. However, if monkeys are capable of throwing things, any ape should be able to throw better, no matter the species, or the time period... > Val, have you seen any monkeys throwing whilst on the ground? I have never > heard of baboons throwing whilst on ground. My own situation: a spider monkey threw a glass of water at me. He was standing on the kitchen counter at the time, I was about ten feet away and the glass hit me square in the chest. Monkeys are famous for their temper tantrums. I haven't heard of baboons throwing anything, but that doesn't mean that they can't. > Yes, I have a huge gap and hole to fill as to the transition from dropping > while in trees to that of throwing whilst on the ground. I am not sure that > underarm and overarm have any difference whilst dropping in trees, but there > sure is a huge difference between overarm and underarm whilst on ground. Probably. Humans are pretty unique in that their arms are shorter than their legs... > Again, I have only witnessed and heard that chimpanzees throw but they throw > only underarm. I have not heard any chimpanzee throwing overarm for their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Archimedes Plutonium Yup. You've got one heck of a lot of research to do yet... Just because you haven't heard, or read something does not mean that it is not possible. You must look at what the physical capabilities of an animal are, in the first place, and then what the probablities of using a particular behavior are, in the second place. I have to agree with Aardvark. You've got things pretty backward. Val >> (some snipping to save space) >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > govern > the combining of its components. Component manipulation of symbols and symbol systems, which requires the ability to perform mid- to high-level abstraction. someone wrote: (big snip) > Component manipulation of symbols and symbol systems, which requires the > ability to perform mid- to high-level abstraction. Since the bee dance is hereditary then bees have no language. That means language is unique to humanity and that no other species has language. Other species has communication which is programmed hereditarily into them. But language is learned with a capability mode. So language is unique to humanity and it arose as an adjunct to Throwing. Throwing came first some 8 to 10 million years ago to preOreopithecus -Oreopithecus. Language thence evolved in conjunction to throwing. When a preOreopithecus wanted to get stones stored into the treetops it had to signal others to "go over there on the ground and get rocks". It had to signal where to store the rocks. It had to signal each individual in the pack by a name. Once signaling by name then language is widespread. When a Oreopithecus was about to pommel a mate rival for a female it needed language that a rock was crashing in that direction. Language was an augmentation of Throwing rocks and stones. To coordinate and teamwork in gathering rocks. Storing rocks in trees to pommel animals on the ground. Language is and was a means of teamwork Throwing. Without throwing, no species on Earth needed language. But along came throwing and to enhance throwing language was borne. In fact, as the Europeans land a robot on Saturn's Titan, the Europeans metaphorically threw a rock onto Titan which would have been impossible if not for the Throwing-enhancer that was language. So there is little difference between preOreopithecus teamwork of throwing rocks out of trees to capture animals on the ground and from Europeans 10 million years later throwing a rock onto Titan via the use of language. Whales do not have a language, they have a fancy beedance for whales. Their communition is hereditary. Elephants do not have a language, they also have a fancy beedance for elephants. Their communication is hereditary. Only one species on Earth has a language, and it is humanity. It is learned and not hereditary. It is hereditary as for the *capability of language*. But the language itself is learned. So if we put a baby into outer space with no one to talk to, that baby as it grows older will still be absent of language. Humanity is unique to language and it is unique because the behaviour that gave rise to language was Stone and Rock Throwing. The two went together. The Throwing gave birth to language because the language promoted and fostered greater degrees of throwing. If the beedance were learned and not 100% hereditary then bees would have language and then I would have to ask the question of what behaviour caused the bee-dance to be borne in order to be promoted and facilitate that specific behaviour. In the case of bees it would be navigation in flight. For ants, it is scent trails and is 100% hereditary. Therefore, the bee-dance like the ant-trails is 100% hereditary and thus non-language. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > Ah-hah! Progress. *Anything* that requires co-ordination or teamwork > requires communication, but not necessarily language. Chimps are known to > hunt monkeys in groups and they don't use throwing to take down their prey. > It is *not* true that the only teamwork behavior would have been throwing... You still do not get it. Language was borne to improve a behaviour, pre-human behaviour. Language was not borne to help 5% of behaviour x and help 3% of behaviour z and 4% of behaviour y. Language was borne because it facilitated vast improvement of one behaviour. And that behaviour was Throwing of stones or rocks. To put it another way. No species on Earth would have a language if no species ever threw rocks or stones. Whales do not have language, nor do porpoises or any other species. > "Pre-Oreopithecus" was still an ape. Apes have been around for more than 30 > million years... Ape-like creatures? ...those are monkeys... You've got a > lot more gaps to fill in... trust me on that one. If apes and monkeys were around for 30 million years then that is about right for the time scale of preOreopithecus beginning to throw rocks both underarm and overarm about 10 million years ago. > My own situation: a spider monkey threw a glass of water at me. He was > standing on the kitchen counter at the time, I was about ten feet away and > the glass hit me square in the chest. Monkeys are famous for their temper > tantrums. I haven't heard of baboons throwing anything, but that doesn't > mean that they can't. No-one takes the Stonethrowing theory seriously except myself. If anyone did, then they would have already made an exhaustive study of all monkeys and all apes as to their ability to throw or not throw. They would have filmed and committed to film proof whether any species of monkey or ape could throw. They would have filmed whether the spider monkey throws underarm or overarm or both. They would have filmed whether baboons or orangutans or gorillas can throw. They would have filmed whether the chimpanzee can ever throw overarm, even though they have been filmed to throw underarm. They would have filmed whether any ape or monkey can throw rocks and stones. Rocks and stones are more important than throwing tree branches, feces and other tree related material. I suppose if a spider monkey can throw a glass, it can throw a rock or stone but has a spider monkey ever done that?? Has a spider monkey ever ventured to the ground to pick up rocks or stones? It may have taken preOreopithecus 1 or 2 million years to gather or collect stones from the ground and take them up into the trees to ambush some animal on the ground. Do chimps ever take rocks into the trees? So, no scientist has ever taken the Stonethrowing theory seriously except Archimedes Plutonium. And I can attest to that claim because no-one has made a thorough investigation as to the extent of throwing abilities of every monkey and ape species now living. If they did, they would have focused on Throwing and filmed the full capabilities of every ape and monkey species. Not just anecdotes of someone getting hit with a glass at 10 feet but capturing it on film. Did you spot, Val, whether that spider monkey threw the glass underarm or overarm?? And can spider monkeys throw both underarm and overarm? Do chimps carry rocks up into trees? Do spider monkeys ever go to the ground to get rocks to throw? And, once a exhaustive film collection of all apes and all monkeys is made, then an exhaustive research as to the bone anatomy of all of those apes and monkeys to tell us why they cannot throw and why certain species can throw only underarm and not overarm. So, alot of work by scientists of paleontology and anthropology needs be done and I dare say that most of the work in paleontology and anthropology concerning human origins is primitive and obtuse because it lacks the behaviour that transformed apes into humans---- Throwing of Rocks and stones. I would say that 90% of the science of Anthropology is the behaviour of Throwing of rocks. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > You still do not get it. Language was borne to improve a behaviour, > pre-human behaviour. Language was not borne to help 5% of behaviour x and > help 3% of behaviour z and 4% of behaviour y. Language was borne because > it facilitated vast improvement of one behaviour. And that behaviour was > Throwing of stones or rocks. Archimedes Pluto, chimps throw stones as well if not better than humans do. Frans de Waal, evol-psych 22.9.01: "Now, please, don't believe everything you hear about apes not throwing. Darwin was talking about monkeys, and Goodall's chimps may not have had much practice. In all research facilities with chimpanzees it is known how well apes throw. This is why projectiles are kept away from them, and why they mostly work with feces. They are deadly accurate, they swing around from the back of their cage and invariably "nail" the one new face in the crowd with deadly accuracy. Ask any worker in such a facility: it's not rare, and no illusion! Out in the open, their skills are even more striking. I used to photograph the Arnhem chimpanzees from across the moat, where they were at about 10 m from me. I had to be extremely careful because young males tended to throw extremely well. They would see my eye go behind the camera, and all of a sudden it turned out they had a stone with them which they'd throw at me. Males more than females, mostly overhand. (Another tidbit in the debate whether they know if our eyes are for seeing or not .). Then there was the mother who came to the reception with her crying son. She complained that our chimps threw stones. After questioning and an account by a bystander it turned out that the boy had thrown first, and that the same stone had come back to him. The estimated distance of this case was 25 m. In short, the idea that apes can't throw is bogus. It has been around for a long time, but should be tested with apes who have had target practice. I invite all man-the-thrower advocates for a visit - at least if they don't mind some smelly stuff coming their way!" > You still do not get it. Language was borne to improve a behaviour, > pre-human > behaviour Hmmmm. You got proof of this assertion? > > Ah-hah! Progress. *Anything* that requires co-ordination or teamwork > > requires communication, but not necessarily language. Chimps are known to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > vast improvement of one behaviour. And that behaviour was Throwing of stones or > rocks. You still do not get it. Language was born to facilitate co-operation. Period. Throwing of stones or rocks does not take or make language at all. > To put it another way. No species on Earth would have a language if no species > ever threw rocks or stones. Whales do not have language, nor do porpoises or > any other species. Your statements do not make something a fact, especially when there is so much evidence against it. > > "Pre-Oreopithecus" was still an ape. Apes have been around for more than 30 > > million years... Ape-like creatures? ...those are monkeys... You've got a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for the time scale of preOreopithecus beginning to throw rocks both underarm > and overarm about 10 million years ago. Apes have been around for 30 my. Monkeys for longer than that. It might surprise you, but monkeys could have been throwing stones for as long as apes have been on the planet... [snipped pouting about not having evidence] > So, no scientist has ever taken the Stonethrowing theory seriously except > Archimedes Plutonium. And I can guarantee you are not a scientist. > And I can attest to that claim because no-one has made a > thorough investigation as to the extent of throwing abilities of every monkey > and ape species now living. If they did, they would have focused on Throwing > and filmed the full capabilities of every ape and monkey species. A real scientist would not make blatant claims about subjects he has so little knowledge of. You don't seem to know much about apes or monkeys or the differences between them or any of their history. You don't seem to know that the ability to perform an action, and that action actually being performed, are two different things. You don't seem to know much about language, which is one of the most studied subjects in existance. And you certainly don't know much about objectivity. > Not just anecdotes of someone getting hit with a glass at 10 feet but capturing > it on film. Did you spot, Val, whether that spider monkey threw the glass > underarm or overarm?? And can spider monkeys throw both underarm and overarm? If I remember correctly: neither. It was sidearm. > Do chimps carry rocks up into trees? > Do spider monkeys ever go to the ground to get rocks to throw? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > monkeys to tell us why they cannot throw and why certain species can throw only > underarm and not overarm. A scientist with so many questions would go find the evidence for himself. But alot of the questions that you ask have already been answered and if you did just a little bit of research you could find the answers for yourself. Alot of the statements that you make are blatantly false, and some research would have told you that. > So, alot of work by scientists of paleontology and anthropology needs be done > and I dare say that most of the work in paleontology and anthropology [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Archimedes Plutonium Yes, alot of work is left to be done. Especially by you. You might want to start with a dictionary. Humans *are* apes: no transformation required. Anthropology is the study of humans. Paleoanthropology is the study of human origins. Paleontology is the study of fossils. Psychology is the study of behavior. When you become a little more informed about what you want to say we might continue this discussion, but I don't think you're willing to do the work. Val > You still do not get it. Language was born to > facilitate co-operation. Period. Throwing of > stones or rocks does not take or make language > at all. Well stated. Now can you tell us what was the shift in lifestyle in our chimpanzee-like ancestors that necessitated co-operation? Can you tell us why and when this shift in lifestyle took place? I can. Jim > You still do not get it. Language was born to facilitate co-operation. > Period. Throwing of stones or rocks does not take or make language at all. I knew from your first or second post that this discussion with you will end up in this manner. I can detect low level logic and low level science, and especially arrogance, but most of all I can detect those writers who give a dribble about science but who want to engage me just to fling crap in a latter post. In other words there are many who are so dumb that they think they can engage me in a conversation for which their only aim is to ad hominem a few posts down the road. Val, you are too arrogant to ever realize that the concept of Language is so ill-formed, is so primitive, is so ill defined. And yet you, Val, talks about language as if it were as clear as Faradays law in the Maxwell Equations. Do you not think, Val, that you should step back for a minute and say to yourself that you are just so full of yourself in arrogance. The concept of language is ill-formed in science. And for someone like you Val to make pronouncements about language as if it were a crystal clear concept is a lesson in stupidity. > > To put it another way. No species on Earth would have a language if no > species [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Your statements do not make something a fact, especially when there is so > much evidence against it. Again, here, your hatred of me is boiling out. Although to your credit, you managed to make about 4 or 5 posts before you got to your prime desire of hate spewing. So many people, including Val. They hate my theories and hate my ideas, so what they do is repeat over and over again "you do not have evidence". When I state evidence, then they repeat over and over again some irrelevant counter evidence. Science is not argument. But Val likes to treat Stonethrowing the same as Mr. Bush likes to treat Global Warming. When I point to evidence then Val or Mr. Bush claim or spin that I have no evidence or they then have the audacity to claim "the bulk of evidence is against me". So this form of "spinning and argumentativeness" is really what Val is after. Not after sticking to the bare bones science. > Apes have been around for 30 my. Monkeys for longer than that. It might > surprise you, but monkeys could have been throwing stones for as long as > apes have been on the planet... > > [snipped pouting about not having evidence] In several of your other posts you claimed all monkeys and all apes threw. If you participate in a discussion of Throwing where I said that baboons never throw. Then it is your responsibility to either correct yourself or correct me. But you, Val, seem incapable of that, and probably because you are just a hatespammer waiting to unload your hatred of me into this thread. > > So, no scientist has ever taken the Stonethrowing theory seriously except > > Archimedes Plutonium. > > And I can guarantee you are not a scientist. When hatespammers spew, it is mostly a mirror image of themselves. Subconsciously Val realizes he/she is not a scientist, but it gives her satisfaction in ad hominem of others. > If I remember correctly: neither. It was sidearm. > > Val I want to believe that Val is not in science but is on the fringes with a curiousity for science. I say this because Val lacks the necessary logic to be a working scientist. A scientist, even the greatest scientists can lack data, lack information, lack understanding, but they cannot lack logic to fit things together. A scientist without logic is no scientist. In several of Val's posts he/she stated all monkeys and all apes throw. I asked Val then about baboons. I asked about orangutans and gorillas. A scientist would have straightened out those questions. I said only humans throw overarm or rocks and stones. Chimpanzees throw rocks and stones only underarm and never overarm. Val continues with his/her statement that all monkeys throw and all apes throw. I asked for a complete science research as to filming all apes and all monkeys as per their ability to throw. Throw overarm throw underarm throw sidearm. Throw rocks and throw other material such as feces. To capture it on film. So that we are not reliant on some bloke like Val for their poor memory of whether a spider monkey can throw underarm, sidearm and or overarm. And can we get a real scientist, not Val, to tell us if any baboon has ever thrown a rock underarm, sidearm or overarm. Can we get real scientists, not Val, to tell us why the bone anatomy of a chimp allows it to throw underarm but never overarm. Why the bone anatomy of a baboon never allows a baboon to throw any means of rocks. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > Saw a documentary tonight called "Do you Speak American?" by Mr. McNiel > which got me to thinking that with all the time I spent on Stonethrowing > theory and how it created bipedalism, that I neglected to ever talk > about how Stonethrowing created language. By "creating" I mean the most > compelling candidate behaviour that needs a language. You do not need to And the first word was: DUCK!!!!! The second was: &#^(*^!!!! The third was: oops... > talk to other persons when running or walking. But you need to talk to > other persons when engaged in a hunt exercise that needs a person over [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > a crude language yet was still quadraped. So language may have started > before bipedalism and walking. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.