Re: Who Killed the Australopithecines?

Jim Foley (
3 Apr 1995 18:14:36 GMT

In article <>, BARD <> wrote:

> Evolution suggests a progression in adaptability. Working backwards
> we see the Pith's hands and feet were more evolved than the chimp;
> the chimp's more so than the baboon; the baboon more than the
> tarsier, etc...

And so, by your "logic", chimps should be doing much better nowadays
than monkeys and baboons are, right?

You appear to have some serious delusions about evolution. Are you
making this stuff up, or getting it from a 1950's school book?

For example, a common evolutionary change is to _specialize_ to a
particular niche, becoming _less_ adaptable. Koalas and anteaters are
good examples of highly specialized species that are probably not very

> Piths could do more things, travel greater distances, eat a wider
> variety of food, employ more clever ways to get this food; evade
> danger better, and yet the chimpanzee survives and the Pith
> doesn't.

> Why?

Probably for the same reason that monkeys are doing a lot better than
the apes nowadays, despite the fact than an individual chimp is a lot
smarter than in individual monkey.

Chimps do some things better than piths or us. Ever tried going on all
fours for long? Chimps are going to have a big advantage over us in any
lifestyle in which quadrupedality (sorry about the big words) is an

I'm skeptical about some of your claims for piths. Any references for

> And... not finding something is not "99.99999" proof it
> doesn't exit. In this decade alone several species thought
> long extinct have been discovered still with us.

What else should we assume when we don't find them? Do you also believe
in the Loch Ness monster, and unicorns?

Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins (303) 223-5100 x9765