Re: Why Large Gap Between Species...?
Nat Turner (email@example.com)
5 Dec 1996 07:04:34 GMT
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
T&B Schmal <email@example.com> wrote:
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com (Nat
>> This has never been clear to me. Now that we've established man's
>> origins, how do we explain the absence of all his closely related
>> sub-species? Even the austrolopiths should have been better equipped
>> to survive than monkeys and apes, yet they have not. Why?
>Good question. Lions, cheetahs, leopards, wolves - all survive in Africa
>and they *don't* dedicate themselves to wiping each other out.
>The differences between these three or four carnivores are probably
>similar in magnitude to the differences between the three or four species
>of bipeds living a few million years ago. Yet only one of the biped
>If it was genocide, and genocide is successful for the species, why don't
>the african carnivores go in for it in a bigger way? (Or almost any
>species with a near-twin species living nearby) If the lions could kill
>off the other three, wouldn't there be more food for the lions? But they
>Why would genocide be a uniquely biped trait? I can't think of a reason,
>so I assume it was probably something else.
What then? Or better yet, what would have happened hadn't these creatures
disappeared? How would they have changed the world as we know it?