Re: Why Large Gap Between Species...?

Capella (
Fri, 06 Dec 1996 09:33:05 -0600

Nat Turner wrote:
> In article <>,
> T&B Schmal <> wrote:
> >In article <581tr6$>, (Nat
> >Turner) wrote:
> >
> >> 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?
> >>
> >> Nat
> >> --
> >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
> >species survived.
> >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
> >don't.
> >
> >Why would genocide be a uniquely biped trait? I can't think of a reason,
> >so I assume it was probably something else.
> >
> >Tom
> 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?
> Nat
> --

Also it seems to be assumed earlier in this post that genocide comes from
man's higher thought processes rather than being an instinctive process
that we may share with lower animals.

When Lions take over a female and her cubs from another male, he instinctively
kills the cubs.

Dallas, Texas