Re: Neoteny was Re: god makes hubey

Bill Burnett (
Wed, 22 Nov 1995 14:05:24

(H. M. Hubey) writes:

> (Bill Burnett) writes:

>>Explain how neoteny indicates a pre-set goal, please.

>It's odd that they don't look like more primitive ancestors
>and instead like their more developed (virtual) descendants.
>Human babies look like what we'd normally extrapolate as
>our future descendants.

Let me get this straight... correct me if I've misunderstood you...
You claim
1) chimp embryos/foetuses look more like humans than they do chimps
2) human embyos/foetuses look like what you predict our descendents will

This indicates a pre-set goal? That's what I asked. At best, if true, it
indicates change with time, i.e. evolution, and might, if true, have some
predictive ability. I fail to see how it indicates a goal, or, if you prefer,
an inevitability that we will travel to the stars.

I assume your 'virtual' comment is intended to indicate that chimps are _not_
our ancestors, but a sister taxon, and I hardly think sci-fi predictions of
what our descendents _might_ look like constitute 'evidence'.

Bill Burnett -
Scottish Association for Marine Science
P.O. Box 3, Oban, Argyll PA34 4AD, UK