Re: Alex's point... was R

Thomas Clarke (
27 Oct 1995 14:28:57 GMT

In article <> writes:

Cl> I could see something like us having black hair and them having brown,
Cl> or us being taller and them being shorter as the result of some random,
Cl> selectively neutral, evolution. But the differences between chimp and
Cl> human are pretty big, and I think, demand explanation in terms of
Cl> differential environmental factors, isolated environments, and similar
Cl> factors that are invoked in modern evolutionary theory.

> The differences between chimps and modern humans are indeed
> "pretty big", but the differences between chimps and early
> australopithecines are not really very large at all. They amount
> essentially to very slightly larger brains with some possibility
> of slight brain differences, and different predominate modes of
> locomotion.

I disagree, Lucy's pelvis looks nothing like a chimp pelvis.
The biggest qualitative change (as opposed top quantitative -
e.g. bigger cranium) since Lucy are in the face. If you only
look at the head, then Australopith is indeed close to chimp,
but in post cranial bones it is relatively far.

> Cl> I am trying a new tack. Let me try it on you.
> Cl> Would you admit the possibility that early hominids may have obtained
> Cl> part of their calories from things living in the water?

> Sure, it's quite possible, but this doesn't have anything to do with
> the AAT, for reasons that have been outlined in my post on "What
> the AAT Isn't".

OK. So lets not talk about the AAT.
Lets talks about evolution of hominds.

In another post I said I was taken by the West Side Story.
What's the official line on the West Side Story among pro PAists?

Tom Clarke