Re: DISCOVER/Neanderthal/Homo Sap.
H. M. Hubey (firstname.lastname@example.org)
3 Sep 1995 23:40:04 -0400
email@example.com (Erin Miller) writes:
>>Are these differences as large as the differences between, say
>>a dachshund and an Afghan Hound, or between a bulldog and a
>>Kangal, or a chiuaua and a Great Dane ?
>They are "different" differences. Dogs have been rapidly and artificially
>bred to create extreme differences,
"rapid" and "artifially bred" yes, but so what? Is it or is it
not the laws of genetics at work?
at the same time as intentionally
>keeping them "breedable."
This I find difficult to comprehend. Would dogs be dogs if they
could not breed?
Also in dogs, the skeletal differences are
>largely (tho not 100%) of the skull. When you look at the postcranial
>skeleton of a Great Dane vs. a Yorkie, the differences are largely of size
>and not much else.
So? What about Neandertal and Cro-magnon? Except for small bump
on the chin (hard to assign any survival value to it) and the
teeth which could also be simply small differences due to separation
over hundreds of thousands of years, the differences are still small.
Would you confuse them with dog bones, elephant bones, or even
> Can most people tell the difference between the skeletons of a common
>marmoset, a lion tamarin, and a cotton-top tamarin? The skeletal
so then what you've managed to prove is that there's not much
of a point to wondering about interbreeding capability because
of the way skeletons look . Then there must be another method
of attack that might yield clues.
And what might that be?