|
|
Re: Who Killed the Australopithecines?
BARD (bard@netcom.com)
Tue, 4 Apr 1995 01:30:29 GMT
In article <60.1010.7295.0N1D983F@canrem.com>,
J. Moore <j#d#.moore@canrem.com> wrote:
>Ba> >In article <bardD673D5.M88@netcom.com>, BARD <bard@netcom.com> wrote:
>Ba> >>
>Ba> >> Everything being equal, they were better equipped to survive
>Ba> >> than either ape or man; yet they perished... How and by whom?
>Ba> >>
>Ba> >> Bard
>
>Ba> Evolution suggests a progression in adaptability. Working backwards
>Ba> we see the Pith's hands and feet were more evolved than the chimpanzee;
>Ba> the chimp's more so than the baboon; the baboon more than the
>Ba> tarsier, etc...
>
>Ba> Piths could do more things, travel greater distances, eat a wider
>Ba> variety of food, employ more clever ways to get this food; evade
>Ba> danger better, and yet the chimpanzee survives and the Pith
>Ba> doesn't.
>Ba> BARD
>
>You were asked for some evidence for your statement that "they were
>better equipped to survive than either ape or man"; your above answer
>speaks only of apes (and does a poor job of that). Let's ask again:
>what is your evidence for saying:
>
> "they [australopithecines] were better equipped to survive
> than either ape or man"
>
>Jim Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com)
>
> * Q-Blue 1.0 *
See the sentence above that starts..."Piths could do more things,
travel greater distances....
Also,
Piths were more intelligent than the common ape.
Piths were stronger and better equipped to live in the
wild than man.
Neither of these two assertions are controversial.
-- BARD
|