|
|
Re: Why Large Gap Between Species...?
T&B Schmal (schmal@firstnethou.com)
Thu, 05 Dec 1996 00:03:38 +0000
In article <581tr6$3jc@news.smart.net>, turner@smarty.smart.net (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
|