|
|
Re: Why Large Gap Between Species...?
Nat Turner (turner@smarty.smart.net)
5 Dec 1996 07:04:34 GMT
In article <schmal-0512960003380001@ppp-14177.firstnethou.com>,
T&B Schmal <schmal@firstnethou.com> wrote:
>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
What then? Or better yet, what would have happened hadn't these creatures
disappeared? How would they have changed the world as we know it?
Nat
--
|