Re: Why Large Gap Between Species...?
Nat Turner (turner@smarty.smart.net)
5 Dec 1996 16:39:54 GMT
In article <586ro8$9av@newsgate.duke.edu>,
Geoff Alex Cohen <gac@cs.duke.edu> wrote:
>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?
>
>: Good question. Lions, cheetahs, leopards, wolves - all survive in Africa
>: and they *don't* dedicate themselves to wiping each other out.
>
>Basic demographic theory would tell us that when two species compete,
>either an increased population of species 1 inhibits itself more than
>it inhibits species 2 (because of the competition), or it inhibits
>further growth of its own population more than it inhibits growth of
>the competing population (because of the carrying capacity of the
>environment).
Why do you assume there was "competition"? I doubt seriously if piths
competed against hominids.
>
>Two competing species can only co-exist if they both inhibit their own
>population as they grow more than they inhibit their competitor.
>This is obviously what's happening in coexisting carnivore population.
>
>So I theorize without evidence other than extinction of all other hominid
>(hominoid?) species that homo sapiens can outcompete other hom* species
>to the extent that an increased number of homo sapiens inhibits the
>population of competitors more than it inhibits the population of homo
>sapiens.
Was it really that pat? And why assume a higher homomid was better
equipped than a lower one? Why were we better equipped to survive than
homo habilis?
Nat
>
>The Lotka-Volterra equations describe these relationships quite elegantly.
>
>Geoff
--
|