Re: Neoteny was Re: god makes hubey
H. M. Hubey (hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu)
23 Nov 1995 00:20:51 -0500
chris brochu <gator@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>>Which animals looked like human babies?
>As adults, or as juveniles? An important question, since any
adults of course.
>Another misconception regarding heterochrony is apparent here - animals
>are not heterochronic. Characters are. Some aspects of adult human
Animals are comprised of their characters/characteristics. Of course,
I only picked on a few observable with the naked eye. But so what,
a whole "science" has developed around bone-gazing. Why is it
not legal when I do it?
>morphology are paedomorphic (or neotenic, if you prefer that word)
>insofar as they are more similar to what we see in early ontogenetic
>stages in other primates.
I wasn't discussing the fetal stage. It does seem as if there's
some kind of an order there, as is told of those about to die;
their lives are supposed to flash by quickly.
If this process were to continue linearly, then babies would
still resemble earlier life forms, so chimp babies would look
say, doglike. But it's the reverse; they look more like humans.
How do they foresee this? I obviously don't mean this literally
otherwise it would be like asking how the apple knows which way
is down.
To me it's strange. IF I extrapolate from say lizards, to dogs, to cats,
to chimps, to humans, I wind up thinking that future of humans is
like what the sci-fi writers imagine; smaller jaws, larger eyes,
larger braincases, less body hair, etc... Well, that looks a
lot like a human baby.
Is there a foreshadowing of some sorts?
--
Regards, Mark
http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey
|