[net.origins] Lemme axe yew a question

hopeful@fluke.UUCP (Rod Blaine Foist) (08/13/85)

Howdy, folks. Mah name is Buford Wanttruth, an, ah, Ahm a fren of Jake
OH-shonesty. We's both employees hyere at Fluke. Ah slop da hogs fer Mr.
Fluke's private stock of pigs. Well, me an Jake talk a lot 'bout origins an
this has brung a question to mah mind. Ah wanna axe yew Evolutioners a question
what has been on mah mind fer while an Ah'm jus curious bout what y'all thank.

Hyere it is: Sposin evolution's true. Ah hear tell that we hewmens an da
GOrillas (da apes) come fum da same ancestry. Now let's call dis dude, the
po' boy fum which Chita an us come, let's call him A-0. Lets call us, A-N. Nowif'n Ah got da picture right, they's a bunch a characters in between ol A-0 an
us A-N types. How many of these in-betweeners (call 'em "n") is they, Ah don't
know. Ah also hear tell that they's two camps--the gradualists (Ah'll call um
Grads) an da Punctuated Equilibrium types (Ah'll call um Puncs).

Well, whether da Grads or da Puncs is right only means how many "n's" they is,
right? Now Ah also heared that, as Stanley Friesen once said (April 9th),
"Evolution *only* talks about increased *adaptation* and *not* improvement". Soif'n that means that each "n" between A-0 an A-N was more adapted, now hyere's
mah question: How come there ain't any of these dudes ALIVE today? We got apes an we got hewmens still alive an well today. How come they (apparently) ain't
nothin in between LIVING?

Ah would like tah axe a related question fer all da major animal types, but Ah
don't know how tah git speecific enuf. Now keep in mind, Ah'm not axen 'bout
da fossil record, but rather bout what's actually ALIVE (or what's possibly
been seen an recorded in history).

Finally, dis ain't no loaded question dat Ah'v axed yew. Ah jus been curious an Ah really wondered what yew Evolutioners thank. Incidentally, Ah axed this
same question of one of da fine Engineers (who's an Evolutioner) hyere at Fluke.
His answer was: "They all died off".

Buford Wanttruth

P.S. Ah once was faced with da tough decision to choose between becomin a fry
cook or a brain surgeon (since they's such closely related fields). Well as
yew kin probably tell, Ah choose da fry cookin'.

"Don't be wise in your own estimation".

tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (08/18/85)

> Hyere it is:  Sposin evolution's true.  Ah hear tell that we hewmens an da 
> GOrillas (da apes) come fum da same ancestry.  Now let's call dis dude, the
> po' boy fum which Chita an us come, let's call him A-0.  Lets call us, A-N.  Nowif'n Ah got da picture right, they's a bunch a characters in between ol A-0 an
> us A-N types.  How many of these in-betweeners (call 'em "n") is they, Ah don't
> know.  Ah also hear tell that they's two camps--the gradualists (Ah'll call um
> Grads) an da Punctuated Equilibrium types (Ah'll call um Puncs).
> 
> Well, whether da Grads or da Puncs is right only means how many "n's" they is, 
> right?  Now Ah also heared that, as Stanley Friesen once said (April 9th),
> "Evolution *only* talks about increased *adaptation* and *not* improvement".  Soif'n that means that each "n" between A-0 an A-N was more adapted, now hyere's
> mah question:  How come there ain't any of these dudes ALIVE today?  We got apes an we got hewmens still alive an well today.  How come they (apparently) ain't
> nothin in between LIVING?
---------------------
Suppose such an in-between creature were living today.  Lets call it an xxx.
Would that convince you? No!  You would ask "How come there is no creature
alive intermediate between a man and an xxx?"  Suppose there were an even
closer creature, a yyy, between man and an xxx.  Would that convince you?
No. You would ask "How come there is no creature alive intermediate between
man and a yyy?"  Get the point?????   Apes are closer to man than monkeys.
Monkeys are closer to man than more primitive primates, such as tarsiers
and lemurs.   Primates are closer to man than other mammals, etc. etc. etc.
As long as there are a finite number of living species, some other species
must be closest to man, with none in between.   Got the point now?  I hope
so.  Creationists are such slow learners!
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan

long@oliveb.UUCP (Dave Long) (08/18/85)

    I'll give a short example.  I would state this more directly and tech-
nically, but I don't want to get into semantic quibbles, and I'm sure that
you can all figure out the parallels.  If anyone cares to write this up with
all of the correct terms (niche, resource exclusion, etc.), feel free.

        Don Paolo (A-X) has a nice racket going on in Silicon Valley.  The
    area barely supports him, and can't support two rackets at once, but
    he has managed to beat out all opposition so that the Valley is *his*
    turf.  Then Tanaka-san (A-X+1) moves in with the Yakuza to get a piece
    of the action.  Not only is Tanaka-san better at the old rackets, he also
    has some new angles figured on some new rackets that he exploits.  After
    a while, Don Paolo can't take the heat because Tanaka-san has too many of
    his resources tied up, and his organization crumbles, leaving the Valley
    to Tanaka-san and the Yakuza.

						Dave Long
-- 
{hplabs,fortune,idi,ihnp4,tolerant,allegra,tymix}!oliveb!long

beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (08/21/85)

In Message-ID <2517@vax4.fluke.UUCP> hopeful@fluke.UUCP (Rod Blaine Foist)
writes:
>Sposin evolution's true.  Ah hear tell that we hewmens an da
>GOrillas (da apes) come fum da same ancestry.  Now let's call dis dude, the
>po' boy fum which Chita an us come, let's call him A-0.  Lets call us, A-N.
>Nowif'n Ah got da picture right, they's a bunch a characters in between ol
>A-0 an us A-N types.  How many of these in-betweeners (call 'em "n") is
>they, Ah don't know.  Ah also hear tell that they's two camps--the
>gradualists (Ah'll call um Grads) an da Punctuated Equilibrium types (Ah'll
>call um Puncs).
>
>Well, whether da Grads or da Puncs is right only means how many "n's" they
>is, right?  Now Ah also heared that, as Stanley Friesen once said (April
>9th), "Evolution *only* talks about increased *adaptation* and *not*
>improvement".  Soif'n that means that each "n" between A-0 an A-N was more
>adapted, now hyere's mah question:  How come there ain't any of these dudes
>ALIVE today?  We got apes an we got hewmens still alive an well today.  How
>come they (apparently) ain't nothin in between LIVING?

Well, your question is postulated in a rather misleading way, but I'll
give it a try anyway.

What's misleading is the concept of A-0...A-N.  Numbering things with
integers sort of implies a clear cut break between A-i and A-i+1.  We
need to be aware that there are infinitely many numbers between i and
i+1, and a lot of transitional phases between what are now clearly
distinct forms (obviously not *infinitely* many, but a lot).

Now to (try to) answer the question:

In some sense, there *are* transitional forms of humans alive today, or
at least transitional traits.  Let me clarify:  suppose for example that
humans originated in Africa in climates similar to those that exist there
now.  Further suppose that dark skin and hair were common traits among
some group A-0 of humanoids of the time.  If those traits recessed in the
humanoids who moved to different climates, they'd be transitional traits
for those folks, yet would still be present in those humanoids who
remained in similar climates.  Now there is great diversity among humans
who live in the same climate in terms of skin color, hair color and
texture, eye shape, ..., since people have moved around alot recently
(the folks who live in the suburbs will probably just have to try to
picture this in their minds :-) - sigh :-( ).  So the transitional traits
that one group may have passed through are still present in other
comingling groups.

Now why isn't there *greater* diversification, i.e. why doesn't an A-N
and an A-(N-x) (read that "A sub N minus x") exist now, where A-N and
A-(N-x) are seperate *species*?  Well, for some portion of A-(N-x) to
develop into a whole new species A-N, enormous amounts of time must have
passed during which some of A-(N-x) were exposed to new environments.
Now if, during that amount of time, all environments available to A-(N-x)
changed, it's quite likely that the remainder of the group would have
adapted to the changes, thereby becoming A-N or B-M or X-Y.  So some
particular climate would have had to remain essentially constant over
vast periods of time.  Well, there just aren't that many places that have
stayed that constant that long.  The possible exception would be deep
ocean, and in fact extremely old species have been found there.  We
certainly haven't explored deep ocean thoroughly, and we may well find
intermediate species and their shallower-water descendants still living
(for that matter we may have already - I'm not really that up on it).
There are very old species in other places, but the fact that they've
existed in the varying environments that have existed over time would
indicate that they're pretty stable, and hence no sub-group would have
been likely to evolve into a new species.

Which is only *my* long-winded explanation.  Now that you've made it
this far into it, I suppose it's too late to mention that it may well
be totally off the mark.  Oh well - you pays your money, you takes
your chances.

-- 

--JB       (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth)

		"Oh yeah, P.S.,
		 I...I feel...feel like...I am
		 in a burning building
		 And I gotta go."            (Laurie Anderson)

hopeful@fluke.UUCP (Buford Wanttruth) (08/22/85)

{Ah don't thank this note made it tah ever where on tha net tha first time when
I sent it, so this here's mah second try. If'n yew already seen it once, jus
close ya eyes to it this time. Thanks.}

Buford Wanttruth

"Don't be wise in your own estimation".