ashley@cheops.eecs.unsw.oz (Ashley M. Aitken) (04/15/89)
G'Day,
I am wondering whether or not lower species means less evolved.
Let me explain. Often when people are talking about earlier
stages of human evolution they recommend looking at the lower
species (read simpler, read ?), for example, the apes.
However, common-sense tells me (and maybe you) that all the
species around now have been evolving from day #1 (when species
first happened :-). It is just that at different times species
branched off in different directions. Hence if one says to look
at the apes for clues to how we were, then I can just as well say
to look at us to see how the apes were. (Note I realise evolution
creates new species, but I mean that species #1 (if there was #1)
has been evolving down all these paths since day #1 (of species))
Have the apes had a smaller number of mutations (read evolution
steps) than us and hence can be called less evolved or is this
all just a messed up piece of confusion. Are fossils the only
true clues to evolutions stages?
If you have any ideas or thoughts on this I would be most grate-
ful if you could please mail me, if there is enough interest I
will summarize to the net.
Thanks in Advance,
Ashley Aitken
E-MAIL ashley@cheops.unsw.oz ACSnet
ashley%cheops.unsw.oz@uunet.uu.net ARPAnet
ashley@cheops.unsw.oz.au ARPAnet
{uunet,ukc,ubc-vision,mcvax}!munnari!cheops.unsw.oz!ashley UUCP
ashley%cheops.unsw.oz@australia CSnet
ashley%cheops.unsw.oz@uk.ac.ukc JAnet