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