Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool2.mu.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: sci.bio Subject: Re: Paranormal phenomena and evolution Message-ID: <111@tdatirv.UUCP> Date: 29 Jan 91 21:21:56 GMT References: <104@tdatirv.UUCP> <6747@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> <106@tdatirv.UUCP> <6763@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine Lines: 47 In article <6763@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> sss3@ukc.ac.uk (S.S.Sturrock) writes: >By the way, I assume you realise that it has long been accepted that >Australopithicines are not our ancestors. They may have shared a common >ancestor with us (and perhaps the chimp) but are not on the direct >evolutionary line that led to Homo sapiens sapiens. Oh well. Yeah, long accepted by cladists! I find the reasoning behind this unconvincing. Also, the discovery of Australopithecus afarensis has changed that, now even cladists are tending to accept that species as either a direct ancestor, or a very close relative of our direct ancestor. (I.e. at least as close to our ancestry as the pygmy chimp is to the common chimp). So if you place A. afarensis in Australopithecus you are admitting that an Australopithecus is our ancestor. (Mind you I have read one paper by a cladist that removed A. afarensis from Australopithecus and placed it in a seperate taxon, called a Plesion - because putting it in A. made that genus paraphyletic). Note that even the place of A. africanus in our family tree is hardly settled. Some still consider it a potential ancestor of Homo habilis. >Primate evolution is a rather difficult subject due to the sparse >fossil record, man does not die in very good places! Actually, it is by far the *most* complete fossil record of any vertebrate. Much of the current problems are, in my opinion, caused by the fact that we are actually picking up subtle geographic variations without having access to the intermediate populations. I know of no other group were such a welter of minor variants of all sorts are known. The main problem is to figure out which variants belong together in one species, since the variants show extensive discordance in features. (I.e. it is impossible to generate a consistant cladogram that includes all of them). >Dinosaurs too? Well, there we share a common interest, I can't believe >that they can possibly be applying cladistics to their evolution, eek, >what more can I say, Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!! maybe! Well, they are. The two latest symposia are 'The Dinosauria' and 'Dinosaur Systematics: Perspectives and ??' (oh foo I forget the exact title). [Oops, or is that 'Dinosaur Taxonomy: perspectives & ??'] They are *both* almost purely cladistic in approach. (They are also both quite excellent, if you can ignore the cladism). And Drs Bakker and Horner, two of the leading dinosaur experts alive, are both radical cladists (especially Dr Bakker, who is also a splitter). [It's too bad that 'The Dinosauria' costs $80]. -- --------------- uunet!tdatirv!sarima (Stanley Friesen)