Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Beast of Burden
Message-ID: <418@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Apr-85 19:28:58 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.418
Posted: Thu Apr 25 19:28:58 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Apr-85 06:34:02 EST
References: <948@uwmacc.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 43
Summary: 

In article <948@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes:
>
>
>> 	Exactly as expected under evolutionary theory! the first of
>> a series of intermediates will *natuallly* resemble the source group
>> more than the end group! All this says is that the Hyrax is a modern
>> member of the horse ancestral group. It is also perfectly acceptible
>> for an ancestral form to continue along side of its decendants. The
>> only evidence which would contradict the basic series is for a modern
>> horse(Equus) to be found in Eocene sediments. Also has the possibility
>> of "reworked" fossils been ruled out in the "modern" Eohippus specimens.
>
>If reworking is to be claimed, the burden of proof is on the one
>making the claim to demonstrate it.  Failing that, one may show that the
>original investigators haave not considered this as a possibility.
>Although both of these are possible accounts, you have shown neither.
>
	You missed my main point, which is that co-occurance of
ancestor/descendant pairs are entirely compatible with current
evolutionary theory. The reworking comment was more along the lines
of a postscript or addendum.
>
>> 	You forgot an alternative, the convolutions could be inherited
>> from a common ancestor, perhaps the basic pattern of brain convolutions
>> was established *before* the split between horse and cow.
>
>I didn't forget.  But just how likely does it seem to you that two
>independent lines of development from a smooth-brained ancestor with no
>convolutions, to two different animals with convolutions, will result
>in EXACTLY the same number of fissures, and that all 14 will be in
>corresponding locations?  I confess skepticism (that healthy quality so
>highly touted).
>
	This is not what I said, I said "inherited from a common
ancestor", which means that the said common ancestor *also* had
*exactly* the same convolations. Your response is more appropriate
to a "parallel evolution" scenario.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen