Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!sun-arpa!male!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!munnari!otc!metro!basser!usage!elecvax!cheops!ashley
From: ashley@cheops.eecs.unsw.oz (Ashley M. Aitken)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Higher Species != More Evolved ??
Keywords: evolution higher species
Message-ID: <1131@cheops.eecs.unsw.oz>
Date: 14 Apr 89 17:42:15 GMT
Organization: EE & CS, Uni N.S.W., Sydney, Australia
Lines: 35

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