Replies

To: PatrickHenry

2 posted on 04/19/2006 11:20:21 AM PDT by furball4paws (Awful Offal)

To: furball4paws

3 posted on 04/19/2006 11:24:21 AM PDT by furball4paws (Awful Offal)

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...

Evolution Ping

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 360 names.
See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit,
and How to argue against a scientific theory.

4 posted on 04/19/2006 11:26:46 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)

To: furball4paws

"There may have been times when one early hominid species evolved into another one without branching off into multiple species," White says.

I'm not sure how anyone could substantiate that without having perfect knowledge of the record.

"Since Ar. ramidus and Au. anamensis lived in the same place and negotiated comparable habitats, it's plausible that the earlier hominid evolved directly into the later one,"
...
"Australopithecus evolved increasingly larger jaws and teeth from one species to the next with minimal or no evolutionary branching, Walker proposes."

I'm not sure what he's arguing here. Maybe I'm missing the point (or something) ...
So A. anamensis branches from Ar. ramidus. Then anamensis survives and ramidus goes extinct.
-- or --
A. anamensis derived from Ar. ramidus. The branch anamensis becomes the trunk. No more ramidus?

I don't see what is different from the current understanding.

Or is he arguing that no ramidus were left because they all mutated to anamensis?

9 posted on 04/19/2006 12:06:01 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A dying theory since 1859.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794