Dr. David Campbell wrote:
Perhaps a more basic issue need established: what do you consider a =
hominid and how do you define species?
Hominid technically refers to a member of the family Hominidae and thus =
would include Homo, Australopithecus, and assorted other anthropoid =
primates showing specialization for upright walking. Depending on the =
classification system, it might also include chimps or even additional =
apes. I doubt that you include all of these in Homo sapiens. =20
However, there is debate about the proper way to define species within a =
lineage and the degree of morphological difference that merits =
recognition at the species level. Thus, a strict cladist and lumper =
might call Homo erectus and Homo habilis part of sapiens on the grounds =
that they are all part of a single evolutionary lineage, even though =
habilis falls outside the modern range of variation in several ways. =20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
Truly. Taxonomy is as much art as science. Species and subspecies tend =
to merge, separate and coalesce again, both in classification and in =
breeding populations.
I take issue with a classification or an evolutionary lineage for Homo =
sapiens that includes me and thee that ever includes anything other than =
individuals within the range of variation of the intellectual and =
spiritual capacity of modern man. =20
Physiological differences ranging from Equatorial pygmies to Masai to =
Northern Indo-Europeans or Neanderthals to Lucy do not impress me as =
dispositive of intellectual and spiritual capacity. I believe Man was =
created with the intellectual and spiritual capacity we labor with =
today. The variations in the clay this spirit and soul resides in have =
been too much emphasized. Cranial capacity would be convincing if in =
modern man intellect was shown to be a direct function of cranial =
capacity.
Toolmaking may be a bit over-rated as an indicator. For instance, few =
hunter-gatherers have the luxury of a permanent, sedentary and leisurely =
enough situation in which to develop what we define as higher art. =
The Calusa of southwest Florida and the natives of the Pacific Northwest =
were possessors of sufficiently rich hunting and fishing grounds to do =
this in the historic period. Also, the ephemeral nature of non-lithic =
artifacts makes a thorough understanding of ancient capacities for art =
problematic.
Selection as a process changing a species over time has been empirically =
demonstrated to occur pretty quickly, naturally in Galapagos finches and =
artificially by man's breeding of say, dogs and horses. It is also =
fascinating to see how in very few generations the most highly bred =
domestic swine reverts to the Sus scrofa wild boar.=20
I have yet to see empirical data or even a believable hypothetical model =
for intermediary forms, or sudden survivable mutations creating one =
genus from another genus.
If upright walking is the primary marker for Hominidae, is it not =
possible that species that were not yet modern man were never going to =
become modern man, but rather were doomed to be eliminated by man =
whenever they came into conflict with man over habitat. =20
I would maintain that modern man must reside taxonomically in his own =
genus.
Evolution as a source of life and increased complexity of life forms =
certainly flies in the face of the law of entropy. =20
I know this issue has probably been chewed over relentlessly in this =
group, so perhaps I should let it drop and continue to read posts. My =
is obviously an irritant to members of this group.
In any event, perhaps all this is straining at "vain genealogies" and =
not really of great import when viewed in the light of spreading the =
Gospel. It is however a fascinating intellectual exercise.
Jay
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 09 2002 - 19:03:29 EDT