Definition of Basic Type??
NIIIIIIICHOLAS MATZKE (NJM6610@EXODUS.VALPO.EDU)
Mon, 2 Dec 1996 22:06:43 -0600 (CST)">Glenn, you might like to know that a paper was presented at the Mere
>Creation Conference which has much common ground with your views.
>Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer considered the hominid fossil record from the
>perspective of Basic Type biology. The conclusion was that all the
>Homo fossils (with the possible exception of the controversial Homo
>habilis) can be understood as belonging to the same Basic Type (and
>therefore may be considered descendants of Adam and Eve). The
>australopithecenes were interpreted as another Basic Type.
I will look forward to reading it. For informational sake, at the 1950
Coldspring Harbor conference, Ernst Mayr argued strongly that all the fossil
men including Australopithecus, show less variation than is seen in many
genera. He proposed Homo transvaalensis for Australopithecus and two other
species in the genus Homo: erectus and sapiens. (See Noel T. Boaz, Quarry,
p.10) The anthropologists refused to go along with the idea that there was
only one genus.
glenn"
For those of us who didn't make the Mere Creation Conference, would
someone be willing to define "Basic Type"? (with a capital "B" and a capital
"T", it appears) Does it correspond to genus or family or something else? (if
something else, what are the criteria for grouping animals into Basic Types?)
Also, if anyone has lists of what animals are put into which Basic Types (the
research in Germany dealt with horses, I vaguely recall), that would be
helpful.
Nick