Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>In my modification of Pearce's theory, I interpret the "man" of Genesis 1 as
>the species Homo sapiens extending back ~ 120 kya, and the physical
>`ancestor' of the entire human race.
Is it no longer believed that Genesis 1 & 2 are a combination of Genesis
in the scripture of the priests of Moses and in that of the priests of Aaron?
I thought that was widely accepted.
>CL>Of course this is a point against man-from-chimp.
>
>Strangely enough, here I disagree with Cliff. I don't think any leading
>evolutionist maintains that "man" came from a "chimp", but that both
>"man" and "chimp" shared a common ancestor. This I provisionally accept
>as probable on the evidence.
I didn't mean that *I* am for man-from-chimp. I'm all for pushing
divergences back in time and all against forcing known forms
into phylogenetic sequences. I'd push 'em all back to the Cambrian
if it weren't for the molecular evidence.
>But again to be fair to the evolutionary biologists there has been
>some speculation about "mechanisms explaining the Cambrian Explosion".
>Stanley has speculated it was due to the emergence of predators:
Some speculation, but none that the establishment has any use for.
FTR, my own notion is that segmentation is the key to the Cambrian
Explosion. The macroevolutionary mechanism forming the gross
morphology of vertebrates and arthropods is simply siamese-twinning
(aka parabiosis), a process through which trains of segments can be
quickly generated, followed by mutations causing loss and distortion
of segments--a process which was drastic at first but soon became
more gradual and Darwinian.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noe.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 05:14:43 EST