This discussion isn't very relevant to sci.space or physycs, so I've
modified it to sci.space, psychology and bionet.molbio.evolution
In article <1153 at helens.Stanford.EDU> joe at hanauma.stanford.edu (Joe Dellinger) writes:
>One last point: by some standards we aren't even all that successful. Where
>are all the species closely related to us? We're the only species left in
>our genera! And the few reasonably close relatives we still have, Gorillas
>and Chimpanzees, are only just hanging on. Lucky for us we figured out
Watch it: Gould also says (and I agree with him) that our species
classification system is very biased. The further away from our
branch of the tree we get, the more lax we are about defining
species. For example, we and the Chimps are a *lot* closer
morphoplogically than some invertatrae that we call "sibling species";
we're also closer than the horse and donkey, which can breed to
produce a mule (or is horse+mule=donkey, whatever). The only thing
stopping us from interbreeding with chimps to see if we're sibling
species is that, right now, most people would be revulsed by the idea.
In other words, you and I and the chimps all look the same from a
slug's point of view.
--
"Dad, what should I be when I grow up?"
"Honest." -- Robert M. Pirsig, _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence_.
Wayne Hayes INTERNET: wayne at csri.utoronto.ca CompuServe: 72401,3525
