We should when we're engaging on a lay forum.
Besides which, "Mutation" isn't a terribly common term in "scientific lingo" either. For the same reason.
I think they have, actually. Of course, Desmond Morris (zoologist, rather than anthropologist) entertained the idea in the widely read
The Naked Ape
, but there's been other work in the same vein. At the end of the day, it's not entertained seriously because it's simply not credible--it doesn't hold up to serious criticism. You might start with http://www.aquaticape.org/
For this to stand as a fundamental difference, it would need to be an entire process that other animals do not exhibit. The fundamental process is creative tool use in pursuit of a goal. We used to think this was really remarkable, until Jane Goodall showed us how wrong we were. Chimps, orangutans and bonobos are, of course, the usual examples of animals who do so, but it's not restricted to them. Elephants do it. So do seals. Other things once thought human hallmarks--like language, or even agriculture, have animal precursors. Even less admirable traits, like drug addiction, or propensity toward genocide, have non-human parallels.
We are unique in the skill with which we preform all of these things, a debt owed to our tremendous capacity to learn by cumulative experience, but we are not unique in their possession.
If you'd RTFA, you'd know that the article is well aware of what evolution is. The problem, as they see it, is that if they were competing directly with each other, it's difficult to understand how they survived together for so long, a problem better solved by placing them in different ecological niches.
As an addendum, I really, really hate the term "mutation." While the word itself isn't inaccurate, it's connotations are. It tends to conjure up images of hopeful monsters, which isn't what evolution is. It's probably best to follow Darwin's lead and call it "variation in a species."
Slashdot Mirror
You post on slashdot and you once dated a girl? Riiiiiiight. . .
Somewhat ironic from a guy who's nick is drawn from Blaise Pascal :P
What's clearer, the term "Mutation" which has connotations other than what is intended, or the term "variation," which doesn't?
:)
It seems this should put you on my team
We should when we're engaging on a lay forum. Besides which, "Mutation" isn't a terribly common term in "scientific lingo" either. For the same reason.
- The Naked Ape
, but there's been other work in the same vein. At the end of the day, it's not entertained seriously because it's simply not credible--it doesn't hold up to serious criticism. You might start with http://www.aquaticape.org/For this to stand as a fundamental difference, it would need to be an entire process that other animals do not exhibit. The fundamental process is creative tool use in pursuit of a goal. We used to think this was really remarkable, until Jane Goodall showed us how wrong we were. Chimps, orangutans and bonobos are, of course, the usual examples of animals who do so, but it's not restricted to them. Elephants do it. So do seals. Other things once thought human hallmarks--like language, or even agriculture, have animal precursors. Even less admirable traits, like drug addiction, or propensity toward genocide, have non-human parallels. We are unique in the skill with which we preform all of these things, a debt owed to our tremendous capacity to learn by cumulative experience, but we are not unique in their possession.
If you'd RTFA, you'd know that the article is well aware of what evolution is. The problem, as they see it, is that if they were competing directly with each other, it's difficult to understand how they survived together for so long, a problem better solved by placing them in different ecological niches.
As an addendum, I really, really hate the term "mutation." While the word itself isn't inaccurate, it's connotations are. It tends to conjure up images of hopeful monsters, which isn't what evolution is. It's probably best to follow Darwin's lead and call it "variation in a species."