On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:31:48 -1000, Secola/Nieft <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Amadeus:
>> In this way we still are a variation of genes found in Lucy as well as
>> homo erectus.
>
>And since we share 40+% (or it is 60%?) of our DNA with the average
>bacterium perhaps we should study their diet, eh?

You seem not to be fond of an association of humans with the
australipethines.

You bring the percentage of genes into the play.
This is *much* weaker than what you get from real anchestry.

Humans have 94% or 97% of genes identical with mice.
Even more with chimps, but chimps are thought to have split off from
human developement 6-7 mio years away.
So you have 6 mio years ow own, seperate developement in chimps.
While Lucy is only 3.2 mio years away an in our line.

Bacteria cant have 40 or 50% identical genes, because
a small bacterium has only about 10**6 genes while humans (and
mammals) have
10**12 genes, the millionfold of it
(I didn't look up the numbers again, but the magnitude of relation
will be
correct).

>Seriously, if you want the
>brain capacity of Lucy, then Lucy's diet is of great importance...

You seem assume an influence of the diet on the developement of
brain volume (I am very sceptical).
Then you shouldn't forget that the brain volume multiplied
from Lucy towards homo habilis and homo erectus.

Lucy's diet (and successors') really was associated with brain
capacity
increasing 2-3fold.

(actually i think what you wrote was not "seriously" but something
else)

Amadeus