Dave <-- redeacted --> writes:

> I'm replying directly to you, instead of the list, because I'm
> not talking about Piper here.

Oops!  (Thanks, Nathan, for giving this divergence your blessing.)

> At 05:13 PM 9/30/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> >Actually, the *Pak* of Niven's Known Space had come to Earth a *long*
> >time ago, giving them time enough to evolve into a more "native"
> >species.  Indeed, this was manifest in the many differences between
> >the *Pak* and Humans.
>
> Yeah, the Pak were *homo habilis*, weren't they?

It's been so long I don't remember but that doesn't sound right to me.
I seem to recall that humans were actually a "failed" form of *Pak*.
(Keep in mind that what anthropologists understand about *Home habilis*
has changed significantly since Niven was writing.)

> >But again, Niven seemed to be operating from the perspective that *some*
> >degree of parallel evolution was apparent in the non-Humans of Known
> >Space, otherwise, for example, Kzinti wouldn't have found Humans so
> >tasty. :)
>
> I seem to recall that Niven explained this by arguing that all Known
> Space sapients had evolved (over the course of 3 or 4 billion years)
> from the Slaver food life-form, which explained why they all had the
> same basic biochemistry.  I'm not sure how plausible this is.

It's plausible if you have the Slavers to do your seeding.  In effect,
the Slavers spread life (not just sapient life) across the Known
Space worlds.  This is essentially the "ET" option you've suggested
for Beam's Terro-Human Future History.

> But it's very implausible to make the Pak *homo habilis*; the same
> argument about the pattern of relations to all other life on Earth
> applies.  In particular, how can the Pak be our ancestors when
> human and chimp DNA are 98% identical?  Since the chimp and human
> line of descent diverged long before *homo habilis*, this amounts
> to saying that just by accident, the Pak evolved to be 98% identical
> to a life-form on a planet tens of thousands of light-years away.
> It just can't happen.  Although I guess I have to accept that it
> did happen in the Known Space universe, since Niven says it did.

Again, I'm not sure about *habilis*.  The point is that a respectable
sci-fi writer writing well after Beam still thought it appropriate
to have compatible life-forms evolve on different worlds (with the
Slaver caveat).

> (But have you ever seen his essay "Down in Flames", dealing with
> a story about the destruction of Known Space?  It gives a very
> different and interesting take on what you think you know about
> Known Space.)

Haven't seen it.  Sounds interesting.

At this point I find no compelling reason to accept the "parallel
evolution" explanation for interfertile Freyans over the "ET transplant"
hypothesis.  On the other hand, both have obvious problems for Beam's
universe *and* intriguing hints in their respective favors.  I'm afraid
I'm going to have to reread "When in the Course--" before I have much more
to say on this subject.

David Johnson                        Net: -- redeacted --
Arlington, Virginia, North America   Web: http://gwis2.circ.gwu.edu/~david
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[W]hen a man tells you something you don't understand, don't tell him
he's crazy.  Ask him what he means." -Capt. Otto Harkaman (H. Beam Piper)
                                     *Space Viking*