Posted on 11/27/2005 7:11:52 AM PST by Pharmboy
XenuDidit placemark
Suppose one has three populations, a, b, and c. A sample is drawn from each and an estimate of the mean is calculated. Depending on the results, one might be unable to determine if mean(a) differs from mean(b), or that mean(b) differs from mean(c). However, it might be evident that mean(a) differs from mean(c).
The same logic could be (and is) applied to different animals. When is a difference a difference? It depends on the one establishing the criteria I suppose. Is a short-tailed hawk different than a red-tailed hawk. Is a fox different than a coyote? Is a salt-water striper different than a fresh-water white bass? Is a white cat different than a black cat? Is a beagle different than a basset hound? It depends on the sensitivity of the criteria and the reason for grouping I suppose. At one extreme, every animal is unique, so you have complete granularity. At the other, you have a complete continuum and the famous quote by the head of PETA is true.
If, for the purposes of discussion, someone suggests that demarcation can occur other than the current ones for species that might be useful, I don't think that is a difficult concept, nor worthy of the scorn you were handing out. It isn't as if it were without precedent. We do it every day.
When you have formulated your alternate taxonomy come back and show the world of biological science how it explains everything so much better than the conventional one. I wish you joy of your Nobel Prize that will be richly deserved if you can show that the whole of biology has been barking up the wrong tree for the past 150 years.
Remarkable. You completely disregard (or fail to comprehend) my point, and still manage to be insulting and condescending. Just as well, I suppose, as that appears to be the real goal of your posts anyway.
A poster suggested that there may be logical groupings of plants and animals that might be beneficial for a different model. You said it couldn't be, that no such alternatives could be developed. I suggested that if biologists are that hung up on the problem, maybe they could get help from other fields. Did I recommend a grouping methodology? No. I only suggested that such would be reasonable and possible. The rest is your fantasy.
For that to be true "a poster" would have to explain what problems the phylogenetic taxonomy is giving biologists. No-one has so far done that, other to express a desire that there should be some classification that corresponds to the belief that evolution is true.
You said it couldn't be, that no such alternatives could be developed.
I don't recall saying that, but let's continue, because my memory isn't always flawless, and I can't be ar$ed to re-read the thread.
I suggested that if biologists are that hung up on the problem....
Biologists aren't hung up on the problem at all. They already have a taxonomy that seems to work excellently. That a concept of unbridgeable "Kinds" doesn't exist in it is a problem for certain creationists, not biologists. That is the biggest issue here, that you appear to be trying to solve... what problem exactly? Using.... what methodology exactly?
, maybe they could get help from other fields. Did I recommend a grouping methodology?
No you didn't. That would have been helpful, but apparently you want me to formulate your hypothesis for you.
No. I only suggested that such would be reasonable and possible. The rest is your fantasy.
And I repeat in the absence of significant flaws in the current biological taxonomy your suggestion will become interesting only after someone has done it, and shown that the new taxonomy explains biology better than the old one. I wish you luck.
No-one has so far done that, other to express a desire that there should be some classification that corresponds to the belief that evolution isn't true.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Note: this topic is from November 27, 2005. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Hox genes are very similar for arachnids and vertebrates implying that they have changed little during the past 500 million years.
From Wikipedia: Hox genes are a group of related genes that specify the anterior-posterior axis and segment identity of metazoan organisms during early embryonic development. These genes are critical for the proper number and placement of embryonic segment structures (such as legs, antennae, and eyes).
I’m suspicious of science articles when the researchers include an unnecessary picture of themselves.
Some politicians even today have human like genes,
or so they claim.
Yeah, well, what about FReepers who include unnecessary pictures of Zahi “Zowie” Hawass?!? Huh?!? Huh?!?
;’)
Ahem, that's, that's just un....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.