Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tribune7
The tree, it seems, is based on an assumption of descent, rather than a scale of relatiionship

Aren't (blood) relatives usually defined as the people with whom you share ancesstors? IE, what does it mean to say that two critters are related, if it doesn't mean they have a common ancestor?

The scientific fact is that the tree deduced from the fossil record is the same as the tree deduced from comparing DNA.

376 posted on 08/16/2002 10:31:23 AM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies ]


To: Virginia-American
Aren't (blood) relatives usually defined as the people with whom you share ancesstors?

True.

IE, what does it mean to say that two critters are related, if it doesn't mean they have a common ancestor?

Relationships might be a bad phrase. How about a chart of common characteristics?

The scientific fact is that the tree deduced from the fossil record is the same as the tree deduced from comparing DNA.

That assumes the accuracy of the fossil record, and the accuracy of our calibration of the tree.

378 posted on 08/16/2002 1:49:30 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson