[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Quo vadis AAAARG metaphor limits

>>That is, indeed, a nice metaphor, and applicable in many cases, but not 
>>this one.  Birds are not sprung from a sister tree to that of dinosaurs; 
>>they are a branch of that tree.
>This is like an argument about which religion is better. Use whichever
>system, cladistic or Linnaean, is most convenient and useful to you. If the
>former, then birds are dinosaurs; if the latter, then birds descended from
>dinosaurs (or, rather, dinosaurs and birds descended from dino-birds: BCF).
>Christianity sprang from Judaism. Is it, therefore, simply a Jewish sect? Or
>is it a genuinely new religion? English derives from an olde Teutonic tongue.
>Is English therefore merely a dialect of German? Or is it a genuinely new
>language?  As "Linda Richman" might say, "Argue among yourselves..."

Cool analogy!  I would say that the dividing point is on how different is one
group from another.  Then the real question is, "Are birds significantly
different than dinosaurs?"  If the answer is, "very different" then they belong
in separate groups.  If the answer is, "not all that different" then they belong
together.  As I see it, both opinions have information that appears to be fairly
well supported.


The man who has everything ... should be quarantined!