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

Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response

----- Original Message -----
From: "No Way" <alincodj2k@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 6:47 PM

This kind of discussion is the main reason most people go into the experimental sciences rather than the descriptive.

You have _completely_ missed the point. This discussion is not about science at all whatsoever. It is about nomenclature. It is not about cladistics (that is, the science of phylogenetics), it is about phylogenetic nomenclature (a set of conventions on how to tie labels to a phylogenetic tree).

While on the subject of the negative impact of cladism, it was very sad to see what influence enthrallment with cladistics had on the design of the rennovated fossil halls at the High Temple of Cladistics, the AMNH in NYC. I fondly remeber my visits to the Halls of Saurischian & Ornithischian Dinosaurs before the renovations. What you saw there made sense. The present cladism-driven displays only confuse & distract from the central message that these fossils are all the remains of animals that evolved from a few common ancestors.

Please explain.