[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Caudipteryx suffered from osteoarthritis
>On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Mike Keesey <email@example.com> wrote:
>Your general point holds, though --there's a lot of resistance to phylogenetic
You're quite right, but what I find frustrating is that most of that
resistance is little more than a thinly-veiled excuse to not have to
alter long-held misconceptions. Just look at the words of the people
who argue against using phylogenetic groups; early opponents of
cladistics and phylogenetic nomenclature used to lament how many new
names were created (even though this instability was a natural result
of finally being able to throw data at a problem that had only been
intuited before), and how this hurt the science and education "because
we had to waste time learning all of the new and changing names".
Yet now people (and frequently the very same people) argue that
phylogenetic nomenclature is all well and good in its place, but it's
ok to use terms like bird, fish, etc., in ways that have no connection
to the actual organisms and their evolution. Despite the fact that
this creates an entire second tier of "informal" nomenclature, and
we're forced to try and remember the different ways people might use
those terms and how it relates to actual biological findings.
The arguments are diametrically opposite (despite frequently coming
from the same mouths and/or keyboards), all they have in common is
people attempting to cling to inaccurate uses of words they learned
Birds ARE dinosaurs. People ARE fish. Pluto ISN'T a planet.
Get over it.
Scientific Advisor/Technical Illustrator