One origin? (viral evolution)

Ron at Ron at
Fri Jul 20 15:28:16 CDT 2001


Thomas DiBenedetto  <tdibenedetto at OCEANCONSERVANCY.ORG>
wrote:
I am not sure that cladistics really needs to go to war against
essentialism
> in its entirety. To the particular point regarding (x)karyotes, I would
say
> this: I could accept a "definition" of eukaryotes as cells with nuclei
(as
> opposed to a "diagnosis" yada yada yada), for I would point out that the
> real problem is that a definition of prokaryotes would require a negative
> defintion. That is the heart of the problem as far as I can see. Evidence
is
> qualitativly different than non-evidence. Characters define groups,
> non-characters define non-groups (or as Parmenides (I think it was) once
> said: "being is, non-being is not").
>
> Tom DiBenedetto
>

If there is anything that the evolution of science has taught us it is
this. Just because something is unknown it does not mean that it is not.
Here is the southern US we have many quaint sayings. If you can't run with
the big dogs stay under the porch, is one of my favorites - I realize I am
a pup here. Another is, what goes around comes around. I see a lot of
smugness in some Cladists (general observation not Thomas induced). Just
remember to say ooops twenty years from now when some presently unknown
factors, new discipline, etc. comes along and shoots down or takes half the
wheels off cladistics. Never say never either. ;-)
Ron

PS  We Old Coders are not ready to roll over and play dead just yet
either - nor throw the baby out with the bath water.




More information about the Taxacom mailing list