[Previous by date - Re: Phylocode and Evolution]
[Next by date - Re: Phylocode and Evolution]
[Previous by subject - Re: Phylocode and Evolution]
[Next by subject - Re: Phylocode and Evolution]
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:15:12 +0000
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Phylocode and Evolution
The definition of Evolution I condensed from Webster's Dictionary. Th= e=20 terminology and form isn't my fault. David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> > Species are not clades.=20 You're right. I was meaning that we are then to be labeled in earlier= categories. Yisrael Asper yisraelasper@comcast.net Pittsburgh PA > > I realize it is only terminology. The current definition is "The= =20 > > development of a species from its original to present form trough= =20 > > hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive genera= tions and=20 > > Natural Selection." >=20 > I disagree: > - Evolution happens at the population level, so it is meaningless a= t best=20 > and misleading at worst to mention species. > - "From its original to present form" is a misleading restriction. = "From any=20 > earlier to any later form" would be better. > - Who needs to mention generations? > - _Natural_ selection is not enough. There's also sexual selection.= And then=20 > there's genetic drift (which I also forgot to mention). >=20 > Where did you find that definition? >=20 > > Using PhyloCode if all you recognize is a clade so than we are st= ill part=20 > > of the same species. >=20 > Species are not clades. Species can be paraphyletic. >=20 > > We are then for instance labeled reptiles. >=20 > We _are_ labeled amniotes, yes, of course. A clade is an ancestor p= lus all=20 > its descendants.=20