[Previous by date - Re: Phylocode and Evolution]
[Next by date - We could be even Martians]
[Previous by subject - Re: Phylocode and Evolution]
[Next by subject - Re: Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:38:58 +0100
From: [unknown]
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Phylocode and Evolution
> The definition of Evolution I condensed from Webster's Dictionary. = The > terminology and form isn't my fault. Oh! Of course it isn't. But for the future you should remember that, = in=20 science, you should never rely on a dictionary. Webster's is simply n= ot=20 about science, it's about the US-American version of the English lang= uage.=20 Scientific jargon is something else. Still, in this respect it's better than the most influential German= =20 dictionary, the Duden. The Duden's explanation of "Evolution" transla= tes as=20 follows: "1) (educational) _slow, continuous development, especially of large = or=20 large-scale connections; slow development in the course of history:_ = the e.=20 of the forms of society. 2) (biology) _phylogenetic development from lower to higher forms of = life:_=20 the e. of the fauna of the Earth; in the course of e.; the origin of = species=20 by e." It goes without saying that 1) is a (fortunately rarely used) metapho= rical=20 extension of 2), so I'll focus on the latter. "Lower" and "higher" ar= e=20 meaningless and misleading. Mighty big mistake to use these in an= =20 explanation of what evolution is!!! Darwin himself wrote "say never h= igher=20 or lower" on some book margin. > I was meaning that we are then to be labeled in earlier categories. We are amniotes, just as we are mammals and tetrapods. If you want to= call=20 all these "earlier", go ahead.=20