Message 2005-12-0046: Re: Phylocode and Evolution

Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:38:58 +0100

[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 <>
Subject: Re: Phylocode and Evolution

> The definition of Evolution I condensed from Webster's Dictionary. =
> terminology and form isn't my fault.

Oh! Of course it isn't. But for the future you should remember that, =
science, you should never rely on a dictionary. Webster's is simply n=
about science, it's about the US-American version of the English lang=
Scientific jargon is something else.

Still, in this respect it's better than the most influential German=
dictionary, the Duden. The Duden's explanation of "Evolution" transla=
tes as=20

"1) (educational) _slow, continuous development, especially of large =
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 =
the e. of the fauna of the Earth; in the course of e.; the origin of =
by e."

It goes without saying that 1) is a (fortunately rarely used) metapho=
extension of 2), so I'll focus on the latter. "Lower" and "higher" ar=
meaningless and misleading. Mighty big mistake to use these in an=
explanation of what evolution is!!! Darwin himself wrote "say never h=
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=
all these "earlier", go ahead.=20


Feedback to <> is welcome!