CKING wrote:

1. I have "taken back that statement that Hennig and cladists 'misunderstand evolution'".

2. My tolerance of paraphyly is not widely held among systematists.


Me: Excellent on both counts. That's progress. You may be surprised to know that Ashlock and Mayr textbook is not the end of discourse on the subject of paraphyly. Could it really be that the rest of the phylogenetics world has no grounds for considering paraphyly as a peril to classification? Is it truly possible that the rejection of paraphyly is only about fashion? Those are a lot of independent thinking scientists you disparage with that statement. Instead of the Galileo analogy you use, I suggest the analogy of the Flat Earth Society or believers in alien abduction.

Can I recommend an intereting book? David Hull wrote a book titled Science as a Process (1988 I think), in which he followed the revolution in systematics from the late 60's into the 80's. I think you would like it because you may find your justification for social issues dictating acceptance of new ideas in science. But you also may find that social issues aside, the bottom line for the acceptance of new ideas is the continued failure to reject the new ideas.

Cheers,
BIC

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]