genetic vs morphological trace of phylogeny

[Curtis Clark]

At 08:16 2004-04-13, John Grehan wrote:
>It seems that what you are saying is that you are right any 'explanation'
>you provide is obviously explanatory and the failure on my part to adopt
>your position is therefore my fault.

No, I'm saying that you routinely pass off a lack of understanding as a
difference of opinion. I don't expect you to adopt my position. I expect
you to support your position with arguments. You have done that well with
the morphological evidence, but rather than addressing the molecular
evidence, you have discounted it, and claimed support by certain cladist
authorities.

i in fact did once have a student that I suspect in some ways was like you.
He was taking my speciation course, and because his major professor at the
time believed that species were artificial, he believed that, too. I
pointed out in class that the  course title, "Mechanisms of Speciation",
implied that species were real, since it was a biology department, not a
fantasy-writing department. Thus, by teaching the course, I was being
up-front about where I fell on the argument. I presented what I saw as both
sides of the evidence. He continued to argue, in an uninformed manner.
I  gave him a list of references that supported his (major professor's)
opinion, and told him to learn a bit about the controversy before arguing
it. He never brought it up again. It's always easier to opine than research.


--
Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona                 +1 909 979 6371
Professor, Biological Sciences                   +1 909 869 4062