[Taxacom] Phylogenetic Classification?

[Curtis Clark]

On 2009-07-26 22:04, Richard Zander wrote:
> Linnaean classification is in the process of being cleansed of any hint
> of macroevolution.

And that is worse than having it riddled with undefined macroevolution 
(either the pattern or the process), how?

Leaving aside your mosses (which I don't know enough about to 
challenge), I see nothing in the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, 
based mainly upon Ken's analyses (so not biased by 
cladophylocreationistic thinking) that would suggest any unusual 
macroevolutionary events beyond the usual speciation as seen though the 
window of fossilization. It's all well and good to say that the Reptilia 
gave rise to the Aves, but at some point a reptilian egg had to hatch 
into a bird, and that either has to represent a documented (if, of 
course, testably hypothetical) macroevolutionary event, or else it's 
arbitrary.

> I abhor creationism, and am sorry that it is such a scary thing in
> California. On the other hand, classification is the basis for
> scientific study of nature, biodiversity, and natural processes.
> Classification by holophyly is a major disaster for Western science. And
> it is happening now.

To me, feeling the necessity of tarring your opponents by calling them 
creationists is the mark either of an intellectually bankrupt idea, or 
an intellectually bankrupt person. Take your pick.

-- 
Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Director, I&IT Web Development                   +1 909 979 6371
University Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona