[Taxacom] An improved definition of cladogenesis

[Richard Zander]

I think Curtis wrote something profound, but I guess I need an example
to clarify what he meant. 

Suppose, if biology were the sum of examples, plus explanatory theory, a
group of scientists rejected paraphyletic groups as examples of
anything. Is theory concerned with paraphyletic groups then also
rejected? For example, ah hem, if polar bears are rejected as cladogenic
taxa, then is any process-based theory (assuming there is such
somewhere) on why they are so phenomenally different from brown bears
also rejected? 

E.g.:
    * FUR : their thick fur keeps them warm in frigid air and water
(it's actually hollow)
    * WHITE FUR: actually transparent, for camouflage in ice and snow
    * PAWS : the pads provide traction on ice and are broad for use in
swimming
    * CLAWS : are curved to dig through ice
    * EARS and TAILS : are short to minimize heat loss
    * TEETH : more jagged than most bears, suiting a carnivore
    * FAT LAYERS: keeps them warm (insulates)
    * SKIN: their skin is black to attract heat from the suns rays to
keep them warm
(from the Web).


*****************************
Richard H. Zander 
Voice: 314-577-0276
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
richard.zander at mobot.org
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
*****************************

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Curtis Clark
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 8:36 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] An improved definition of cladogenesis

One of my most clarifying experiences was a discussion with a computer
science colleague: He asked if I had any advice for writing end-user
documentation for a specific project. I said, "Give plenty of examples."

He explained that he didn't believe in examples. His views had been
shaped by a math professor, who pointed out that, if you know the first
principles, you can generate as many examples as you want, and if you
don't, no arbitrary number of examples will help you toward that
understanding.

I realized then that biology is the inverse of mathematics: biology is
the sum total of all examples, and the theoretical underpinnings
necessary to make consistent sense of them. Without theory, biology is
still discoverable, but without example, it's just a sloppy and
unproductive kind of math.