> At 06:36 PM 10/16/00 +0100, you wrote:
> Glenn,
>
> For your (and other secondary-career evolutionary biologists' )
> information, the singular form of "phyla" is "phylum". There are certain
> contexts (e.g., the above sentence) where you mistakenly use the plural
> form. The same rule applies for genus (singular) and genera (plural).
Sorry, but that isn't biology; it is Latin--and I have a minor in Latin, but
obviously didn't learn very much. In spite of my poor use of the
singular/plural form I do understand the difference. But thanks for the
correction of my sloppiness here.
<snip>
> The important point (i.e., the very point you are making, too) is that
> phyla (or taxa at any rank) are not static, unchanging "kinds" or
> Aristotelian "essences" in the mind of God. They represent
> living branches
> and networks of historical continuity in evolutionary history.
Agreed. This is the point I am trying to make. Nothing in this world is
static. Anti-evolutionists treat science as if it is unchanging religious
dogma. I have heard people citing authors from 50 years ago as if everyone
today beleives everything that those authors wrote. This results in treating
scientific literature as if it were a religious text. That is one of the
biggest problems in this area--anti-evolutionists treat science as if it is
a religion, which it isn't. And as you imply, anti-evolutionists believe
that phyla, class, family etc are typological things which come with tags
written by God.
glenn
see http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 15:09:24 EDT