Re: Oops, Back to the You Know What



rmacfarl wrote:
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> ...
> > I note that you let
> > the principles of cladistics slip when it suits your argument.
>
> I could be wrong, but if cladistic relationships are based on comparing
> physical taxonomic features, then swimming ability, a behavioural
> trait, would have nothing to say in a cladistic analysis.

You are wrong. Cladistics is a classification system based on
similarities in derived characteristics. These need not be physical
characteristics and need not even be confined to biological systems,
though when used to characterize relationships elsewhere, some
considerable liberties must be taken when it comes to asserting the
manner of inheritance of the traits. *If* the traits are heritable, it
is possible to use a cladistic approach to analyze them. If entirely
learned, it's still possible to examine swimming if this learning
process occurs in a strictly vertical system, though it's far harder to
accept such constraints on any real system over millions of years.

There's considerable misuse of cladistics. I'm suspicious whenever I
see the line "principles of cladistics." Sounds more religious. It's
not a principle so much as it's a methodological approach to examine
evolutionary relationships between taxa as these relationships relate
to heritable traits. It provides both a methodology for deducing
relationships from traits (provided the mechanism of heredity is solid)
and, if the relationships are know, for analyzing the evolution of
heritable traits over the natural histories of related taxa.

.