Re: GALTONIA (computer searches)

["Rob Gay" <rob_redwing@hotmail.com>]

Ken Kinman said:
> So I think George is right.  Computers should adapt to our needs as
much as possible, not the other way around.  BTW, the same goes for 
cladistics as a tool, and that's one of the reasons I expect a future
backlash against purely phylogenetic classifications (regardless of 
phylogeneticists best intentions<
Yikes. I didn't expect to respond to one of these comments, but none the 
less, here I go.
Phylogenies aren't created to suit people. We shouldn't say, "I don't like 
it, so we should change it to suit us." The idea behind cladistics is to 
have a classification (theoretically) free of bias. So, if we want 
phylogenies to "adapt to our needs as much as possible," that would not be 
showing a truer picture of what is going on. I've heard that cladistics 
causes unneeded confusion and what not. Well, guess what. Life is confusing, 
complex, and more intertwined than we will be able to unravel in 100 
generations. But why not try to understand. With a phylogenetic 
classification, you (theoretically) get a clearer picture of what is going 
on in nature without human bias. We should try to make things easy on 
ourselves, true, but not at the expense of knowledge, data and truth. We 
should try to understand nature as it is, not as it would be most convenient 
for us.
Peace,
Rob

Student of Geology
Northern Arizona University
P.O. Box 20840
Flagstaff, Az. 86011
AIM: TarryAGoat
"A _Coelophysis_ with feathers?"

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com