next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects
------=_Part_14033_30113866.1214829140831
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
No, not intentionally. Sorry if I've offended you (are you a molecular
biologist?). Taxonomy is a science fraught with lumping, splitting and other
recategorizing. I'm hoping that one day we'll get it right, but there is a
lot of see-sawing (even before the molecular folks came on line), so when
someone claims to now *know* the answer, or summarily dismiss someone else's
work, I'm sceptical.
Molecular biology is a powerful tool, I'm collaborating with more than one
in my own work right now.
Randy
2008/6/28 Stephen Shaw <srshaw@dal.ca>:
> I guess you're just being provocative, Randy?
> Steve
>
>
> Quoting Randy Lauff <randy.lauff@gmail.com>:
>
>> Y'know, we hear this every few years, especially since the molecular
>> people
>> ("gene jockeys") got their hands on birds' DNA.
>>
>> "Second, much of bird classification and conventional wisdom on the
>> evolutionary relationships of birds is wrong."
>>
>> Possibly so. But that doesn't mean that what these authors are proposing
>> is
>> correct. Or even better. Just wait...in two years, a new technique will
>> come
>> on board and we'll have another complete revision.
>>
>> Randy
>> Antigonish Co.
>> 2008/6/27 Wild Flora <herself@wildflora.com>:
>>
>
>
>
--
Randy
_________________________________
RF Lauff
Way in the boonies of
Antigonish County, NS.
------=_Part_14033_30113866.1214829140831
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
<div>No, not intentionally. Sorry if I've offended you (are you a molecular biologist?). Taxonomy is a science fraught with lumping, splitting and other recategorizing. I'm hoping that one day we'll get it right, but there is a lot of see-sawing (even before the molecular folks came on line), so when someone claims to now *know* the answer, or summarily dismiss someone else's work, I'm sceptical.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Molecular biology is a powerful tool, I'm collaborating with more than one in my own work right now.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Randy</div>
<div><br> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">2008/6/28 Stephen Shaw <srshaw@dal.ca>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">I guess you're just being provocative, Randy?<br>Steve
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="Wj3C7c"><br><br>Quoting Randy Lauff <randy.lauff@gmail.com>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Y'know, we hear this every few years, especially since the molecular people<br>("gene jockeys") got their hands on birds' DNA.<br>
<br>"Second, much of bird classification and conventional wisdom on the<br>evolutionary relationships of birds is wrong."<br><br>Possibly so. But that doesn't mean that what these authors are proposing is<br>
correct. Or even better. Just wait...in two years, a new technique will come<br>on board and we'll have another complete revision.<br><br>Randy<br>Antigonish Co.<br>2008/6/27 Wild Flora <herself@wildflora.com>:<br>
</blockquote><br><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Randy<br>_________________________________<br>RF Lauff<br>Way in the boonies of<br>Antigonish County, NS.
------=_Part_14033_30113866.1214829140831--
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects