nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→"similar species": That doesn't answer the question.
: The effect is to make out that evolution is true (it's not the ''word'' that is the problem, but ''claiming the concept as true''). On what basis are they considered to be ''related'' if not on ''similarity''? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
: The effect is to make out that evolution is true (it's not the ''word'' that is the problem, but ''claiming the concept as true''). On what basis are they considered to be ''related'' if not on ''similarity''? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
::Related and simlar are just different things. You might say that whales are similar to fish in a lot of ways but they aren't particularly closely related. Phylogentic methods (with a few exceptions) are about modelling the way things have changed within lineages to work backwards to recreate the most likely pattern of branching in a particular group in the light of the characters being studied. That's not the same thing as similarity. --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 00:16, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::Related and simlar are just different things. You might say that whales are similar to fish in a lot of ways but they aren't particularly closely related. Phylogentic methods (with a few exceptions) are about modelling the way things have changed within lineages to work backwards to recreate the most likely pattern of branching in a particular group in the light of the characters being studied. That's not the same thing as similarity. --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 00:16, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::: You haven't actually answered the question: On what basis are they considered to be related? To put it more simply, ''why'' to they think they are related? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)