... Real taxonomic order is inherently messy, because evolutionary biology is. Concepts are scientific only if they follow the phenomenon.
-
-
... If there's a coherent pattern of genetic distance, it merits a word -- unless people are deliberately trying to obfuscate (which is not untypical).
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I mean, Elizabeth used such a word - "haplogroup". The attempt to revitalize the related but outdated word "race" instead seems to do little work besides let older, some not-even-claiming-to-be-scientific concepts of race free-ride on only formally similar premises
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
"Race" hasn't been mentioned in this conversation, although there is no good reason why it shouldn't have been. ...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
... The attempt to indicate technical invalidation of sound empirical concepts in general circulation is an undisguised ideological engineering project.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @homunculette
That's an endearingly paranoid way of trying to ignore the fact that "subspecies" implies a bar that is in no way met by y-chromosome haplogroups.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ElSandifer @homunculette
It doesn't imply any kind of "bar". It's a flexible taxonomic heuristic.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
The Humpty Dumpty Gambit.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Unless you're both arguing that all taxonomic order breaks off completely at the level of the species, this is nonsense.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Haplogroups don't map to subspecies, and calling it a "flexible taxonomic heuristic" is just hand-waving.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Haplogroups are subspecies, period.
-
-
I'm no expert, but no, they're not.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
And the difference is ...?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.