... The attempt to indicate technical invalidation of sound empirical concepts in general circulation is an undisguised ideological engineering project.
-
-
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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 -
As I said, I'm not an expert, but the difference appears to be that they are different things.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
A haplogroup is a genetically-identifiable sub-population within a species, so how that is not exactly a subspecies defies me completely. ...
-
-
Replying to @Outsideness @paulcurrion and
... Also not a population genetics expert, of course, but I would expect the category of a 'subspecies' to be broader.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 2 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.