Re: New finds

[philidor11@snet.net]

You did observe:
<In any case, the straight line is a consequence of presentation 
that means nothing in reality, and so is the main stem.>
Isn't the description of ancestral (albeit unnamed) forms the 
basis for the cladistic effort?  Why then would you reject the 
similar effort of going back from a contemporary form in a straight 
line?  The 'main stem' appears as such because the line runs 
from an end point back to a selected beginning point.  Choose 
a different end point and you have a different 'main stem'.
So, if the 'main stem' is meaningless, so is cladistics.
The problem with any attempt to identify a lineage is that it 
must fail because the essential information can't be observed 
or obtained by replicating the original situation, but that's 
a slightly different issue. 

= = = Original message = = =

> Are you really more comfortable with affirming the ability 
to describe
> ancestral forms than with saying that these ancestral forms 
existed?

No, why? Did I imply that somehow? ~:-|


___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.