Re: naked bipeds

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Ralph L Holloway: "Re: Tears: 2 of 2 . Thanks for the scholarship!"
• Previous message: Paul Crowley: "Re: post from Holloway"
• Maybe in reply to: Alex Duncan: "naked bipeds"
• Next in thread: David Froehlich: "Re: naked bipeds"

In article <46dstf$bfs@news.global1.net>
pnich@globalone.net "Phil Nicholls" writes:

> Paul Crowley <Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk> graced us with the following
> words:
>
> >When you see a species with two striking and unique adaptions,
> >either one of which is enough to mark it off from all its
> >relatives and which (a) have no obvious link, and (b) developed
> >in a short time period, then it is parsimonious seek an
> >explanation which covers both.
>
> The parsimony argument only holds IF THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THEY
> OCCURRED AT THE SAME TIME.
David Burkhead and David Froelich made the same point.

Parsimony isn't everything. There's respect for data, elegance,
other factors that should be taken into account, and probably other
things too. But for what it is in this case, it's on my side.

I quote two phenomena (y) and (z) that need explaining. I give
one explanation. You give two. So I've got parsimony. Big deal.

Your correct response is to say I'm omitting phenomena (a) to (x)
or that my (z) is not a significant problem, or that my (y) does
not work, or whatever.

But on *parsimony*, I win (a very small victory).

Paul.

• Next message: Ralph L Holloway: "Re: Tears: 2 of 2 . Thanks for the scholarship!"
• Previous message: Paul Crowley: "Re: post from Holloway"
• Maybe in reply to: Alex Duncan: "naked bipeds"
• Next in thread: David Froehlich: "Re: naked bipeds"