Quote:

---

We don't know the true evolutionary relationships, nor will we.  That's just another problem being created by a purported "solution."

---

Quote:

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:
How far apart are the two species?

---

Quote:

---

cactu said:

Quote:

---

CureCat said:

Quote:

---

Phylogenetics are a diversion and an impediment to understanding what a specimen or species is.  As such, they are useless at best and promote ignorance at worst.  As a scientist I eschew such things.

---

Okay, so then as a scientist, what exactly do you believe and what is your understanding of a "species" or whatever you want to call it?

I'm not confused per say, the nomenclature is just in disarray.

---

maybe if he answer this i will understand .

why many  scientific are interest in evolution , and what will they think  Phylogenetics are a diversion and an impediment to understanding what a specimen or species is.

not tell what you think because i know Mr m. tell me why  scientific will think that ......the answer is clear ... science  dont have all the solutions yet, and mushrooms are really dont well understand do you like to describe species as linneo  did, if he had all the tool we know had he should be using it, morphology, molecular adn studies, microscopy .

---

Quote:

---

canid said:
no, but we can attempt to construct one which reflects the relative relationships between currently extant real entities [specien] in the attempt to give taxa to them for the sake of handling or referring to similar specimen.

it is certainly a philosophical matter [e.g. in developing artificial classification to explain relationships in a more accurate way], but our philosophies, or chosen patterns of treating the real entities in the world we interact with have practical ramification in our lives. we treat things, or interact with them in the manner in which we come to understand them, and in the case of the relationships we assign from one specimen to another of the garden of our world, how accurate we come is to some degree relevant.

the result, in this case may be an escalation of complexity of our percieved relationships, but this is why a heirarcical system of classification might be appropriate, as it lends scale. we can then choose the degree of precision [as significant figures, used throughout the sciences] nessecary to consider when  making practical differentiations.

in the case of the inheritance of typic traits, these relationships have those practical ramifications, in my limited understanding.

---

I've pretty much made my case clear numerous times, but, since you commented too I feel I owe you some feedback.

First paragraph:  The relationships can be built as they have been, according to other methods.  If these weren't living entities we wouldn't be having this conversation.  After the genome has been examined for an organism it can be compared with the codes of other organisms.  That will yield a goldmine of information, even though, as I understand it, there is a lot less information in fungal tissue.  We don't have to rename every damned thing we come across based on speculation.

Second paragraph:  I don't see the relevancy in this case.

Third paragraph:  I'm not sure how possible it is to nail down inherited traits as we get further and further from the type.  The further you go, the more speculative it becomes.

Ok, that's enough of this for me.

I have to say though, I thoroughly enjoyed discussing this without animosity.  Few conversations regarding evolution go as well in my experience.  This lends credence to my theory that the Hunting and Identification forum is the best one at the Shroomery.

Not that I'm biased or anything. 

Quote:

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:

---

Quote:

---

what you keep saying history is history i just can`t compute ,  i  guess we are in the oposite side of the coin , i see half full and you see it half empty , but we will never undestand  science if we dont have what  you call history , or  what other will call adn, or encoded genes. or ... for example you believe in dinosaur and that is history  also , and how many dinosaur most exist most be  big history , but we need to try at least there you go people  coounting shit pile  of fosil shit to determinate how many dinosaur may grow in the land, that really interest me, and i guess others ,
adn  is more  provefull in future  to come of micology that microscopy or morphology ,  maybe molecular morphology will bring new frontiers also .. but that is science and not history .



Which side am I on?  Science's side, not history's.  The argument about systematics began a while ago though I'm not sure when.  All I know is that there has been a battle raging for a long time now.  For the life of me I can't understand anyone's fascination with a history that can never be nailed down.  It just baffles me.


----- some history can be nail down , is is being nail down , that why study  biology and you think you are gonna convice that i made a bad decicsion by studing , the natural behave of life ,  so was natural is to wonder and to  find the answer.

What angers me is the work that many have put into describing species and assigning similiarities according to morphology and chemical testing.  They aren't lineages per se and they should never be understood that way.  The relationships in those instances are unassailable.  They are rock hard.  They are certain.  At least far more certain than anything historians can come up with.


----i wish that  not give you anger  but instead curiosity how people in those lab  break their asses studing  with so little instrument, tool to understand that , that is and art. to observate and to decifrate was behind , if you see mycology  for say in the aztec times since we have a history record , can you notice we need tool more tool to understand mushrooms , by so they have more undestanding than us,  maybe they where open and what in first place create science , inspired thinking.

Quote:

---

we should teach to new kid to  not fell correct about their appreciation  since, all is in constant flux, or change , so what is correct now it will not later,

---

It's the same thing as teaching some other historical theory in science class.  Call it something else.  I don't mind.  Tell them that life changes, but don't tell them that you know with some kind of certitude that you borrowed from something far more certain than what you have.  Because if you even imply that, you're a liar.

-----then where is your science it can left  you alone sometimes . science have no pourpuse just to study the  thing we see infront of our  eyes, hey kid. dont dream , read the book , the book is inside your head inside ours heads...

Quote:

---

as i toll you  before this is a puzzle in another puzzle , why  avoid , let find the piece and not fight each other, do not discredited other but hear and try to Analise , i do that when  people respond , but we where not discussing  really  Mr Mushrooms  you where only giving your opinion with no way of hearing mine.  and when you drove a line  is hard to cross the border only mojado ....

---

No mojado aqui, Amigo.  Aqui solamente cuidado, piso mojado.

--- that funny  but not for me .

I am hearing you clearly.  However I do not think you understand the philosophical implications of what you are saying, or what I am saying.  Science isn't history, Amigo, nor can it be.

---

Quote:

---

Workman said:
Microscopy of samples

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=10102641&page=0&vc=1#10102641

---