[mynah]

I'm not sure if this was the exact site where I saw it, but it certainly was the same context. To be honest, I've never been a fan of SJG...

Replaying Gould

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by mynah

Interesting question, but a quote I read comes to mind: Man classifies, nature does not.

Excellent and pithy.
Many folks find this a very difficult concept to get their minds around.
Nature does not recognize "species". There are no hard and fast boundaries separating one species from another. Our human-defined definitions are heuristics, or rules-of-thumb.
That two similar but distinct species should not be cross-fertile (and produce fertile progeny) works pretty well most of the time. There are many exceptions.
There are even "ring-species" mentioned in an earlier post that show that even though Animal Group A may be able to cross-breed with Animal Group B, and B may be able to cross-breed with C, it is entirely possible that Animal Groups A and C are infertile with each other.

Therefore A and C are of different species. Yet A is the same species as B is the same species as C.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by mynah

I'm not sure if this was the exact site where I saw it, but it certainly was the same context. To be honest, I've never been a fan of SJG...

Replaying Gould

I've never read any Gould myself, but I remember about a year or so ago, someone here at Hypo stated that Gould did not give credence to homoplasy. I've been quite suspect of his ideas since then. The article you linked to pushes me further away from his ideas.

Originally Posted by from your link

But, here, Gould (also Mayr 2001, see p. 209) has forgotten a principle which is so fundamental it has become hackneyed: man classifies; nature does not.

So it seems that it wasn't Gould that made the remark as in this case it is being used against his ideas. Looking up the phrase in google returns only three links and it is unclear from any of them where this phrase came from.

[mynah]

I found this website quite interesting after reading Wonderful life by Gould. Personally I found Gould's "heroes and villains" approach intensely irritating. Evidently the hero of his book was not too charmed, either...

Gould vs Conway-Morris

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by mynah

I found this website quite interesting after reading Wonderful life by Gould. Personally I found Gould's "heroes and villains" approach intensely irritating. Evidently the hero of his book was not too charmed, either...

Gould vs Conway-Morris

“Creationist critics often charge that evolution cannot be tested, and therefore cannot be viewed as a properly scientific subject at all. This claim is rhetorical nonsense.”
(Stephen Jay Gould)



.

[coldcreation]

This is my favorite:


“While the rest of the species is descended from apes, redheads are descended from cats.”
(Mark Twain)




CC