Tue, 19 Nov 2002 03:55:40 GMT Bob wrote:



Not a flaw at all. The basic biology I present above is equally true
for all classification levels. All of biological classification is an
arbitrary scheme, and has no absolute meaning. It is "useful", but not
right or wrong.

The closest thing to an exception is the attempt to define species in
terms of interbreeding (inability to interbreed). But even that has
limitations (doesn't help with asexual organisms) and is much debated.

bob

Disagree. With that type of attitude Mendeleev would have never begun
to have found patterns that compose the Periodic Table of Elements. With
that type of attitude, Kepler would have never found patterns of planetary
orbits. And with that attitude the Elementary Particles of Physics would
always be a hodge podge mess.

Bob, I don't think you are saying anything about the science of biology,
but rather your own personal attitude that classification in biology will
never be refined into patterns and laws and theories. I never expected you to
be so
pessimistic and so wrong.

We do have a classification scheme in biology of the latest-revised
Linnaeus system based on shared characteristics. It is useful. But I want
to replace it with one based on physics principles.

Classification leads to patterns which leads to laws and principles of
science.
I do not know why you want to be so pessimistic on biology.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies