can we talk about that in here too?

__________________
1.0.0 Python regius
0.0.1 Epicrates angulifer

Seems to me that phylogeny fits here better than in most of the other forums.

thats what i thought, but no one really chats about that kind of stuff on here

__________________
1.0.0 Python regius
0.0.1 Epicrates angulifer

What do you fancy chatting about? Got a question/hypothesis to discuss, or are you checking for future reference?
Looking forward to a good ponder!

Cheers

Andy

__________________

I'm all ears!

__________________
http://www.durrellwildlife.org/
Kenyan Sand Boa (Norbert), Cornsnake (Stanley!), Suriname Red Tail (Saedcantas), Guyanan Red Tail (Kalessin), Crawley x Psycho O.G.G/Blood/Sandfire Bearded Dragon (Rhubarb), Ghost Mantid (Loki), Giant Asian Mantid (Thor), Macleay's Spectres, Thai Phasmids "Ban Salok",
Planted 10Gal aquarium; Pygmy Botias, Glowlight Danios, Cherry Shrimps.
Planted 30Gal aquarium; Green Spotted Puffer (Edgar) & random rockpool shrimpy friends...
Planted 30gal aquarium; Trilined Corys, Cardinal Tetras, Discus, Marbled hatchets.
Plus Eudicella beetles, springtails, crix and dubia roaches...

see, ive got nothing to ask now, but it would be something fun and refreshing to talk about on here rather than the usual morph genetics! But while we're at it, are phylogeneticists just like taxonomists? In that they keep messing around with widely accepted structures to keep themselves in a job??

__________________
1.0.0 Python regius
0.0.1 Epicrates angulifer

Hi Lotte, didn't know you were here too! Have you seen my reply to your Dominica thread on LF? I still haven't managed to scan the other pics, but I'm working on it!

Cheers

Andy

__________________

Surely that's what all scientists do, by definition? If we didn't "mess around with widely accepted structures" then no new ideas would ever occur. Darwin and Wallace would have accepted that God made the world an everything in it as it is now, Newton wouldn't have cared why apples fall out of trees and Einstein would be perfectly happy that time is a fixed constant.

Bending evidence to fit 'widely accepted structures' (or central dogmas) is the habit of theologists ('fossils were put there by the creator' (implying that their all powerful God is out to deliberately decieve). Constructing theories based on available evidence and then altering the theories as new/different evidence becomes available is the preserve of the scientist.

Am I wrong?...


Cheers

Andy

__________________

No you're right! I think it's the the ideal way to progress, but it's hard to keep up with them! Phyloegenetics / ecogenetics is where i want to head with my career, so i have no bad words to say about the field, just wanted a bit of a debate!

__________________
1.0.0 Python regius
0.0.1 Epicrates angulifer

Absolutely! Thought I'd to opened up the debate! (esp. with the slight reference to the 'bigger questions'!).

Still, yes it is almost impossible to keep up with the taxonomists, eco and pylogeneticists etc. I think the safest way to do it is to find a niche and become the best, then filter your info down through the journals and into the more public friendly communications. When I was doing my phylogeny/genetics/taxonomy/phylogeographical research I had terrible trouble keeping up with the literature! (That might be one if the reasons I failed to write up the PhD in the end)


Cheers

Andy

__________________