3 ms·
I also read it as utility an usefulness in a more practical sense. It's useful to differentiate between horses and donkeys, so we call them different species.
by 3np 5y ago
I also read it as utility an usefulness in a more practical sense. It's useful to differentiate between horses and donkeys, so we call them different species.
- dredmorbius 5y agoOther cases might be the various organisms we classify as "trees" or "fish" or "crabs", which are valid from a functional or role-based sense, but which aren't robust when considered strictly based on genetic evolution. That is, there have been multiple convertent evolutionary paths which have arrived at similar forms, roles, and niches, despite having hearer relatives or ancestors which don't fall into that category.
- marcus_holmes 5y agoWell, we have names for that: "horse" and "donkey". I get that having formal names is useful, and basing those names on ancestral characteristics seems sensible. But it doesn't seem to take into account that this is a moving target: everything is evolving, and populations are not going to stay the same over time. Trying to classify every living thing into neat categories is like herding a million very slow cats. Especially with palaeontology, where the timespans are large enough for evolution to really matter.