But how do we establish phylogeny? - Based on simple similarity!
ah! the old rhetorical trick of changing the problem or question a
posteriori! all i pointed out was that things can't be "25% homologous"
Well, you were right that in today's definition things can't be. But you
seem to be missing my point that today's definition is essentially
meaningless (relies on circular logic and has no epistemologic value) and
that nothing would be lost if the term reverted to its generic usage,
"similar". There would still be a question to be asked "similar for what
reason?" - same question that is presumed to be answered whenever one
invokes phylogeny-based homology.
i'm glad your opinion is humble here, because it has much to be humble
about :-) do you really think that property (e.g., structure and function)
prediction is not useful? and i can't even begin to understand how you can
think that 'homology' in its present-day meaning is a pre-darwinian concept.
"Homology" is a pre-Darwinian concept that was *redefined* post-Darwin.
That's what I wrote.
okay, so can we all agree now that we won't be saying and writing things
like "the two proteins are X% homologous" anymore from now on?
IMHO, it truly does not matter if we do or do not as long as we understand
each other. Like I wrote in the original reply, paying too much attention
to definitions of fuzzy abstract concepts is not worth it.
Dima
