Tim Tyler  wrote 



> > > Dawkins is talking about the length of DNA sequence
> > > being considered.
> > 
> > The fact that Dawkins and yourself are unable to delineate 
> > this "length" proves my point.
> 
> Your point /seemed/ to be that Dawkins was saying:
> 
> ``that the "unit" can be chosen arbitrarily to achieve
different results.''
> 
> That's not what the man said - he was pointing out that comparing
> chunks of text of different length would give different values
> for "relatedness"

Did he not use the word, "units?"

>  - in much the same way that comparing words
> and comparing letters between two books does.
> 
> He never said that all the resulting values were equally valid
> or useful - and thus that the length could be chosen arbitrarily.

It seems he was saying that the "unit" could be chosen 
arbitrarily to achieve whatever end one wished.

> Indeed what he said was just the opposite - he said that:
> "it really matters what unit you choose" - since comparing
> stretches of genome of different lengths can give different
> results.

And you think this is a good thing?

> He also said that the "letter" relatedness of "98%" did
> *not* mean that we were "98%" chimpanzees - saying that
> this sort of relatedness has drawbacks.

What's needed is a more rational and consistent understanding 
of relatedness.  After this is achieved we can then try to 
narrow it down to biological relatedness.

Jim
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 3/2/04 6:40:13 AM