Tim Tyler  wrote 

> Regarding an old, recurring SBE debate...
> 
> Here's Dawkins on the relationship between man and 
> chimpanzees:
> 
> ``The 98% doesn't mean we are 98% chimpanzees.  And 
> it really matters what unit you choose to make your 
> comparison."

Implicit in Dawkins' statement here is the supposition 
that the "unit" can be chosen arbitrarily to achieve 
different results in the comparison.  This seems, 
obviously, scientifically untenable to me.  Suppose we 
were comparing the length of two sticks.  And suppose 
we use inches and determine that the first stick is 
twice as long as the second stick.  If we were to 
employ centimeters instead of inches we would not 
expect the relative comparative lengths of the sticks 
to change.  

This suggests that the "units" that Dawkins refers to 
are not really units and/or that the scale that he is 
drawing from is greatly lacking in quantitative 
relevance.

This brings two questions to mind:

What, exactly, is relatedness? More specifically, 
what measurable criteria is involved with determining 
relatedness?

What, exactly, is the quantitative scale of relatedness 
that we should employ so that comparative results of 
any test we might perform will be consistent regardless 
of the units we choose?

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 2/28/04 3:37:40 PM