“Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: […] like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.” —Jonathan Swift

  • 28 Posts
  • 615 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 25th, 2024

help-circle

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzBirbs & Dinos
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    Any particular words you don’t know? Probably the most likely ones are para- and monophyletic. For a taxon (scientific grouping) to be a valid clade, it needs to be monophyletic, meaning it contains the most recent common ancestor of the group’s other members and all known descendants of that common ancestor. Paraphyletic, by contrast, means not all the descendants are in there. For example, imagine if the mammals just randomly excluded the bears – that would be paraphyletic, because the bears also share a common ancestor with the other mammals.

    So a monophyletic group of your family tree might include your grandmother, all her children, and all their children’s children, etc. A paraphyletic one might exclude Gertrude and her kids because she got drunk and stole and wrecked the LeBaron and we fucking know she did it and we don’t talk to her after that.






  • I would add that making ignorance of the law a valid excuse would be a logistical farce. Mens rea is a real thing that’s examined during a criminal trial. The defendant’s state of mind can absolutely factor into their sentence or even whether they’re convicted at all; “ignorance of the law is not an excuse”, ignorantia juris non excusat, even has some exceptions under US law. But you could not possibly for every crime burden the prosecution with proving that the defendant 1) committed the act 2) intended to commit the act, and now 3) knew the act they were committing was a crime. Mens rea, while necessary in a fair system, is hard enough; condition (3) would make it functionally impossible to convict anyone who didn’t a) explicitly refer to what they were doing as a crime, b) receive a formal education in the relevant area of law, or c) commit a crime literally everyone is expected to know like murder or armed robbery.