Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.

As I said before all you have done is obfuscate. Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood and NO creationist has a counter to this falsification so the only responses possible are attempts to change the subject to some irrelevant criticizm of evolution or obfuscation. Somehow I am not surprised that you chose to obfuscate.Randy

I did not "choose" you simply did not understand. Metaphysisca IS NOT physics."Every ZAU is polarized with the Absolute directly. But combinations of ZAUs are, as entities, polarized witht the Asolute ONLY throught eh ZAU which compose them."We can not come to agreement because we havent yet discussed this "compostion". Matchette explains how one can read a line which if it is not heavenly is easily so confused to Uranium such that water would be understood as BOTH the delta and transformation that Weisacker discuses in THE UNITY OF NATURE. You have to be able to DiSCUS philosophy to reach this kind of approach. I can deal with you on a purely biological "level" but this thread has already stripped these so screwed threads. Will you discuss Croizat's contribution to correlations of life and earth??"It is in this way that the ZAU (zero-atom unit) is the "bridge" over which the influence of the Absolute is made manifest in the Relative World; over this bridge passes the Absolute's influence of order of which we shall shortly speak."Step into my world and you find that I am not only fat. So I leave you not with the harmony I mentioned is available but rather a poem I hope some day we will not need to read.
Aiken quoted by Matchette( p53-4)
"Watch long enough and you will see the leaf
Fall from the bough. Without a sound it falls;
And soundless meets the grass...And so you have
A bare bough, and a de.
.
.
But what were all the tumults in this action?
What wars of atoms in the twig, what...
The malestrom has us all.I differ from this quoatable author in that I take "evolution identical with the combiantorial complexes" not as indication of a different psychical relative world of various spiritualities, YEC OEARTH, Progressive Creats, deisms etc panTHEism but rather into the ACTUAL EVOLUTIONARY THEORY available if one simply goes to school.All quotes from Matchette"Opposed to this is our own view of Mind as essentially part of nature; not a 'something' essentially extraneous to nature, to relative existence, but rather as something, pervasive and unobservable throughout the largest reaches of relative existence, emerging as an observable pattern or relative activity at a certain level in the evolving strucutre of the relative; an evolution identical with the combinatorial complexes which mark the movement and dynamicity of the striving of Zero-Atom Units twoard the Absolute."It is a tragedy that you have not been taught to be able to read this. That is the fault of "higher" education. There Is a HIGHER here. Please advise. As to the strictly biological data I may differ from Matchette as to his use of physciochemically of 'Referent-Referend law' for I think I percieve his use of cardinals and ordinals just as I have suspected are inherent in Mendel's signs but perhaps I just got some interger miscounted in the biological symbol. That however is not enough to indicate that diffenece of no flood , local flood or global deluge.Isabelle is a coming- The east coast is not junk yard.so in fact YOU acutally erred. I STAYED WITHIN EVOLTION
and
did
not
criticze
it.
Please stop this if you still have nothing nice to say. ""Ernst Mayr.Just because the "big boys" of evolution refused me admittance to their club does not give you right to think I am just a common joe, or the three stodges or even #5 I am, Brad S. McFall of Linden Ave NY upstate. They let Carl Zimmer in, becuase he was already slmming creationists in the Hunterdon Central Devl's LAMP (school newspaper). I stuck to my snake.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-15-2003]

quote:

---

Just because the "big boys" of evolution refused me admittance to their club does not give you right to think I am just a common joe,

---

I never said you were a common joe, though I don't see what would be wrong with being a common joe. You are uncommly good at producing incomphrensible pseudo-intellectual gooblty-gook that almost sounds intelligible and especially good at obfuscation which is what I think you are up to now.Randy

It is not psedo"intellectual" even though it does "SOUND"" such. You are simply wrong. I prooved my point. I am not common joe or it would be fine to be one but that you REFUSED in this immediate post before to do something but talk about ME or "obfuscation" shows you, yourself Randy, have no interest in the topic. I have decided NOT to EVER post under this thread again. I may do it by mistake but not if my will is willing. I have honsently tried but you keep refering to me or something in general but do not attempt to further the talk. Feel free to think that I have NOT answered you. I am done with trying to show you how it IS possible to both answer you and the topic that Biogeography STILL does it. You have made my point as well as to why there IS NO deductive biogeography that continues to stalemate biogeography itself. If you choose to answer one of the questions I have posted within your thread you are free to ask again and I will return but I will not try to show you otherwise even if i DO make progress in the question I really liked that you posed. GOOD-BYE and FAREWELL. Brad. This is not the best way to make friends.

quote:

---

It is not psedo"intellectual" even though it does "SOUND"" such. You are simply wrong. I prooved my point. I am not common joe or it would be fine to be one but that you REFUSED in this immediate post before to do something but talk about ME or "obfuscation" shows you, yourself Randy, have no interest in the topic. I have decided NOT to EVER post under this thread again. I may do it by mistake but not if my will is willing. I have honsently tried but you keep refering to me or something in general but do not attempt to further the talk. Feel free to think that I have NOT answered you. I am done with trying to show you how it IS possible to both answer you and the topic that Biogeography STILL does it. You have made my point as well as to why there IS NO deductive biogeography that continues to stalemate biogeography itself. If you choose to answer one of the questions I have posted within your thread you are free to ask again and I will return but I will not try to show you otherwise even if i DO make progress in the question I really liked that you posed. GOOD-BYE and FAREWELL. Brad. This is not the best way to make friends.

---

Gee Brad, you actually write more far clearly when you are mad. This may be the longest post without a nonsequitor that I have ever seen from you. Why should I answer any of the questions you claim to have raised. The question of the thread is flood based biogeography and you have not raised a question relevant to the actual problem.What you haven't done and can't do is give any actual explanation of how the world's biogeography could have come about if all the land animals on earth are descended from pairs or in a few cases sevens of each kind coming off an ark in the Middle East a few thousand years ago. I find nothing in any of your posts that addresses the points I have raised at all. Thus I concluded some time ago that your only interest in this topic as related to the flood is to sling out enough verbage to cover the fact that you have no actual answer to the problem. In that you are not alone. No YEC can counter the fact that biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.Randy

I have found the mistake that prevented Randy and me from having a viable conversation. R could be correct should I be forced to only read the information from collection localities according to the standard way we read text- in this case three pages of text from Marston Bates’ The Nature of Natural History (pp187-189) The confusion between these two posters arose largely because Croizat made a rather important point of a distribution along the Potomac compared with NY to which I sometimes suspect his cataloging of the trees in Central Park is somewhat a revalidation from but I have no evidence to back THAT up.The first paragraph was In my first outline, this chapter was headed the geography of populations, as a sort of logical extension of the discussion of population behavior. I still like the sound of that title, but it would be misleading, because I want to discuss not only the geography of populations, but that of higher groups, of the abstract categories of the systematists, and to try to give a general sketch of the geographical implications of natural history. Randy simply rejected my abstraction. Well who knows maybe Randy is the next EvC American Idol. How am I to judge when two steps back is one forward??The second paragraph sententially links biogeography to Darwinism. If Randy wants me to overcome my mis-taken conception of YEC geology then we can indeed get down and dirty and core out the apple here but I insist on all three pages not the entire book of 321.The second page and entitlement for the rest of this threaded discussion from my side (that which continues to the bottom of page 189) opens the subtitle The Three Points of View of Biological Geography closing the title with words, The Study of the geography of organisms can be approached from at least three different points of view. First there is the problem which interested Wallace more than any other, of delimiting and describing the various regions of the earth’s surface in terms that are biologically significant. The political divisions created by the events of human history are meaningless from this point of view, and the relationships of the conventional continents and island constellations of the geographers must be re-examined in the light of the affinities of their inhabitants, of the similarities and differences among their biotas. The same problem exists for marine organisms in relation to the seas and oceans of the geographers Croizat’s PANBIOGEOGRAPHY is really all about this but it can not be forgotten in the process that Croizat had written the Manual of Phytogeography BEFORE this Volume which linguistically appears a bit later than this first titled paragraph for Bates. Bates’ next paragraph sets in a second point of view that in not mentioning plants but by way of photobionts that Croizat covered as well and I will say quite well in the Panbiogeography. In fact if I was to have this post finish off my 4 credit undergraduate independent study on Croizat for Amy McCune, a fish paleontologist, at Cornell, I would have the take home message BE that, PANbiogeography is the attempt to weave independently these first two points of view of Bates into a unified method to bring deductive biogeography OUT of its pTolemic heritage that had SePeRaTeD this view with a single perspective of Adams 1902 on habitats(peneplain etc) but because it was such declarative assertions that seemed to have dive/driven Randy to foucs only in the light of YEC geology or rather claim I can not have it BOTH?????ways let me NOT make claims but merely present how the reading of the material induced a mistaken communication between the two of us. In any event it is true that read Croizat FOR HERPETOLOGICAL CONTENT first AND FOREmost (context) so what I had written in general may not have been biological significant for any abstraction of all taxogeny no matter how form-making and translation in space is equated one to one and onto genetics.Now Randy may at this point simply have OBJECTED to my invocation of Croizat Truisms and attempt to DO Biological Geography but Marston sets out the secular empirical issue I have with Croizat unawares or not in the next paragraphy where he discusses the third point of view that will cover my criticism of YEC ecology as well as the current little recognized specifically Pacific denial of Vicariance Biogeography by Croizat of Nelson’s refusal to theoretically incorporate baselines and this delimiation techinically by whom I happily call the the New Zealand crew ( with caveats inter correspondence wise with John Grehan). In this text Marston essentially raises what I read was written by Croizat to Craw that either chance dispersal or vicariance is to go. So by the end of this Marston paragraph if Randy and I had not come to amicable enough terms we could not answer each other because the issue of creationism and the more narrowable disscusion of YECisms appears AFTER this in this book on natural history. This point of view opens for those who are reading Marston contemporaneously Mayr’s dealings with geographic speciation and the mathematics of population genetics rather tangentially but still leaves hope for Randy I guess that Randy’spoint of view (which indeed Bates spoke of in the light of the geological history of each group) ( I do not need a go to barimonlogy response as I can deal with biogeography on any secular terms Randy thought or thinks necessary to use- but I had a hard time with his jumping all over the earth without some fidelity to the first two view and not the speciation of this third one puntucally only in the response (so far)(it seems to me)).The last paragraphy that I am considering today was, But we should start this discussion with the first geographical problem, that of delimiting the various regions of the earth’s surface in biological terms, and I LOL at that for using this a the debate structure the creationist WOULD win hands down no matter the projection calculated calculating on any triple view so not further nor farther. But I do not also want a stacked deck or popable call trace so let me not START with a bias.The second to last paragraph here adumbrated by meon page 188 opens what I consider the proper domain of the NZ crew who are knew enough about TERRANES and MOLECULAR CLOCKS to hopefully not be found to have transgressed that part of Africa I am some what ecologically intuitive with (at least for Mormyridae). It since the E V PE thread arose one could tack the E V C dissucion of that onto the end of this content.Sothe conundrum indeed remains in the actual second to last paragraph which opens up my unsubstantiated thinking that Croizat may have inverted two trees in Central Park for the difference of geographic distributions (whether fossil or living) in DC and NY State. Randy may have been correct to insist at this hermenutic but Bates is also right on with With the additional dimension of time up or down from the paper, our blotch would be seen to expand or contract, push out arms tentatively here, boldy and successfully there, reaching backward finally to the pointpoint of origin, or forward to the poinpoint of extinction. And, amoeba-like, we might find it dividing now and then along this time dimension — but that is a problem not so much of geography as of the origin of species.I rest my cAsE! Not my , who said it, ArsE ----no t md just aaamd TV

Brad,I will read through your post in detail when I have time. It is a bit complex. Still I am puzzled that a YEC would invoke Croizat since it would seem to me that you must embrace a massive dispersalist philosophy to disperse the organisms that are concentrated in the Middle East after the ark lands and I thought that Croizat was opposed to dispersalism. It also seems to me that there would be massive barriers to vicariance tracks from the Middle East to Australia for many organisms that are supposed to have arrived there.Randy

Wow, now you are talking- that, indeed I could understand. I have some comptuer class work to do so I can not present a detailed response in "real" time but if my rendering of panbiogegraphy continues to hold up for mosss between Aus and NZ or Nelson's refusal to use baselines then your two comphrenedable sentences (via the literature) would still amount to the issue of "track orientation" in the literature which if you have a more nuanced reading of Croizat than Me or theNZCrewetal you could criticize indeed but the abstraction for what categories life falls in will still remain undefined should I not be even more correct as to my own rendering of the method herpetologially reclined. I have not tried to determine to what extent Croizat thought that the issue of chance dispersal vs vicarience was biopolitical (see Colin Patterson's not being in step with Croizat etc) as to the concept of orientation but the vicariance between a local mobile zone in South Island and Cuba is indeed readable in Croiat which with Grehan's latest on the Galpagoes I have not integrated THAT TRACK DIRECTUM in a decresing torisional grammetology. This would not prima facie be found across the Pacific. It seems to me without embracing "hortisian distribution" as to the data cateogries on rates of change little but punc eq currently comes out the analysis even if was schooled in the best neotological inclination but to decline to think that Croizat in conclusion is incompatible with the current rendition of creationism is a false as the process of attachement out of the sphere of the Earth that is required to think thru some of the double viewpoints to specific genera but only one species in space time and form which I failed to mention its relevance above. This is not heaven of course but if one was an entering freshman at Cornell and did not know all this you would on mere reputation of the school alone assume such perhaps even "a priori" as far as the language of revolutionary evolutionism (aka Copernicus not Morris this time). Siding with an organutan's natural history is not the same thing as obseving a white guys chimp in Africa ONLY throw fruit down on the heads of "black" people. This I witnessed in Mbandaka not a heart of darkness unless one also sides with THIS primate who had to stay when under lock down in a cage next to a large, very large, snake. The chump humanist however is not happy if I departe with Gould's pox like a fox which I saw incidently on the other side of the lake here yesterday looking for a mouse or something around cows.Croizat, Panbiogeography and Catholicism could be lexically addressed should one wish to extend the transition to a Copernican outline of the various metrics needed ( my guess would of course be that an infinite are required,....) in terms of deduction and induction and dispersal in and around the Pacific via the best and brightest philosophy of biology of Occam's Razor but the Hennigians with their computer savy have most field ecisised without the hortizian carcass that is likely a bird indeed but then I would need to have the space to expalin how I see that Gould avoided Crozait to get back at Creationists and not Croizat to which he should have done either 1) more than a double reading of Panbiogeography (which he may in fact have accomplished) or) SHOWN why he WOULD NOT attempt to SEQUENCE Croizat's Space Time and Form. Gould IS NOT LIMITED to $any$ series here and yet it was not until his big book came out that I realized I had been too silent on this for a too long a time because I had still hoped to culture the Grehan correspondence on track width to a real issue of (CHANCE)dispersal vs vicariance. Grehan found my backing of Creationism probably a bit more water than he wanted to swallow Croizat's NA criticized by Humphries for the model I guess but the creationists already presented a double model view not a three view perspective so that it must eventually be discriminated materially chance motion and motion by chance - randomess"" will help but this then makes indeed your reading and understanding compeltely graspable from within what has been published so far but I have been not reading this stuff in preference to Creationism for some time now that I may be a little rusty if not made of Matchette's "iron function" and THIS has to be differentiated from vicariance IN CROIZAT'S METHOD, not by some ad hoc cladistic simulation etc.I hope this helps- for the issue of water came up as far as I understand Croizat in the Manual First relative to any plant vs the pacific ocean which was MAINTAINED with respect to animals by Croizat in Panbiogoegraphy. The Principium Botancia sealed Croizat's interpretation of this liqued need in that kind of life down to the minutiae of how words such as "root", "leaf", "stem" etc sound to say nothing of what may be gainsaid botanically on how a * the plant cell* cuts. And simply reading this showed me that Gould was NOT using Space Time and Form in any way but his own which finally showed how even the questionable nonuse of German Symbology in the Manual ( the only real reason to doubt Croizat in that time frame) was not a PANBIOGEOGRAPHY issue but instead on of space time and form. Croizat went on to buttress his linguistic innovation by working on the stuff in multiple languages so not even Joe Mills german snake would find HIM wrong AND he started to publish in the standard Angolo-American Evolutionary Media - the 74 article in Sys Zoo with ROSEN and Nelson and others that the NZ crew has with the help of the internet "rowed" across any inssue I may have with Climo's moss psychology or a botanist issue of Croizat's flexibility with the LIVERWORT - for Bates that was a liverfluke - what the F- I cant be so wrong that all this sensical stuff is so wrong. The intellectual missing piece here was Maxwell's "blueprint" of planimeter geometery I have managed to READ ONTOGENCIALLY not spatially thru the hours I spent reading and writing in the margins of Croizat's pages which do go for a price on the used book circuit.

Brad,It is going to take me a while to sort though your posts but my understanding is that in Croizat's hypothesis barriers arose along vicariance tracks to create the observed biogeography and that biogeography does not primarily arise because of dispersal patterns. It seem to me that to explain post-flood biogeography you must have dispersal of all "kinds" of animals from a common point a few thousand years ago which is very anti-Croizat and the barriers would have already existed. This is why I don't understand why you invoke Croizat.Meanwhile if you think that vicariance biogeography can somehow explain the biogeography that developed after the alleged worlwide flood perhaps you can figure out the vicariance "tracks" the were followed by playtypus, echinda, marsupial moles, Antechinus(marsupial mice), planigales, bilbies, kangaroos, Wallabies, koalas, wombats, numbats, sugar gliders, dunnarts, ninauis, tasmanian tigers, tasmanian devils, phascogales, bandicoots, quols, potoroos, bettongs and the Austalian flightless birds to get to Australia after comming off a boat in the Middle East in the company of every "kind" of land vertebrate that ever existed. Be sure to elucidate tracks that can't be followed by any of the hundreds or perhaps thousands of "kinds" of placental mammals that came off the boat with them except for bats and rats.Randy

Perhaps Noah ran a boat-taxi service for the rest of his life. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I let this one slip! I'll reply in the hopes that you are still out there...

quote:

---

The answer is yes. Although I believe in Microevolution as I think everyone regardless of overall belief does, I don't buy into macroevolution as the necessary cause of what we witness today.

---

Couple of questions, then;What mechanism is there that prevents macroevolution? Macroevolution, after all, is simply microevolution over long time scales, so for micro to be possible but macro to be impossible, there must be some proposed mechanism which prevents the macro.If macroevolution does not occur, what do you propose is the explanation of the origin of species?In other words, what evidence from nature causes you to doubt the occurence macroevolution?

Ok, give me time please if you find this response inadequate for I was going to derive an answer for you directly out of Croizat so as to show quite sententially the correctness of this my invocation but it looks like Bate's supplied a bye(by) for me instead with p.194 " The thesis of Matthew, that the major developments of vertebrate evolution occurred in temperate Asia, has been challenged by many students. Most plausibly, Philip Darlingotn has shown that the evolution of the primary groups of cold-blooded vertebrates, fish amphibia and reptiles, seems to have occurred in the tropics of the Old World, rather than in the temperate latitudes. In a sense, though, Darlington's work, which puts the center for cold-blooded vertebrates a little south of the center for mammals, re-enforced Matthew's pricinple thesis, that evolution has been most rapid in the largest land mass, and that the spread outward has been in accord with land geography not strikingly different from that shown by the continents today. Perhaps the cold-blooded vertebrates...".
Because you said

quote:

---

It seem to me that to explain post-flood biogeography you must have dispersal of all "kinds" of animals from a common point a few thousand years ago which is very anti-Croizat and the barriers would have already existed. This is why I don't understand why you invoke Croizat.

---

it seems to me that your primary "beef" with me something like, "how on Earth could all KINDS of organos massively "spread outward" in accord with *THIS* land geography that you have indicated as "off a boat in the Middle East" as if this was a 'spreading' it would indeed means of dispersal use no matter the landbridge.Now Croizat was averse to means-invocation in the light of many other facts as he was to postive evidence of changes in direction from a collection of localites organized both by direction and place relatively amongst themselves. This concept of spreading already mitigated or mediated a geographic distinction or distribution SEPERATING cold and warm bloods on the Earth topography so even if the spread metaphor be granted there is a prior split IN TIME and this is like an inversion of the "geometry" of cladogensis AFTER anagensis so that the topology that unifies ALL of the form making regardless of translation in space must integrate BOTH points of view which by Occams razor favors a splitter rather than the strikingly different continent today (even if you would choose a finite division where I might think the infinite) should the theis be admitted. But Croizat refused to admit the continental outlines of today. And it is the merit of the NZers of saving from british museum and amnh, Croizat's actual use of baselines to seperate out what I guess you are calling "barriers" if I understand your reading of the literature correctly? So even if I refuse to accept the inital seperation of the data the question is clearly how are the "tracks" or whatever it is one uses to co-ordinate the physical localites in a database going to be "ORIented" ?So your complaint seems to amount to the assertion that no matter how a track or a baseline is turned the relation of ONE POINT - say Linneaus' or your assertion of MId East to an extensive "mass" of the surface can cardinate the data to, in your instance or insistence, the taxa of mammal marsupials and some birds to specific places in Australia etc when the point IS specifically a known locality on the current map? Well I will admit that I have not written the software to test this out. The primary reason is that the NZers in their zeal to incorporate modern electronic comforts some how settled on Croizat's concept of "mass" as being something that could be ascertianed by what in organic terms may be thought of as phenetic but in this case applied to areas on Earth instead. I had not read Croizat to this effect. Wolfram's new science puts the wrinkle in this fold as well. The ability to get to this kind of test requires the linear nature of minimal spanning trees be associative with topograpic areally co-extenstive sets but until this done there is no a priori NOR prima facie reason to reject the YEC understanding especially as Croizat was trying to overturn the Matthew-Darlingotn ideas themselves. It may seem odd that roation is going to explain the variance in the broadly seperated positions of evolutionists and creationists but if one removes oneself from this earth and tries to look at what a "patch" of the Earth looks like from outside the solar system during a combined revolution and some sum of rotations a sense of how much time should be incorporated can begin to achieve its Kantian systematic already existing constitution intuition without imaging life on other planets - if life is found else where that will make this thought even easier to make....combining topology and topography to a various topobiology.The reason you have not grasped what I have been saying is that I seem to need more space to describe and discuss space where you are ready to yield to times either long or short. Croizat held all of these things in relation to one another. Now if you want me to try to spend an afternoon "with CroIzat" to subtract the rats and whatelse ornithologically as to the Austrailan Fauna I could but as the track width in addition to the mass issue is either unresolved or not defined for me to be correct outside of the theoretical space I just spoke in, what one would DO is, to try to extend Wallace's line far enough into the pacific such that the warm cold split (no matter anything in any biogeographic literature)allows a differentation in the THREE regions from China to Aus divides dividng taxically the kinds you enumerated all the while NOT causing the EARTH to leave it's orbit around the sun in the simulation. You see how detailed the resources need be before an acutal response?? Ihope so...If you are merely criticzing the "characterization" of all kinds at one place and locomoting from that BOAT then indeed I find little to suspect for the issue of the ARK has to do as well with what MAN does with LIFE as it has to do with what LIFE can DECeiEVE in MAN. GOD KNOWS BEST. I hope this helps. Best. Brad. In effect you seem to have an epistemology that preempts the acutal ontology of its own functioning for to know that all the organisms were saved from man's sins still would say nothing of one man- Kripke- insistence that H2O IS NOT Water. I find these kinds of things less realistic than understanding the Bible to be the word of GOd for to know all of this requires that one have already KNOWN God and yet our science and ontology is clearely not yet up to the specific job both you and I are calling on it to provide. It seems to me that all I would need to provide is an algorithm that could in the solar system motion go around any barrier you may have thought. So you see- the whole trend of ICR style creationism gets repeated only this time BRad MCFallism- give me funds to see if I can create the algorthikm, if it fails I will extend the double model with the current language until words no longer work, only unlike the RATE example which only has to worry about the perodic table of elements I would have to worry about any ones' notion of what a species is- The point is that simply udnerstanding all of these things is reason enough to allow this stuff IN THE SCHOOLS because if it works IT WILL RAISE ALL OF SCIENCE. What we are seeing is a kind of dissatisfaction with the science status quo but no means to do anything about it as of yet.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-21-2003]

quote:

---

it seems to me that your primary "beef" with me something like, "how on Earth could all KINDS of organos massively "spread outward" in accord with *THIS* land geography that you have indicated as "off a boat in the Middle East" as if this was a 'spreading' it would indeed means of dispersal use no matter the landbridge.

---

What we are talking about is that all the Kinds of land animal that ever lived on were supposedly came off a boat together in the Middle East a few thousand years ago. It is a great distance from the Middle East to Australia and from among those hundred or thousands of kinds of mammals only marsupials and monotremes (with VERY few exception one of which can fly) went to Australia. Somehow playtypus, echinda, marsupial moles, Antechinus(marsupial mice), planigales, bilbies, kangaroos, Wallabies, koalas, wombats, numbats, sugar gliders, dunnarts, ninauis, tasmanian tigers, tasmanian devils, phascogales, bandicoots, quols, potoroos, and bettongs not only made this amazing trip but separated themselves from nearly all the placental mammals even though all the hundreds of kinds of placental mammals started off with them. Oh and BTW they left absolute no evidence that they were ever anywhere in Europe, Asia or Africa. There is simply no logical way to explain this whether you invoke Croizat or not. This is my primary beef. My primary beef with invoking Croizat is that his ideas don’t help you obviate this falsification at in the least.

quote:

---

So your complaint seems to amount to the assertion that no matter how a track or a baseline is turned the relation of ONE POINT - say Linneaus' or your assertion of MId East to an extensive "mass" of the surface can cardinate the data to, in your instance or insistence, the taxa of mammal marsupials and some birds to specific places in Australia etc when the point IS specifically a known locality on the current map? Well I will admit that I have not written the software to test this out.

---

I think that would be quite a feat and it wouldn’t give you the answer you want without some sort ad hoc magical filter to keep placental mammals for following along with the marsupials. Can you name one type of habitat that is exploited by marsupial or monotreme mammals that is not also exploited by at least several if not hundreds of different placental mammals?

quote:

---

You see how detailed the resources need be before an acutal response?? Ihope so...

---

Maybe. But I think this is a bit of a cop out. What possible reply, no matter how many resources were devoted to it, could explain the almost perfect sorting of marsupial and monotremes from placental mammals and explain how or why an animal like the marsupial mole made this monumental trip? Was it just to keep the other marsupials company?Of course, biogeography presents many other falsifications of the worldwide flood, such as the famous question of the two and three toed sloths and how a little flightless bird like the Kiwis came off the ark in the presence of all those mammals and yet made to all way to New Zealand without any mammals of any kind for company. What sort of sorting caused that?Randy

boat means topology + topography + topobiology =/= topology + topobiology + topography. I need data as per the reserach program before I can falsify any boat animals claim on Croizat's say South African mangrove shore line etc it is not a cop out. I dont mind if you wish to claim a "win" here. The order will be relevant if I am correct about the use of group theory in mediating Gould vs Dawkins AGAINST Wolfram but that then is more than 2 steps beyond what I would want to do as a graduate student. I am only arguing at the level of the undergraduate here not any and all possible biopolitics. Indeed it seems that this issue instead has arisen in our/mine generation (cloning, stem cells, genetically engineered food, ethics of vivisection etc) and Croizat lack raises the biopolitics TO the polititical C/e which has a longer tradition. Further more it is not a cop out in so far as I have (if I have ) a new THEORETICAL PROBE of Mendel's 3:1:
Bailey of Cornell would be wrong.
3:1 IS an upper/lower of bound numberings' power and number class of the numberings.That is understood to mean in theory one USES an ordinal > a cardinal where the Cardinal is a Measure from Pascal's Triangle Derivable Combination of the Molecular Biology Involved of MENDELS Aa (THAT NAGELI OBJECTED TO HOW MENDEL COULD $KNOW$ THIS was constant (this is why and how (the new probe)) such that the hybrids are all the numberings of the Cardinal and the ordinal expresses the ordertype of only the numberings' number mediating the rationalization of the genetic segregation which GAVE Mendel (the) 3:1. The difference in the magnitude of the ordinal and cardinal gives the variation from equality (as proposed and assumed by Mendel) in the parentals vs the hybrids during a maintence of 3:1 (country vs garden, local vs global flood, track vs baseline etc etc etc). The ordinal, ordertype and a unit w*w(fundamental series and reverse fundamental series) GAVE a metric which if transformed via a catastrophe set WOULD (if the theory works)give Croizat's ((((track)node)mass)baseline) =Cantor's ((((P)^)^)^) FOR POINT SETS = in Axiomatic Panbiogeography by incidnece that induces calculations of REAL NUMBERS in quantitative relation to the rest of genetics but I need to work on the logical progressus or no of Cantor's continuum process relative to the acutal transfinites that need no longer invoke Leibniz in Wolfram's adjustment of C/E. This is no lark. Trust me.In which case I maintain a position of dominance by merit of theoretical scope and not factual perspective. You can assert this is bias then- OK but I am not going to ditch my ideas on the first real criticism I get as it appears to some scholar that Mendel suffered at only the Munich Nageli responding against his rationalization that later Hericium by apomixis thwarted the verification of his or validation of mine. Thanks for the unusual opp to express my self once again. Best Brad. You of course need not follow me into infinity. That is up to you. There is nothing "genuis" in all this, just a long dedication to the thought.If you know I have problem with B.Russel's defintion of "distance" how can you and I come to agree on it short of a standard rod or in my case the test of my own notion of the same in biology? The taxa you want me to explicate IS what panbiogeography was constructed to do and indeed doing so may not come to a reliable creationist conclusion but that such CAN be done there is no doubt in my mind. In the particulars that Croizat introduced in 58 he broached a skink to span the Bay of Bengal that I would have to be a lion, tiger or bear on to get to your mammals AND I HAVE LOOKED AT THE RELEVENAT HERPETOLOGY AND FOUND IT CONDUCIVE TO CONTINUANCE ALONG THIS teyths however I had not set a time for it. That I would need to do and then I could see indeed if the kinds you would like explained do or do not fall out into the taxonomy which is the last but not the least preoccupation of the panbiogeographer. I am working on this on a different approach which is a once frustratingly more general (metaphysical) and pecularily particular (mathematical) so again we will not find common ground. I will live with it. I hope you do too.Your conclusion about the marsupials and placental MAY be correct as to the particulars of a track but it may fail in the node certainly and you may not have this way in a mass and it seems even as questionable for a baseline which is why I wanted to work that out specifically from Croizat and not from me for it may be telling more about the wrongness of the warm and cold blood duality that nonetheless pervades the relation of the warm blood within themsevles ( to the birds) and THAT IS something I could know which is why i needed to work out the biogeography from first shape and not to guess if the golden moles of Africa were still being used or not as it was last time I read it. Unlike a cladistic biogeography panbiogeography DOES NOT mean that one is FREE to ignore other taxa but when applied the method works to the same result for all. This may sound like a "magic filter" and I know Gould never found it even though he claims he looked for it. Others simply argue Statitical significance. My ideas if they work are not"magical" in any sense and I know Gould missed it. He simply wanted to see Aggasizvs Paley as Wright vs Fisher or Cain and Maynard Smith vs Goodwin and Kaufmann but "trasmorgified" evolutionarily AND ON TOP OF THIS Wolfram thinks this was "oversold" we can do our best C/E if we keep the fusion of this to a minimum but I am haveing to get quite abstract to prevent even my own mind meld from molding mold.I do not have the mammal speciality nor done my homework to answer your particular question and maybe you are correct on that but a playtpus looked more like a reptile to me than a mammal on video and pterosaur look more amphibious to me than a bird or a bat looks like a flyer to Wright bro eye.As for the sorting of mammals I come to it from the lowe verts where if I recall correctly I was looking at the effect of temperature on whether the embryo was inside or outside the skin whereas birds use there heat on the outside and turtles can even select sex by how hot the eggs get while amphibians in caecilians still the eggs are inside without the any seeming temperature control. In the panbiogeography Croizat dissues the Oak, Hylid Frogs and Pythons in terms of BOTH genetic "blocks" and climate so one has to think a lot of cells before one concludes short of the homework done facutally facts you need. If I have leisure at my Grandma with some of my Grandfather's books on mamals I try to see if I see anything unusual. But again becuase you do not decline to my theoretical position it is only details that you want. I am not saying you are wrong. But if this is how to aruge against creationism it makes little sense when I am addressing things on a more global perspective. The only reason I was able to give another (2nd) extended post was becuase I loosed my thinking from the Atlantic to the Indian OCean leaveing the Pacific in its own watery abeyence so we may instead be up agaisnt a presumption that the posting stuture demand rightly a reply or repsonse when not really is to be expected accepted or respected. But dripping an absolute is not my trademark. Best Brad.

That was fast. No wonder some people think you write these things with a computer program. I'd say it's classic Brad McFall stream of conciousness writing. I'll read it later and see if I can find anything comprehensible enough to reply to. Have you ever considered getting professional help?Randy