I understand that E. O. Wilson is seeking some kind of hope that biodiveristy interests can be betterd if creationists and evolutionists put aside their differences, but if that is what Wilson is trying to do in "Creation" then I think there are still other uglier ducks out here that need to put in line first.
quote:
http://www.unibas.it/utenti/colacino/ccjrg-eng.pdf
I have been interested in "panbiogeography" since I found no one willing or able to answer me as to whether the map turutle that lives in the Delware River swam north or arrived in Jersey from the West and 1,000 of pages written by Croizat but not being recognized at Cornell. It has been written off by some even though it had gained some momentum in New Zealand.
quote:
By ascribing impossible standards of verification for the
science of panbiogeography, it became all too easy to eliminate panbiogeography as a
serious contender while orthodox Darwinian models of evolutionary research were
supported.(in above link)
I use this discipline when evaluating creationist proposals.
Wilson wishes to seek some middle ground with creationISTS but it seems that panbiogeographers must be included as well. Wilson's particular proposal to secure a database of all species in 50 years is countered by panbiogeographers who insist that the geographic context of the distribution needs to be taken into consideration.
They suggest that particular database structures that can accomodate the notion of biogeographic homology are needed rather before spending a lot of money on a project which would subsequently need to be re-worked in their minds. The fact that Wilson is reaching out to creatonists rather than panbiogeographers is high irony to me.
The pages of PANBIOGEOGRAPHY that googlebooks has are not available for some reason so I can not show you on-line where Panbiogeographer criticize Wilson's scientific proposal.
My website on the topic is
http://www.axiompanbiog.com
I have found a new use of mathematics in panbiogeography and through pure Kantian mathemas of graph theory verticies one can notice where many of the creationist arguments that lack substantive scientific support may be heading our habitation towards populationally. That is why the irony exists rather than the corrected topology.
The primary focus of reviewers of panbiogeography is on the rejection of Darwinian "centers of origin" within panbiogeographic track graphs. I think that it must be that people have a hard time seperating centers of origin of Darwin, special creation of creationists and 'centers' of distribution panbiogeographically. It may be that Wilson would have to recognize that his rejection of creation is not possible if he accepted vicariance across the globe since it does not necessarily eliminate special creation but severly constrains the applicability of Nature's God. Vicariance is of special interest to many panbiogeographers. But because the disciplines' work still can be framed in such general statements the "science of panbiogeography" having had to meet standards as hard as put to creationist not enough has progressed to where it may actually compete. It seems to me that panbiogeography needs to be worked on before creationist biogeography can hope to gain any webbed foot hold on any standard whatsoever.
™ Version 4.2