Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bible and "kind"
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 91 of 148 (105903)
05-06-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by almeyda
05-06-2004 11:00 AM


Re: ...
Almeyda,
Please use the little red 'reply' button under the post your are replying to rather than the general 'reply' button at the bottom.
Thanks,
Jack.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by almeyda, posted 05-06-2004 11:00 AM almeyda has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 92 of 148 (105967)
05-06-2004 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by crashfrog
05-06-2004 3:38 AM


Nonetheless, many genes are dominant/recessive
Did you mean that many traits are dominant/recessive?
I think we can agree that all traits are controlled by epigenic factors (correct me if you disagree). That means that even if a trait is purely dominant/recessive, there can be a huge amount of variance in that trait. That variance would be controlled by the genes controlling the polygenic factors. This is one form of pleiotropy, where one gene can affect other genes, and consequently, other traits.
It's the expression of genes that make us human. That expression is controlled by a combination of other control genes and various epigenetic factors.
You are right.
For one thing, bananas have a different number of chromosomes. Or hadn't you noticed?
I had no clue.
Anyway, do you agree that a single pair of dogs could have stored enough genetic material to have been ancestors to all of todays dogs without evolution? It wasn't clear in you post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 05-06-2004 3:38 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 05-06-2004 5:15 PM jt has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 93 of 148 (105968)
05-06-2004 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by jt
05-05-2004 9:00 PM


Transitional
Try defining "transitional" in a way that is hard and fast.
I'll give my own off the cuff definition and then we can see if there are others:
A transitional organism is one which has characteristics of two current taxa. These characteristics are those which are used as defining characteristics of a particular taxon. For example, birds and feathers.
These characteristics are useful to devide the taxa today becuase there has been enough evolution to allow for a wider gap between the so-called "higher" taxa. However, they "break-down" when we get closer back to the point of transtion and we start to have to construct names like "mammal-like reptile".
In current living things we see a bluring at the genus level and these would be considered, in my definition, living transitionals (but the same "kind" in the creationists view I'm sure).
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-06-2004 01:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by jt, posted 05-05-2004 9:00 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 3:23 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 101 by Brad McFall, posted 05-06-2004 4:18 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 94 of 148 (105971)
05-06-2004 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by jt
05-05-2004 9:00 PM


corgs
Can you back up your claims that corgi has a drastically different skull and that the ribcages are different? I see very little difference. About the lengthening and shortening of bones, here is a picture of several different dog breeds
So the differing lengths of bones aren't enough to separate "kinds"?
About the differences between the dog skull and the wolf skulls, can you point some out? I see very little difference.
As I see no great difference in the ape and human skull other thean some changes in sizes of individual bones. The structure of the dog and wolf (which are after all close enough to still interbreed) skulls are different in much the same way as ape and human are. The muzzle of many dogs (even those closer to a wolf are appreciable shorter than wolves). The flare of bone to support jaw muscles is different. And, of course, the skull size, shape and capacity varies enormously (I suggest that is at least as much skull difference in some dogs and wolves as there is in the variation variation between us and apes).
I am not postulating "hyper-evolution," I am postulating natural selection acting on existent genetic material. This would take far less time, and would have easily occured in the time since the flood.
I would like to know just how much evolution you are postulating. Dogs are not a case we disagree on. There are literalists who claim that all "cats", by which I think they mean the felidae (the family of cats) decended from one pair of "cat-kind" on the ark. Is this a "kind" to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by jt, posted 05-05-2004 9:00 PM jt has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 95 of 148 (105973)
05-06-2004 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by NosyNed
05-06-2004 2:32 PM


Re: Transitional
I'll give my own off the cuff definition
What follows is not a definition, it is a "key" to tell whether something is a transitional or not. A definition of a transitional is more like the following: "A transitional is an organism on the evolutionary path from one taxa to another taxa." I should have been more specific in my post, the miscommunication was my fault.
But anyway, for this key to work, it has to be able to tell if an organism is a transitional or not. It should be able to be applied to any organism.
By your key, a salamander would be a transitional, because it has gills, like fish, and legs, like a reptile. But we know that modern reptiles are not descended from salamanders, they are cousins(according to the evolutionary model).
But your key would return a resounding yes to the question, "are salamanders transitionals?"
In current living things we see a bluring at the genus level and these would be considered, in my definition, living transitionals (but the same "kind" in the creationists view I'm sure).
Yes, in my view, they are the same "kind."
I have to go to school, I'll get to your other post later, as well as anything from this post that you want me to cover in more detail.

Mandelbrot is not a type of wine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by NosyNed, posted 05-06-2004 2:32 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Chiroptera, posted 05-06-2004 3:35 PM jt has replied
 Message 99 by Brad McFall, posted 05-06-2004 3:52 PM jt has not replied
 Message 102 by NosyNed, posted 05-06-2004 4:51 PM jt has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 148 (105977)
05-06-2004 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by jt
05-06-2004 3:23 PM


Re: Transitional
quote:
"A transitional is an organism on the evolutionary path from one taxa to another taxa."
This is not the definition of "transitional". That is because it would be a useless definition. We don't expect to find many fossils of species that are in the direct path from one taxon to another - usually the most that can be hoped for is to find close cousins of such direct ancestors. And even if such a fossil is found, it is not in general possible to determine whether, in fact, the species is a direct ancestor - it may merely be a closely related cousin of an ancestor. The current debates in the field of human evolution is a demonstration of this, as there is quite a bit of controversy on which, if any, of the fossil hominids are actually direct human ancestors. The best that we can say is that the fossils are clearly close enough to the actual ancestors to be able to make some definite statements about their characteristics.
-
quote:
But we know that modern reptiles are not descended from salamanders, they are cousins(according to the evolutionary model).
The important criterion would be whether salamanders share enough characteristics of the common ancestor to be useful in reaching conclusions about reptile evolution. If so, then they would be properly called "transitionals". If they have evolved to much to be reliable indicators about the common ancestor then, no, they would not be examples of transitionals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 3:23 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Brad McFall, posted 05-06-2004 3:46 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 106 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 7:29 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 97 of 148 (105981)
05-06-2004 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Chiroptera
05-06-2004 3:35 PM


Re: Transitional
Yes but it will be relevant once I get the whole heirarchy laid out and down. Huxley for fishs' sake had to diagram the salamnders all the way over on the right in order to maintain a symmetrical ideality of a clade BETWEEN birds and mammals for ANY notion of TIME that is commonsensically irreversible. The notion of transitional as I wish to see it applied invovles the issue of EXPLANING total genomic size as well as any macro morph subjectivity involved so if salamanders IS the question here especally as soon as one stops looking at Hukley's geometry and merely notices what grades Huxley puts "?" marks in. The is figure is reproduced in GOTTLIEB's Neophenogensis book where he also discusses behvaior relative to genome size. THE POINT GRADE WISE was, that the apodians CAN NOT BE SO placed ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SALAMANDERS as trastitionals in this threads sense if the total DNA of birds and fish be not subject to question relative to mammals and all of this results without looking at the amount of DNA in other "kinds" (such as spiders).
Of course 'saying' this as I have and showing how the DNA can be explained formally is another thing but the stubling block IS THE CURRENT BIOLOGICAL ESTABLISHMENT (whether being criticized by creationists or not) that sees and teaches it "unitelligable" to curve up to this surface and permits society to label its best student ill if they have something else to say ABOUT THE GRADES or reptiles vs amphibians. It is not the same thing to talk only about fish!!!!!!!! The fact that the clade was demonostrated there between the warm bloods and the nonuse of macrothermodynamics should light up a few photons in anyones' heart but if one is not sensitive or thought wrongly in the cold-blooded diversity as Lewontin did (he might not any more. I dontknow) should not mean that creationist are railed gainst in disucsing for discussing sake when it is the message not the messenger that IS THIS problem in entropy like thermodynamics. We need smart people like exist here on EvC to work it out as the schools certainly are not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Chiroptera, posted 05-06-2004 3:35 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Loudmouth, posted 05-06-2004 3:52 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 148 (105984)
05-06-2004 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Brad McFall
05-06-2004 3:46 PM


Re: Transitional
quote:
THE POINT GRADE WISE was, that the apodians CAN NOT BE SO placed ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SALAMANDERS as trastitionals in this threads sense if the total DNA of birds and fish be not subject to question relative to mammals and all of this results without looking at the amount of DNA in other "kinds" (such as spiders).
For some reason, this reminded me of turtles and their place in the reptile taxa. Turtles diverged from the rest of the reptiles long before even the dinosaurs (IIRC). This is a story that you probably know better than me, given your interests in herps. So perhaps the place of salamanders within the question of birds, reps, and mammals is somewhat like the turtles place within the reptillian taxa?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Brad McFall, posted 05-06-2004 3:46 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Brad McFall, posted 05-06-2004 4:05 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 99 of 148 (105985)
05-06-2004 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by jt
05-06-2004 3:23 PM


Re: Transitional
In order to understand what i am saying about salamanders all one has to do is a little resarch on the cacelian scale. It will be VERY instuctive to work it up macrothermodynamically for its morphology seems even possibly susecptible to issues in physics of symmetry breaking so it is quite kinematically possible that patterns of supramoleuclar aggreation clump out SYSTEMATICALLY differnt forms in branches that might be geometrically determined to be WITHIN a line down the middle of Huxley's clade(statically) which divides all amphibians but one would need to resolve the US-French disaggrement on the relative worth phenetically of the annuli to morphspace biogeographically perhaps first. None the less even my ideas of Wolfram's "simple programs" (which I personally dislike but do not let my feelings get in the way of evalutaion in science)work with this particular body of soma.
So quite simply if the 1-D order of DNA sequences which maxs out in total base pair measures splits this symmetry in scale formation differntly on right from left sides as to relation of branchiing to aggregation we have both the sows ear and the silk purse but it is allways and everyways unwise to assert a silver bullet. The point is the work is intelligebale to the graduate level of understanding. I have passed my undergraduate stage without the degree but I dont care anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 3:23 PM jt has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 100 of 148 (105988)
05-06-2004 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Loudmouth
05-06-2004 3:52 PM


Re: Transitional
And so right you were,
for I was for a time past thinking a lot about the Colbert's (I think ideas ) on Permian Turtle lineages which I have since long buried in my reading list for issues of catastrophism (as the turtle as a bit of SEEMING radial symmetry phenomenoligcall to deal with(Plastron vs Carapace in hinge vs nonhinge VS Kinosternidae vs SOFTSHELLS etc etc etc). This I know see as mere GEOMETRICAL association of grades and clades but not necessarily sufficent to reach the physical level necessary to trump Provine reading of Wright.
You see your second question shows you already KNOW how to think about clades. But I have NEVER been able to simply replace what I think might occur by aggregation with what may or may not occur by some branching process. The issue of cell death raises all kinds of problems for me in this light if one is thinking of differentiation as a branching process when it can also be thought somewhat aggregationally. I did think a lot about the Permian herps and the issue of the way the bone is perpendicular up off the back but the since hoxology this simple kind of homology vs analogy analysis fails to hold up but you might be able to apply that as you suggested. I think rather the issue of the fish digits' number is first however. But I, BSM, gave A LOT of thought to behavior in turtles relative to the existence of water-air transitions and the kinetic theory of gases so i would not count the tuts out once more than total length be the operative genetic context for the content of any aggreagation process. You notion seems off to me but I could be wrong as it seems to INVERT the relation of clade to grade that Huxley proposed. I am not saying it is impossible to think only that one would have found out other things about crabs for instance in Croizat method of the same which would come along for the thought. I am tryin to reach beyond a simple English difference of grade and clade which should(issues of age and area where amphibians vs reptiles seem particularly clearly relevant before extending to warm bloods vs gill slits)be approahable biogeographically and to which work I would have preferred come my way but alas that last communciation with New Zealanders has not and instead I can not but take to heart what G Gladyshev said to me as it seems very very very obvious how possibly proovable wrong Provine has been. I have only suspected it before but now I am on the scent of his "unintelligable" and that really is only what he said about me not salamander or the electric fish i rather tried to talk to him and others about the necessity of trying to do selective breeding with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Loudmouth, posted 05-06-2004 3:52 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 101 of 148 (105993)
05-06-2004 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by NosyNed
05-06-2004 2:32 PM


Re: Transitional@prOvention
SO my point was (with Loudmouth in attendance and contributing...) that there is NOT A "break-down" only a fusion we confuse between branching and aggregation. Supramoleuclar aggregates in time hierarchies may be one mediator. The level I used to provent( proactive-invention) is MUCH higher and involves CURRENT DEBATE about the very definition of "an amphibian".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by NosyNed, posted 05-06-2004 2:32 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Loudmouth, posted 05-06-2004 5:33 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 102 of 148 (106003)
05-06-2004 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by jt
05-06-2004 3:23 PM


Not a qualified example.
By your key, a salamander would be a transitional, because it has gills, like fish, and legs, like a reptile.
I disagree. Legs are not a definitive characteristic of reptiles. That is they maybe part of the general description but they don't separate reptiles from other taxa that might be "close" to them.
While I'm not a taxonomist I believe we use feathers as a defining characteristic of birds. There are specifc characteristics of the skulls (among other things) that define a reptile.
Note the definition I gave:
A transitional organism is one which has characteristics of two current taxa. These characteristics are those which are used as defining characteristics of a particular taxon. For example, birds and feathers.
(emphasis added)
While I disagree with Chiroptera's comments on salamanders his comment on your definition I do support.
That is, a specific example, say one particular mammal-like reptile may or may not be on the direct path way to mammal (and us) but if it has specific characteristics that are, today, only found in mamals and other characteristics that are, today, only found in reptiles then it represents an animal that is "between" taxa (in this case between orders, IIRC) and that is what I would call a transitional.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-06-2004 03:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 3:23 PM jt has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 103 of 148 (106013)
05-06-2004 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by jt
05-06-2004 2:27 PM


Did you mean that many traits are dominant/recessive?
No, I meant genes.
I think we can agree that all traits are controlled by epigenic factors (correct me if you disagree).
Controlled by? No. Genes still control the majority of traits. But epigenetic factors may have an influence that we're only beginning to uncover.
Anyway, do you agree that a single pair of dogs could have stored enough genetic material to have been ancestors to all of todays dogs without evolution?
I thought I made that clear. Two dogs don't have enough genes between them to have carried all known dog alleles at one time. That may not mean that the flood never happened, but it does mean that new alleles must have come into being through subsequent mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 2:27 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 8:00 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 148 (106021)
05-06-2004 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Brad McFall
05-06-2004 4:18 PM


Re: Transitional@prOvention
quote:
SO my point was (with Loudmouth in attendance and contributing...) that there is NOT A "break-down" only a fusion we confuse between branching and aggregation.
I don't think I totally agree with this. My example of the turtle's place in the reptile taxa is more about how we view extant species versus those we see in the fossil record. For all intents and purposes, turtles are as distant evolutionary as mammals are from lizards. Turtles may even be more distant, if memory serves. The same could be said about the salamander, being very distant from the first tetrapods. It was a poor comparison, as I look back on it. Perhaps I should clarify.
The scenario that started this side-show was that extant salamanders are an example of a transition between aquatic apodians (fish) and land breathing animals. In a way, they represent what we would look for in a transitional species (I prefer the mudskipper, better example). With that caveat, it is an accurate statement. The other issue is that what we (evolutionists) describe as "transitional" is most often a sister species not in a direct lineage to another taxa (Archie for example). However, sister species can tell us a lot, since drastic changes in morphology are not expected over "short" time spans, so the sister species as "transitional" still tells us a lot about the species in the direct lineage.
Just as an overall critique, the clades constructed by evolutionists are an attempt to tie in common ancestory. Construction of biblical "kinds" is an attempt to do the opposite, try and find a discontinuum at a precise position. Evolutionists are trying to find the trunk while baraminologists ("kind" constructors) are trying to separate the branch from the tree. Some see a few leaves sticking above the water, some see a tree covered by water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Brad McFall, posted 05-06-2004 4:18 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Brad McFall, posted 05-06-2004 7:02 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 105 of 148 (106045)
05-06-2004 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Loudmouth
05-06-2004 5:33 PM


Re: Transitional@prOvention
LM,
I am looking at this from G. Gladyshev:
quote:
Dear Brad,
This is my quote (from my site and my book) indeed! (Post: 332, berberry).
"During the last decades, an opinion has widely spread that there is . Besides, it is claimed that
this contradiction
living systems by the methods of equilibrium thermodynamics>. The author of
the present work states: if living systems are described in the framework of
hierarchic equilibrium thermodynamics, this contradiction does not exist.
" .
I would like to point out this quote is connected with the statement of I.
Prigogine. The statement one can find in the caver (and in a text) of his
well-known monograph.
I said about the contradictions between classical thermodynamics (as this
believe some scientists) and "biological order and laws of physics -
particularly the second law of thermodynamics". Now, the law of temporal
hierarchies has been discovered and we can use the approaches of the
thermodynamics of quasi-closed systems. Before my works, it was no
possibility to apply the equilibrium thermodynamics (quasi-equilibrium
thermodynamics, thermodynamics of quasi-closed systems) to investigate the
open living systems.
The situation with the thermodynamics is an analog of situation with the
entropy! There are different "types of thermodynamics". Scientists know
about this! I say, as a rule, about classical (equilibrium or
quasi-equilibrium thermodynamics).
Deer Brad,
I consider (I said about this before) it will be very useful if you
recommend to anybody, who would like to have a part in our discussion, to
have a look at any good textbook of physical chemistry.
Before I looked at Huxley's diagram I found an OLD (late 20 or early 40s?) penciled sketch of a LINE with "worm" at one end and a split at the other with "birds" on ONE SIDE and "mammals" on the other and THE LINE being labeled AS ONE Amphibians-Reptiles in my Gradfathers personal possesion. I suspect it was his and he wrote it for teaching purposes at college. Huxley DID NOT draw this same figure but has THE SAME LINE!!. Hukley "pushed" the salamanders to the end of his drafting table to get them on the paper where he showed how clade is realted to anagenesis. Gould in his own way took the question MARKS OVERLAID ON THIS PAPER and made the whole punc eq out of NEW CLOTHE!!
But now there were NO salamdeers and NO line connecting reptiles and amphibians. If an apodian looks like a line and DNA lengths dont work in the explanation something is very wrong with the picture being presented. The only justification is somethin really as extreme as Wofram's but I dont believe that. I could be wrong. It's hard to imagine that as then IT WOULD HAVE TO BE TRUE AS WELL THAT I AM INSANE. I am not. Sister species can tell us a lot but I, personally, want to see what they have to do with geography first because by refusing to view whatever the real correlations are with the grades (to any clade) one can think of any relation of soma one wishes. I do this in baraminology becuase of the DISCONTINUITYES implied (but whose to say these really exist?). Just think what Huxley's diagram would have looked like if he did not make all grades for each category of vertebrate he CHOOSE to diagram (he did not diagram cacealians!) to be CONES OF INCREASING DIVERSITY. And that is the point the sister groups will assist in determing the flux of relative grades but Gould went after the terminal end to end stacking issue instead of the internal one that might be discontinuous but continuous in a Gladyshev hierarchy. Why then does Mayr NOT embrace PE completely and how come Wright can eaisly be read to indicate that this diagram (as I interpret it) is ONLY ABOUT ECOLOGY not species selection??
The salamander IS truely transitional in the sense of this thread. It is a body with no position. I was suprised to read you indicate your intent on trying to "shunt" what you personally percieve as creationist threads by way on linkage. I never do or did that. But I can only explain so much with the words "clade" and "grade". Croizat for instance was much concerned that Hennig "took" (it) from him.
The solution seems to be however not with all this possible talk to talk for sake of the society and world but very simply to SHOW THAT AN INDIVIDUAL GENOTYPE in its own line (properly a Wrightian distribution curve) is ONTO a surface ordinated if not ordertyped by genefrequencies. Writing the program to accomplish this is a whole other practiaclly dynamic thing. I dont mean to sound harsh but I am getting cranky in my age and tired of going over the same ground all the time. I have not been able to determine if Gould COOPTED Provine's scholarhsip for his own purposes or if he could be documentably shown to be in this dark on the dark.
I have NO conception morphologiaclly of physical change in the sense that Permian (is a different physical time) except in the sense of aline. The beasts all just appear as differntly shaped to me. I would get exhausted if I tried to explain some of the minor thought paths I have gone down when trying to reconstrcut the chages of a tadpole into a frog and dont forget what Newton said about it relative to light and heat!
The reason you might disagree is that you are probably trying to figure a "branch" where I assert by right of extant amphibian bodies only aggregations can exist. It is clear where on Huxley's diagram the branck split is. (between mammals and birds) which is where it was in my Grandfathers but Huxley obviously gave more thought to the penmanship than Stan. It is true in Gould's sense Huxley would grant by DEFINTION (of grade) license to compose a sister group from between any grade but Huxley ONLY SHOWED the expanding cone of grades and my WHOLE THINKING HERPETOLGOICALLY is about whether or not a particular grade is larger or smaller than that immiedately adjancent. I had the perfect subject in the work snake which is ONE GENUS, TWO SPEICES, THREE SUBSPECIES split by Mississipi, and Appalachians and I was TRYING to figure out the grades on STATE BY STATE basis in the US when I was hospitalized becuase the faculty refused to continue to think this evolutionarily. I am sorry if you can see the line in all of this but it is here and you dont need to read between the lines.
In truth, BIBLICAL KINDS may not be "to do the oppiosite" I have some indication that baramins and a particular view of ice age distributions in Croizat may be biogeographically homologous but that is a subjective feeling of a panbiogeographer and not the objective evidence of the DNA sequence I will be using "to make the same" case instead. If you think that Gould's detailed reasoining on pythons and lizards is correct just wait till I take that muscle OFF the rib. I havent gotten started on snake evolution in a long while and if you keep it up I might have to put a few colubrids in their zenodontinae place.
Again, Loudmouth I very much would not like it if you did not post to me but this issue of grade and clade is OVER now that I have understood Galdyshev's ideas better. The only question is how much of the orthodox biology has to go and if as we do do sometimes here hear about how much further it might even go if some of the more heterodox creaionist ideas are also correct. The persisent heterodoxoy is not only a secular thing.
But we REALLY CAN reach the idea that there is NO contradiction in GPG's words as I said when I was marhsalling metaphysics that there is no real C/E Polarity. I will rest on the empirical data of the apodian scale if you insist so draw out my unique nose like turbule that cross the mouth uniquely in the line creatures of no leg and well see if the tripod stands.
and yes yes, I can discuss it "in the fossil record" but the physcial data I would have to limit myself to would be Gould's refusal to see D'Arcy Thompson's seque (via surface to volume issues) from shoulder bone to transforms PHYSICALLY. I have just barely begun to try out my thought on bone deformation and physics.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-06-2004 06:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Loudmouth, posted 05-06-2004 5:33 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024