How many Kinds are there?

Darwin worked his way FROM (two) species, to an clumping of morphospace, towards the relation of “articulated” creatures from the rest, beyond the simple fish to reptile transit. This may be behind Gish’s statement

quote:

---

between complex invertebrates and fish .

as quoted by DBLevins here on EVC

---

I can not find that Darwin’s consideration (he was under a “conviction” here and Gould did not miss that Darwin said this) at THIS TAXANOMIC LEVEL is any different than Aggasiz’s (in a nineteenth century frame of mind) division of creatures.The baramin or kind appears to divide this division further.I do not see that this is a word game.Since some creationists feel that Gould took over their argument the actual number seems to me to depend on how hierarchy is to be parsed out of clade “branch” points.There are various ways of trying this out.(Gould’s particular examination depends on the difference of allopatry and sympatry but there are other approaches less standard (to the relation of translation in space and form-making). It seems to me that creationist use of hybrids depends somewhat on this distinction as well. It may be that we will see some divergence from this use in the future).My own approach to get back towards the gap Gish mentions involves a complex working out of electromagnetic forces in nervous tissues with direct effects relative to taxogeny. I will present how e-m fields relate to WHOLE FISH structures (lateral line), parts of amphibians (head vs leg), specific nervous tissue in reptiles located in bilateral symmetric situations, and division of sensory organs (of "labour")in mammals for dividing up electro AND magnetic effects via temperature relations (warm blooded advance over birds). The same biophysics I would then work on , in invertebrates.This is what informs me specifically of what a baramin could be if it is really anything more than a lack of conviction about what Darwin said.I have participated in a somewhat long thread on baramins here on EvC but it seems to be buried too far for me to find it with the search function. Because I was somewhat unimpressed with the evolutionist discussion of vicarism and I was supplied instead with a more complex structure in the different prefixes used to discuss baramins I found it useful to think topographically interms of vacariance and baramins. It remains to be seen if this is simply a stage in a more perfect thought or one that will remain with any discovery of life off Earth(see visual here).

quote:

---

this is the created kinds, thus the number of kinds may have gone up between the creation and the flood, which means that new kinds evolved from the starting kinds

---

Is this not simply the difference of locating a kind between the kingdom and some amount of phyletic trailings? Why must

quote:

---

how high those numbers are, now that creationists have available the results of solid evolutionary science to show that they must use higher numbers

---

??Why could not baramin physciotheology be placing the discussion between a division greater than 30 for phyla and the nine that contain most of the species??It seems to me there is nothing particular secular that prevents the realm of meso evolution of Dobhshansky from denoting since Friar etc as smaller ACTUAL number.There could be some work on the word "number" itself.If I am correct that Darwin's use of the math word could be reformulated in terms of transifinte numbers then I do not see why creationists need be restricted to a number that is a result of gene fixation but rather might be made UP of them.This is why it may not be a word game.There may be structural content hear left behind via the probablistic rather than simple effect of additivty (correlation coeffients add across pedigrees as well as probabilities and thus the same math operation yields different interpretations (probability of common descent and use of maximum likelyhood methods instead). Darwin's maximization may be a smaller number, 22?, than that by post neo darwinian pronouncements alone?????It seems you already knew what you were asking for.

quote:

---

The reason I asked is because an examination of the kinds

---

It seems that there are non-living things that are kinds then?I was presuming that only life is included in the baramin kind. I thought that is what I was responding to.

quote:

---

can provide evidence as to whether this is of divine origin or of human origin.

---

Is Newton’s thought in his
bucket experiment of divine or human origin?I have always taken it that a shape of a creature, no matter how small (use phenotype notion then when looking in a microscope) may be ID’d with the curve described by Newton here and rather quickly and inadequately simply manage to magine “the torqued rope” to be DNA.Modern biology does not open the conversation if form conceived this way is divine or human as far as I know. I wrote my College Scholar Thesis to document this. When Leon Croizat asked in the 60s, “how does a cell cut” and no one answered him, I understood this to mean that no one was willing to ask if Newton’s relations between absolute and relative space had been answered by population geneticists. Boltzmann was close to the answer. He only said however atoms were not in contradiction to infinite divisibility not how atoms might be related to such divisions whether by God or possibly with nanotech, man-made.I think your squezzing of technology into the question of the kinds is out of time.Cantor wrote to the Catholic Church to explain that a mathematical development of infinty (difference between absolute and actual infinity beyond the culturally prior potential notioning)
may assist theology while also changing science. The relation between Cantor’s absolute and Newtons’ may be divine it seems to me. This would not mean that the Dead Sea Scrolls must show signs of advanced general revelation.So before I can be sure whether you and I ARE talking about worms vs vertebrates it matters if the actual infinity the curve rescribes is also supposed to apply to forms of death as well as life. I am not saying that baramin creationists have the only back door newsstand on all ideas about kinds, so you tell me, can spirits be kinds?If so then the logic is more expanded than the one I was considering. Kant’s use of “soul” becomes operative in that case. That is not something that I relate to Newton’s bucket. His experiment was something I could easily relate to at the age of 8, as I would swing a basket full of eggs round my head without breaking them even though my mother’s nack was broken seeing her son whirl breakfast before it was even on the table.Thanks for info from DSS. It would have been just as nice if you had included it in the original post.

Ok,I'll go slower this time around.Are you trying to get an idea on the number of kinds that are causally connected to living things or dead patterns??The information I presented can hardly be irrelevant if one is beyond Locke philosophically and knows how to deal with Berkely experientially. But it would make some difference if the theological subject was not an obvious object of baraminology.You opend with a link to Wiki, hardley the source if you wanted to eventually compare "papers" by one group vs those of another.If you already were decided then there is no need for you to return to the internet. People like me are here because we are able to communicate and develop things that these papers on either ledger side do/did not. If you are going to only base your response to my posts based on this paragraph then there really was no point to post in the first place. It seems to me you are only saying now that baraminology is not really real research. You might as well say that about most any topic in creation science. I am perfectly well aware that God can change the physical laws of any scientist after the fact if not before.I tried to indicate what historical events, left in the work of rather prominenant authors, are responsible for the failure to realize results otherwise written about in either paper kind.To say that a biologist can not have an intuition at possible variance with a physicist is simply a case of lack of concepts. Whether there are real reasons depends on what categories are affected. Your language seems to indicate that there is a legal or expermiental basis to the determination of the results ("it may be unclear in one or two cases").So...
If your standard (reading into your posts to me so far) which seems to be that if God passed the info on, then one should be able to figure out where baraminologists went wrong, by looking into the differences in the case they wrote anything of an enumerable magnitude is, is correct, then it would matter (not form) how a number is to be coordinated to the kinds denoted in Genesis and/or the DSS.I started to explain what this would entail. You claim it is irrelvant to God. How do you know??------------To cite that you teach and that I ought to know the difference belies the reality that just last nite before posting to you I attended a lecture on the Cornell campus by Gary Sick of Columbia, who was hosted by a Presbyterian Historian I know very well , and through our Church, a dinner was put on. He had just been part of the 45 invited to a private meeting with Iran's president. 6 degrees of connection is very small indeed, it knows no respect of teachers or students, however God has it.You might be able to ask yourself if your reply to me is not substantially similar to Wounded Kings' to Mike in the threadConstantly designed baramins and the evolving food chain .I could look into relating this thread to that one if that would help. I still have not found the longer thread on Baramins that I participated in.Edited by Brad McFall, : urlEdited by Brad McFall, : trying to move discussion along.

Well, if this thread is really only about how many creationist kinds there are (and not how they stack up against taxonomic divisions) then any comments about persons posting or reasons to question the number named outside that worldview seems to me to be absolutely not within the parameters of your own guidelines let alone whatever ones restricted to EvC apply (as well).I must admit that if that was all you really cared for having advanced in this thread then perhaps I needed to not have started posting in this one, as I consider THAT to be a simple internet research question, one to which Doddy responded quite well. I figured YOU could have done that as well. Anyway I do not use EVC as means to obtain straight up info, but I find some of the info in the links thread helpful and on point for that purpose.Now you see I assumed that there ARE these kinds.In that case there is no reason why I should not be able to put on my "creationist" bias bait and talk from that point of view. If you think that that is impossible in one mind, then that is not me.When I was first trying to understand *something* that creationist's meant to denote under the logology of baramin studies, I wrote ICR claiming that by putting stamps of creatures on a page my Grandmother in arranging the stamps selected but not placed by my Grandfather actually constituted a "kind" or baramin REGARDLESS OF HOW ICR detained it's use. These books were written however for stamp collectors from an evolutionist's purloined variation. Some of the book covers are available on one of my websites here. I could post pictures of the stamps but you seem to have ordered these out of evidence in this retention. THIS WAS the content of my first communication to Cummings of ICR who graduated Harvard in Biology. I do feel that baramins are maximally ranked and filed Linnean categorizations regardless of the amount of influence evolution thought has influenced the natural history I sustain. I feel I can keep from being tainted within this judgment.If you only want to discuss the number of kinds without this comparison of my own doing then others would be better to engage you. There is clearly some interesting discussion that one can have on how "hybrids" are not difficult for the theory of baramin numerology, but again that is a matter of relatively easy internet research and something that ICR began to exfoliate AFTER I wrote and Wise left Gould's dominion.I have personally "traced" at first what I thought was a word game in the creationist use of "vertical" and "horizontal" evolution but after understanding what they were up against by evolutionists writing IN RESPONSE to them, I came to realize that even that was not a use of words for their own simple advantage. As for the reason that it is hard to get some responsibility of a kind of baraminology to rigor, I find, that the Batesons' problem of "energy" lack between the mid points of meristic variation (even vertebrae) to confound the creationist use of morphology itself and lacking a resolution I am not sanguine for a soon solution.If I find time to do the kind of poking and peeking on the web you seem to want for the content of this thread I will do, else, thanks for a the sustained communication breaching the weekend.God Bless,
Brad.P.S. - just so others can know; I think that citing Gould and Darwin AS NOT irrelevant. Darwin speaks of infinite complexity of co-relations between forms which I think is the cause of my grandmother's use of my grandfathers' stamps, but because Bertrand Russell was not privy to Mendelian changes to thought on translation in space and form making and no one attempted to go backward from Woodger THROUGH Russell biology is not ready to cash out this EXCEPT as creationists perhaps a bit preferentially (and overdone) refer to "complexity" molecularly.
Edited by Brad McFall, : used word spell check against my intention, correcting that

Wise seems

quote:

---

I am arguing that natural selection played no substantial role in
the origin or modification of any of these morphologies. I do
not exclude the possibility that once the morphologies had been
established, selection (including natural selection) may have
determined which morphologies became extinct and which did
not.

---

to be situating intrabaraminc differences at the detail that Gould gave to the “morphologies” in the Burgess Shale
Loading...
number 6
. One has to notice that Gould had written this book
Wonderful Life (Google Books)
as a change from a cone of increasing diversity to a large morphological basis to start (the 90s) with (this does not incorporate what I can cognize between differences of cones and ladders). It appears to me that Wise is using a 90s version rather than a 70s one of form.This would not seem to permit *any* kind of recombination (for whatever the phenotypes mean genetically) if by that one has had the idea that a point mutation change does not change-the information- (whatever the information is here) content of gene based on bits for interbaramin differences. Perhaps you could say further what you mean by recombination. Croizat (character)recombination is not genetic recombination even though one might think back to that. What is the semantic information value that divides inter and intra baraminic differenes??If there are numbers of baramins or kinds as Equinox proposes to start this thread @ some kind of magnitude (and any extreme coincidence excluded) then bits could be a way to measure something about em . Wise asserted,

quote:

---

In fact, generalizing these observations to all
organisms, natural selection acting on mutations is an
unlikely mechanism for the origin of biological form
throughout the young-age creation model (see Wood
2005, for examples in the Galápagos Islands). The
intrabaraminic changes which are evidenced in the
fossil record (e.g. for the horses: Cavanaugh, et al.
2003) - and suggested by interspecific hybridization
- involve morphologies very, very far outside the
range of variation observed in modern organisms (as
the morphologies of modern organisms are outside
the range of variation observed in the older fossil
organisms). And, given the highly infrequent and
usually detrimental nature of phenotypically expressed
mutations, as well as the complex nature of many of
these past morphological characters, it is unlikely
that any of these morphologies arose by mutation.
Finally, even if the morphology were to arise in one
member of the population, natural selection fixes that
morphology only by differential death. This incurs a
death load on the population, making it impossible
to fix such a trait very rapidly (Haldane’s dilemma).
Especially in the light of the abbreviated time scale
of the young-age creation model, Haldane’s dilemma
makes it unlikely to impossible that natural selection
is responsible for fixing much or most of the realized
biological forms in earth history. It is more likely that
the only substantial role natural selection plays is the
elimination of deleterious mutations (i.e. minimizing
mutation’s damage in a fallen world).

---

It is crucial how one ”reads’ the word “outside” here. Is this ”outside ” a 70s or 90s consciousness of fossil and forms?? Is this a bottom heavy or not?As for the postitive part this gets back to what I was starting to say about Darwin’s extincting F line
EvC Forum: Evolution and Increased Diversity
but this is ostensibly off topic in this thread according Equinox.