Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.

we dont as yet have a biogeography that is not idiosyncratic"" to a particular sister grouping such that as soon as one gets the "geography" part (more than one locality) we can not divide different lineages back to a common ancestor OR ancestral area (notion of relic etc) thus one can not say whether Linne's ARK climate etc is a unified inertial system or not. This is largest barrier to actual scientific advancement in the field. One would like to know if one were to draw a geodesic line between any to geographic distribution localities whether such geometry describes a part of a line at rest and continuing to move at rest or in motion with a certian amount of inertia compelling it INTO orbit with the Earth or simply if some other forces are involved in any rest or change of direction of the trajectory via migration etc etc.So I do not even see how migration patterns explain any biogeography. There is a book by a Christian who went to Siberia to collect birds and only came away from the work with a regional division in the geography without knowing how it is that birds actually migrate. The simple phenomena of migration is not enough to decide if any influence is by gravity, magnetics, or tropisms generally when not otherwise. There is a difference between means of dispersal and translation in space and form making. Leon Croizat wrote in lit to Robin Craw that either vicariance of chance dispersal would have to go (conceptually) beofre the ptolemic state of biogeography recieved its own copernican revolution. I think that any reliable creationist creation of biogeography is most fit after this decision is made. Problem is if the attempts immediately work with stratigraphy BEFORE trying to answer in the kinematics. One can NEVER apriori be sure of dynamics if the kinematics are not available during the interation of the dynamic model, any. There may have been an implied difference between Price and Clark on this but I have not dug into the Creationis work far enough (as DS JORDAN interaction with Price was enough for me) to say as to biology and creation. I am able to read Galelio not in any conflict with any of this.

You presume only causal explanations and a lack of land bridges. It is a shame that Croizat's method has not been developed and popularized to date for one would find that ONLY one view is never usually the case on second thought about the same collection localities as the genera included are increased but to each shell its own carapace.

Becasue we do not know if the # of cell death per Lerner pop gen locationS supports Gould or not. Spitural death is a richer framework of conceptual expansion than "when I die i shall rot" (B. Russel). When talking about THE FLOOD vs GEOGRAPHY one is comparing ONE to MANY or ONE to MANY of inertia FROM NEWTONS center of the solar system which Boscovich already said WAS NOT the comet materiality (for anyONE located) on the condition you understand. sorry if this dups someone has changed the public back button

And the reason we do not know, I assume you were not sarcastic, is that the toxin-antidote module postulated in France to have some similiar correlation in cause between chlorplasts and mitochondria may not (aka the Gould query)(as if endosymbiosis(I think otherwise)) could instead be meotic-self destruction causal with open habitats directing pollen either by 'murder or suicide' of the ( I forgot the botantical term for the two cells the pollen goes thru before the reduced gametic complement is found)in the same way some algae have been found to sporulate "sacraficing" *cytoplasmic cells*.This would be a major advance in biolgical knowledge if we knew this. I pray I will not be scooped in the next few years for giving out the best idea for lack of funds to retain the reply to date about what is wrong in evolutionary theory today and even Gould did not think the free order of (use molecular free path if necessary). Even showing this kind of death does not necessarily mean that the chance switch of some theological contribution is ipso facto naturalistically matterially used up. My guess is that the adjectives used in the toxin-antidote hypothesis for the BCl2-CytochromC modularization will be replaced by the motion of the trjectory to the death from within orbit so described in the future work shoud the community so understand and pursue. Mitchondria may not be Maxwell Idle Wheels. I still think they are not matter what grave the death WAS a vehicle for in the replicator that could so interact. I already said I think the algae created 1/2 of the Mendel line between male and female parts
but rehabilitating the Medial binomial will require the expts actually be done and not mere retrorecognitions as per the discrete alternative to this analog a UNIFORM kinematics which may be variable in the sense that a Fisherite thought if species are not of variation is there any one who knows otherwise?If the reasoning is supported it would not longer be necessary to bash creationism for the would be plenty of new work that no time would be available for such negative counter selection as some lurking monsters of c/e bring on the novice unawares. Further more the time spent by some in discussing spirtual death may instead of lesuire hours finding the almighty Bruced Nemo permit on the point of no return in cell death accumulate even potentially superadded traits but now I begun, to speculate, so I desist for a time and season of vanity under this SUN.

I have not read any Croizat criticism lately so I was rather taken aback when criticised about how Croizat can be brought into comprehensibility in any area below the level of migration biology but indeed THERE WAS in letter between Croizat and Craw (published in the Tuatara? I really dont recall??) where Croizat TOLD Craw that EITHER vicarance of chance dispersal had to go. I have not seen creationist ecology get to the point of really discussing dispersal in truth to the details of a scientific mind of the Pascal/Morris kind that enables hydrodynamical details but these indeed could fall into the "incomprehensibility" category you feared I had awoke TO but lest you REALLY think this, that one must go, and one takes a design from VICARIENCE going then it is possible that anti-Morris geology of the kind at least publishing a local flood can be criticised, although I do not demonstrate this as it requires quite a bit Of (anti-Gould (anti-Paley) )scholarhip that perhpas a Wise has done or will do...in terms of random migrations of CHANCED dispersals (in terms of nonlinearity that may be even more stochastic than any determinism applying to the job order...)(all one considers in this point is if one is looking at geographic distributions from the firmament of the Southern or Northern Hemisphere Astronaut Psyche) which I would contend is prima facie (we would have to see the evidence and the biogeographic community can not decide on a data exchange standard and European interests argue about the middle ware there in...)supportive of the more GLOBAL croizat READING of translation in space but depending on the specific formations there would be wiggly room to which you here can critcism since without the data and the space defined futher especially with respect to the "random" elements involved makes for dense interpreting to say nothing of apprehension...so that would open you up as being correct in the sense I am wrong...and yet the other side of the empirical sentence if truer would be easier to re-tail the same scienfitic details that dove tail to the same Croizat context and yet we have neither of these alternatives in Evolutionary or Creationist literature as far as I flood the net with alternatives yet to be parsed...The most likely place where the myth gets my thesis is on scale of the phenomena and using a vicariance abets more attempts than simple dispersal wihout being trumped geologically since dispersal is continuity from points whereas vicarance is point between intervals.As long as we are not talking about creatures IN heaven or on the right side... this should not be a problem and the choice a priori is thus much clearer for the creationist than the evolutionist who BOTH would use the same thesis for any attempt to Hegelize Gould to get to the point where Brad's nail is not as short as it still happens to be...I had suggested however we be not allowed this broader perspective but would under the stricture of evolutionist slanting to remand only issues of cell death as these particulars of other than migration biology (as why not included migration of cells as part of migration in organisms?) command MORE BIBILICAL CREATIONISM interest than do other approaches to the unresolved sentence in a letter to NZ but if one STARTS without this lack of bias it appears that we enter the apprehension of comprehensiblility in a more comprehensible fashion sooner but still not continuously and this is due to the likes of those de-tractors of the FUTURE employment of natural selection which is indeed out of my control and reasons I considered this week never to post again. But alas what else am I good for. This kind of writing IS my forte.Morris discusses miracles and I am able to extend any discussion in the thermodymanic diretums but so far this has only achieved discursive treatements on c/e threads I have particicpated so far and I have found that even those who WANT to know the evo-development are not tooled enough on the HISTORY of the subject to rationally consider when more Biblical Creationism may be desired over say the REASONS TO BELIEVE approach in the same intelligently desgined light to extend the word beyond its function.

Thank you SO much for offering me a chance to refer directly to the BIBLE. This is a rare occurrance as far as the extent of interaction with me goes...You Wrote:

quote:

---

"
You know,
To all of the skeptics out there, and I say that in a good way because I think it is a good thing to question, I would like to say that I am a Christian who believes the flood account of Genesis was localized to mesopotamia. I absolutely agree that a global flood is not possible and is not Biblical. The ammount of water needed to fill the earth to its highest peaks would be four times as the ammount on the earth. The Bible said God sent a wind to disperse the water. If it were global this would make no sense as God's using the water cycle would not get rid of the water but only recycle it. Keep in mind when you debate Christians on this forum that not all of us are young earth creationists. I'm a Christian who believes in an old earth. The major differences I see between you and myself is primarily that I happen to believe that biological macroevolution is not necessarily the mechanism God used to create. Most everything else I think is absolutely true."

---

and yet you provided us with a NARROWER view of EARTH than I had hoped would become implicated by refering to "astronauts". That really IS OK .1)when you say biological macroevolution is not necessarily the mechanism God used to create you mean what? creation??2)I have never *felt* I was ever "debating" anyone here but still I would like to know again what you meant by "difference" between you and me. I am not an astronaut.3)I have never seen in creation literature some work that takes Morris' position and updates it with NEW GREEK SCHOLARSHIP about the hydraulic details of water flow and applies Pascal's work IN Galelio's utility which in terms of landscape ecology COULD indeed be a mechanism but indeed perhaps NOT the one you mentioned is different between us. I just cant judge if you are not more specific.4) as to GOD using the "water-cycle" I have not *ever* quoted directly from Genesis to my understanding which I will later if necessary but I HAVE mentioned (and I will look thru the list of my posts to try to find the most relevant place to continue this) Gould's about face in reading DAYS OF CREATION. I simply have not taken my reading ALL THE WAY BACK to the Book Of Genesis I have already read.5)I may indeed be persuded to read it differntly yet again. I tend to read more evolution than creation literature anyway but the wind doing it will matter more for the abiological variable than the one I have most in mind. My interest in Genesis is admittedly quite a bit later verse wise than then what causes discussion of the GAP.6)Infinite divisibility is not necessarily the same for biology and physics. Infinite componentability may however be. This is a crucial difference which I have written before within the sentence "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny because Brownian motion is not mutually reciprocally indpendent of gravity fall".7)I tried to think about the idea that the Flood was local but the Science behind this claim still was not enough to have me re-write all what I have already WRITTEN so short of an unknown hermenutic arising from within my own diction the possibility of some naturalistic probablity trumping my own guess is unlikely even in my most objective mind set. Fell free to disagree. Thanks again.

You said "if", I did not. LOL No professor at Cornell ever answered me how to count organsims. I know HOW i count them and you know how you can count. That is good. God Bless. Will Provine also said "if" to me. That was his mistake as well. There are no hard feelings on my side but to speak for some third party of me, that well... let me stay positive. Have a good evening. I was not trying to "obfuscate" I only try not to say more than can be reasonably discussed at a time but it is true I sometimes go the other way around. Sorry for all the words but I did not write them all.and Randy in looking back rather quickly over the thread, what you NAMED as 'obfuscation' for me, seems to be that I have managned to be able to refer to the concept of "vicarnce" quite a bit more simply(eg. the entry that differentiated Actual Infinity (my writing before this relied more hopefully more on potential infinity but that is harder to make the same point with as it is less delimitable in way that acutal infinity could or can be). It just doesnt seem that way to you. Best.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-03-2003]

I KNOW THIS is what you are saying. I am sorry I have failed to persuade you otherwise. I had spent 9 teen age years, 4+ Cornell years, numerous Internet years trying to do and be a biogeographer. That is something I know and know it probably better than some professionals so as far as my Support for YEC interms of ecology relevant in biogeography is not clear to you in terms of ancestoral relics I am sorry again. A relic area and an area's relic are not the same. I am fully in support of the idea that panbiogeography ITSELF could be a part of standard YEC bioegoraphy vis a v your issue as to how the ancestral continuty is enumerated AND counted (one needs both) but my guess is that this postion on creation and biology is part and parcel for me not getting as far on ICR disucsion forum than here but I do not want to second guess standard YEC or what indeed may be more standarizable. I was prevented by CORNELL from acquiring an undergraduate which is required to be a student at ICR and yet my learning has quite extripated these finishing schools. I will be happy to explain how FROM THE BIBLE I hold these views but I keep geting the feeling you wish some issue in statistics to be uppermost. Tell me If I misread your contents. Why for instance do you say "at least all vertebrates"? My conversation with Henry Morris extended all the way to bacteria. And when you say "biogeography falsifies" I presume you are using some kind of "philosophy...etc" to say so such as came out of UK years ago. I DO divide theory and expt in biogeography but this is likely what may be tripping"" you up. I dont know.Theory has to do with HOW DATA IS ENCODED but expts contain the information (and in biogeography it is nature not man that does "the expts") It would take me quite some time to show how in detail my position on MacArthur's infinite phenotype differs in the lack of hortzianism in Island Biogeography. My first contribution in biogeogrpahy was not published in MainStream Journals but by E-mail to John Grehna who as 'snuck " back here to Buffalo NY about the lack of constraint in the ANY** discussion of panbiogeography (pro or con) of the WIDTH of a "track" even if some other term theoretically substites. John said he wanted to see this in a journal article. I have not yet done so. The same applies THEORETICALLY to YEC biogeography but the application may alter certainly as to data exploration by newer electronic visualization means. I hope this clarifies it for you . Best and Good Day. Brad.

quote:

---

First of all,
I am a Christian that will openly say forget John and Henry Morris. Those guys and the so-called scientists like them give

---

Randy and admins- I will move all non-thread relevant topics off this subject line after this post for now I thought a line by line entry may be more informative but I recognize Randy's point and defer to raising the level of conversation. I have had my way. D-THAT WOULD BE A MISTAKE. TRADITION HAS TO BE MAINTAINED SOMEHOW. I READ THEIR MISSION AS AN EXTENSION OF THE CRITICISM OF RUSSIAN NONMENDELISM even if ICR should hold itself out also on a larger secular base regardless of its Christian Intent. I just need to think of the Elder Morris in Western Texas while my Grandfather was in Western NY. I dont have much of an opnion on how ICR may have chagned after his son, but I was not able to find any error in the landscape knowledge of central Texas he presented.

quote:

---

Christianity a bad name. I guess my main point of the post was really just to show that not all Chrisians believe as they do. I'm sure you know this however it seems like YEC is the only perspective being representated for Christianity here.

---

YA KN,ow I never really looked into trying to categorize EvC posters WITHIN creationist thought I simply, if I have a choice, tend to if not always respond to what I think is incorrect evolutionary understanding. I made some videos where I was a bit fairer but then again then I was the PRODUCER and acutally had some say in what the DIRECTOR was doing. I also had control on live TV of all of the content- here I have had to post thru the topic divisions. That I have done. point well taken.

quote:

---

If you want better creation literature to read, I recommend anything by Dr. Hugh Ross. His best are "The Genesis Question" and "Creation and Time."

---

I tried Ross independent of ICR's assertions when ID was taking even Janent Partial's America by storm but I found his physical intution MUCH TOO restrictive for my biological plenum thinking (there are also physicists such even as Wheeler or Bohm I will rarely if ever read but my use IN physics is much less than biology sensu scripto)

quote:

---

As for God using wind to disperse water, (i.e. water cycle) refer to Genesis 8:1 for confirmaton on that.

---

THANK YOU!!! that is what I was trying to get Randy to READ thru to. That is all I was trying to say immediately above but it did indeed extend what I had written earlier in this thread but I do not want to annoy Randy any further. randy took me on long enough.

quote:

---

I don't know if any of this helps but I wrote this on another forum about the possibility of genesis referring to a local flood,
"we have to remember that in the time of the Bible, people did not think of things globally the way we do today. When we are told the flood covered the whole earth we must realize it is written by Moses from Noah's perspective. To Noah, everything under the stars and what he could see was the whole world. Also when the Bible tells us that water filled the highest peaks/mountains, the hebrew words for mountains are kol heharim and hugebohim. These can be used to mean hill, mountain, or hill country."

---

Yes this probably helps but being in Pagan Ithaca with a liberal Church where I got into a theological difference about what the Morris' COULD have meant by "first cause" I do not have a good enough Bible knowledge to gain say what you offered. When I think of Moses I first get back to thinking about the strucutre of the tent and never the ark even with the help you offered. But that could be my spiritual problem and not a materialism. I dont know, thanks again.

Randy, you would have been better off answering Schrafinator for I am still confused about the same subset quoted out of this thread that Schraf has been kind enough to requote but was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Now I have choice but to open the thread head again and go thru some details.You wrote:

quote:

---

While this isn’t exactly geology I think it belongs under the flood discussion. I don’t see an explicit discussion of it elsewhere on the board.
When creationists attempt to explain the world's biogeography they often greatly underestimate the magnitude of the problem it presents for the worldwide flood. I consider it a falsification of the flood account, along with several others of course.
There are particularly insoluble problems with the fauna of Australia/New Zealand/New Guinea and the Americas. According to the ark story marsupials and the other un over the Bering Sea to get to their current habitats?
Randy

---

.I really DO need an aswer to Schrafinators post because it does matter whether one orients or reads bioeography from north to south or south to north and which one one perfers will depend on the graphical representaion used in data analysis of any track one uses between any collection points and yet the kangas as a taxon *may* provide a diffent orientation even if one uses A FINITE #BASELINES as the New Zeleanders have advocated. I tend to an infinite representation but aside from just knowing that the track width remained undefined panbiography only helped me to read other biology not yet to write it.Now you want to discuss the "magnitude of the problem" and I believe that we have come across %that% in this thread with the view being expressed that perhaps a LOCAL FLOOD was by cause with you maintaing that no one has really actually addressed the opening post. OK lets address that quite explicitly. I leave what ever "others" are aside with accepting some philosophy of "falsification" and you assert therefore that IT is falisfied by bioegeography first and foremost... OK lets see what came out of what you actually said in the first instance. You enter the data on Aus/US/NZ/America/NG. Great that is all I need. I will go on ad panbiogeographic if need be to inform you from something I basically tried to establish is NOT YEC yet I think could/should be topographically but so far has been really only in evolutionary literature so we will be able to avoid between you and I any difference that is wholly attitudinal c/e and stick to the facts of the biogeography of a line that joins collection localites in these regions CIRCUMPACIFIC.In the Manual of Phytogeography, Croizat's first major work he made much connection about this ocean which the NZ crew later broke with AMNH on the baselining of such that Nelson attempted in SYS ZOO to even repudiate Croizat's ACTUAL USE of this notion he quite adroitly kept so connected since the Manual pulication in 48 all the way up thru the early 70s and beyond. I have not followed croizat into his non-english extensions which he initiated so that when the English shall fail his philosopy others continental might find the same landscape represented...and as for me I will just talk about the tailed frog if you really want to dispute TO THE FORM rather than in the space to which I tried to start off and was willing to leave off from.So do you really want me to continue within your thread head on this or would you prefer to answer Schrafinator directly...we would need perhaps a primer on Croizat's use of "local mobile zones" that go thru the mideast from Africa on one side to the Caribean and NZ NG on the other, the track being focused not on the Pacific but from Galapagoes etc. I hate to introduce my own reading of Croizat for I know that others are available if one concentrates differently on differnt taxa. I looked at herps. so it takes a lot of taxa to just talk biogeogarphy but it is possible and the NZs know better than cladists.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-04-2003]

Randdy I would be very happy to do this or attempt to do so so much as it would remand me to re-read Croizat in a beneficial way. I have not the time to dedicate ALL of my work to one poster as I have NEVER found this advantageous. If you really want to communicate this kind of stuff with me write me at my email account or look up my phone.I asked you earlier about why you said "vertebrate" and now you say nothing of this question but ask agains and instead about 13 families of marsupials and the onlye monotremes are descended from" but if you had only said pouch kinds I would not be able to answer in the boat I AM ACUTALLY IN BUT ONLY HYPOTHEITCIALLY and That would have taken to be up to my usual standard actual research on my part which I have been increasingly reluctant to do specially for someone when som many simple points get left behind but in this case as you made aht pouch descend without the outher warmbloods but include the monotremes I will take the easy way out (but please contanct me if you are seriously interested in panbiogeography and other issues biogeographic) that is that contra Gould I AM in a greement with St Hilliare on the need of a different PERSPECTIVE about the playtpus etc. These creatures MADE me THINK of herps and Richard Lewontin when talking about snakes made me think of fish. Obviously there is something wrong here but I know it is not me but I also know that Lewontin is not a monotreme. If you wish to really engage my biological intution you are given free access but it will NOT be possible to give you a measure of track width if we can not agree to how tracks are oriented. At this point you would be doing publishable biogeography and yet instead you asked not in general but in the translation in space and form making while you really needed to stick with the translation irrespective of every truism that live and earth evolve together. Darwin prefers organisms but I can not tell if that is what you meant by including the birds without answering my earlier question about vertebrates. It is true by southern hemisphere bioeography is a bit weak as I left off my 'altercation" with Darlington but then I would begin to be "irrational" to you.The point is that if we are discussing polyphyltetically we may not be able to be as rational than if you simply asked without regard to forma making and just stuck to this issue you raised about to and fro from perhpas the place LInneaus thought this place may have actually been.I know this is not satisfactory to you but I like you would need more time if this is what you really wanted to know. perhaps I would not succeed but I doubt it. The last time I REALLY looked into this specific question you raised I was reading Gould on Burnett and I noticed how GOULD THOUGHT the creatures could have gotten back to one space. Gould then made some reasoning from this position which in answer to you really NEED to be c/e generalized which is how I justify that I have not actually left this behind becuase Gould himself has left more of a mess by NOT simply passing certain problems on. I know that is not an excuse but I am not the watchdog for ALL that Is not happening in biology. I am only one guy.

If by this you mean have I been able to explain all creation and evoltution in any ebXML potential token of the difference of existence, which is WHY (you post), and frequency then even If I would like it to be yes it IS no for you seem to require something rather heroic and superhuman from me.If you really need a DECLARITIVE sentence linking the Noahic Flood and Biogeography I will supply it this time so perhaps you will have a field day trying to link my postings to the history of creationism of local floods and global ones but I warn you to do so as you seemed to have for making a return at this time to my post frequency that exists as we both admit is more than I even have thought. I didnt answer you before because aka Natural Kinds (Kripke (which is not an obscure reference) the H2O whether in the void or on the Earth remands some intelligence on Matchette's (obscure to you? BUT NOT TO ME) "Beneath the quantitatively described and measured interactions of specified regions of the relative world there is a causal and determining structure productive of that interaction and process. The causal substratum is preciesly the realationship of Polarity and thre relative world is disclosed as an enormous totality of manifestations fo this basic fundamental 'category'. Our explication of the Polar relationship entails the prior development of a concept compeltely fudnamental to our theory. The history of Western philosophy originates in the pre-Socratic , Milesian quest for the ultimate physical substratum of the universe. The various answers given to this profound question could provide the basis for an entire hisory of physical chemistry. From the "water" of Thales the founder of the Milesian school"...or the word "ritam" for the ltter 'n'.The answer to your qeustion lies in the DIFFERNCE of Major and Minor Polarity but as we do not know how to avoid not understanding the telic character of parents in the genetic sense DURING a biogeography return point parentally we can not form the natural kind of this water and offspring to know for sure even if the materialism of the natural kind was rejected in the relation of ONLY the Major despite differences in the Minor. The Metaphysics for this was developed by Franklin J. Matchette in a little work titled OUTLINE OF METAPHYSICS THE ABSOLUTE - RELATIVE THEORY. 1949 The Philosophical LibraryMatchette has a quite instructive passage relative to your instance that I admit there is NO global Flood evidence in biogeography where he wrote "Suppose our given fragment to have been a part of New York State. Would not our reconstructed New York demand a further, wider reconstruction which sould set it in the context of the United States, and this again in North America,a nd the Western Hemisphere, the Earth , the Solar System,a nd so on infinitely? For every such inferential reconstruction will itself be a map and every such map is in this sense incomplete and referential, itself but alink in a vast and infinite chain of reference to wider and more inclusive settings. Every such map ends in torn and jagged edges, every such map demands a further inferential completion."I hold that the reading of the global flood refers IF it refers at all to THIS paragarph of Matchettes where one can get no concept of a local flood short of the global flood being "torn". That I assert is nonsensical in terms of the metaphysical force introduced by this reading of post quantum mechanics.In order to imperatively answer your question I would need to analyze creation literature since the 40s for any possible truth of the PHYSICAL FORCE from ZeroAtomUnits which would make me the most influential creationist alive today to whom I am not nor particularly stiving to be so I shall simply make the declaration instead. Part of the reason for avoiding the harder request at this time is that one must be quite certain how one "seeks ends for processes IN the relative is to embark again on an infinte regress A>B>C>D>>>>M>>>> in the inverse direction to that which we have already encounterd in the causal chain." I suppose your rationality despite it not being incumbant on you to answer the more simple questions I asked you in this post will be evidential to some causal chain which is clearly readble in this metaphyiscs say as interpreteing Hume's journey to this edge etc. This sustains at first blush I think any issue of a "local" flood where Matchette said, "The entire panorama of relative existence presents what might be called a vast matrix of Minor Polarities; for between any relative entity of divergence n, and for between any relative entites of divergence n, there exists a vast set of Minor Polarites associated with these differences in divergence."the "trick" is to get the noneuclidean infinite metric DIFFERNCE out of this (which Matchette explictly identified) and into a data base for use in inductive biogeography. At this function we can make the imperative relative to such things as the landbridge etc. but because matter of biological change (biogeographic outlines filled in with acutal tissue from actual taxogeny) is not inanimate in the sense of life from non-life but is as viruses GAVE evidence in support Davenports evolution over MILLIONS OF YEARS molecular complexity we go UPWARD in this S E R I E S not downward as was already DONE relatively. And as this is absolute there IS NOT standing bioegeographic reasons not for the global flood reading of both the science and nature. These sentences are not "in" Matchette but you have pressed me for something of this sort. That is what the answer ?could? look like. I just dont know. If you are still reading this as a form of Kantianism you may make the same mistake a psychiatrist did of asserting that this is a "contradiction in terms". It is not but we would need more than a thread probaly to come to some common understanding. If you went ""downward you would probably have run out of water first.You see Matchette wrote, "Entities, or more generally, relative states draw together, combine because of their inherent energy, - their divergence from the Absolute. It is in this sense that the entire activity and processional character of the relative world is the release of energy, the degradation of energy by the transition of energy from one form to another. To put it differently,the nature of the Zero-Atom Unit as energy-divergence striving for reduction of this energy-divergence, is the source of all the activity in the relative world- this is that we call the influence and effect of MAJOR POLARITY."I have only not said how I did NOT use Millions of years. I think (in other words I did not think with that much time in mind)that my own reading of this metaphysics does not require that some time fram must be wound up to start talking about these things you asked of life. When Matchtte wonders if he as denoted the photon I wonder if he would do better to read Cantor's fundamental series. That physical chemistry difference however will effect the calculation of the energy if this is how you would determine the amount of water in a local vs a global flood. There may be stuff to do here physically but I do not know that it has any relation to biology and locomotion BECUSE in thehistory of science IT WAS THOUGHT that repulsion was a function of conduction and (now you would have to take seriously my many posts...)and you need to think this stuff as well as soon as you must account for any kind difference of hydrogen and oxygen.

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]

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.

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