|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Distinguishing Baramins | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
This is a spin off from the Education forum:
Brad McFall states his ideas on a science education curricula based on the idea of baramins (created kinds):
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
I responded with the following:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
I am reading up on Croizat right now and will formulate a response after that (may take a couple days, who knows). In the meantime, I found an article on biogeography that you might be interested in (here). I have a feeling you have probably read it, but who knows. Only read the first couple of paragraphs but it seems cogent to the discussion. Anyway, if you don't hear back right away, don't fret.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Brad,
I'm still a little foggy on how you are going to differentiate between baramins and standard (evo) taxonomy. I get the idea that you are going to study the morphological differences between species/groups and use biometry to try and sort these groups out into an ordered taxonmy. Maybe you could list short hypotheses or predictions for each case (baramins and std taxonomy). Or perhaps a simple plot using characteristics A, B, C, etc and show how you will use biometry to study these characteristics among the groups. I just need something a tad more concrete, some sort of practice problem you might say. I tend to be much more of a visual/kinesthetic person. The first diagram was great, but maybe a little more detail within a hypothetical data set.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Brad,
I am getting the following information from this site. I am not that familiar with panbiogeography, but the site I listed above seems like a great introductory site. Anyway, just to get definitions and the such out of the way (and for the benefit of lurkers):-------------- From Merriam-Webster Online Vicariance: fragmentation of the environment (as by splitting of a tectonic plate) in contrast to dispersal as a factor in promoting biological evolution by division of large populations into isolated subpopulations -- called also vicariance biogeography. My own Def.Dispersal: Movement of a small subpopulation into a new geographic area and in which subsequent evolution causes the formation of a new species. ---------------- I think you are arguing that baramins can be defined through the lens of panbiogeography, or vicariance. One example I found that might be helpful are 6 species of scorpions from the genus Opisthacanthus found in Africa and South America. The track and baseline are as follows with the different colors representing different species: image from this page This example would seem to indicate separation due to tectonic movement of the two continents with subsequent dispersal (I think). I would also guess that these six species would be a holobaramin (a complete group of species within a kind) in your theory. From this view I can understand where you are coming from, but just to make sure see if I get the rest of your argument right. First, the holobaramin (staying with scorpions for now) microevolved into the six species found on the two continents. It doesn't matter if the speciation occurred before or after separation due to tectonic plate shifts. What is important is that species dispersal is limited compared to separation due to tectonics. You can look at the holobaramin as a whole even though they are on two different continents and describe the species dispersal in light of isolated subpopulations (some local, some intercontinental). The second problem with the evo argument is the lack of strong transitional fossils to link obvious clades together. In other words, a discontinuous tree where the ends of the branches are well defined but the earliear branching is vague. If we were to assume that this discontinuity is real and not lack of potentially observable evidence, then we could look at the above example as a holobaramin that was separated by tectonics. Your problem with Wise, who I think argued for continent separation during the catastrophism of the flood, is that it argues against the subscribed baselines in that an ongoing population needs to be present during the tectonic activity. I know that specific examples lack overall explanatory power, but maybe you could comment on my reading of your overall theses in respect to the track and baseline I listed. I'm pretty sure I haven't understood the finer points yet (biometry calculations especially), but I am getting closer. Like I said in a previous post, I need to see and feel the small ideas before I can tie them together into the big Idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Brad,
I meant to link the above post to one of your posts so it would show up on your message replies list. Hope to hear back.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Good, I am happy that we are on the same page, except for the small details no doubt. I find it interesting to contrast the two ideas of geology vs dispersal, although I don't believe that they are mutually exclusive ideas or theories. A nice mixture of the two could explain quite a bit about current species diversity in relation to locality.
The only problem I see with your current hypothesis or philosophy is the reliance on baramins. You could counter and point to my reliance on current evolutionary taxonomy as well, but for baramins to succeed they would have to use current taxonomy as a null hypothesis. It would be different if current tax was just blooming instead of well supported; if there was a lack of evidence then it would be useless as a competing theory. This is probably what you were talking about with "sister groups" and a two-front educational curriculum. I think we can both see the necessity for a dual approach if baramins are going to have meaning. However, the inspiration for using baramins seems to me to be contrived and reliant on religious dogma (comparable to Newton describing gravity before the apple hit his noggin). If we had never read Genesis, would we even be talking about baramins or created kinds? Would we be talking about catastrophism vs uniformism? At least you are trying to make an attempt at justifying pre-conceptions in a way that starts from scratch as opposed to ICR's tactic of trashing data before it hits the computer. Anyway, I know you are aware of my possible refutations of atavisms and jawbones. My overall argument (which you might have labelled AGE) is even though cladistics and taxonomy may be discontinuous under the microscope, it is not as discontinuous when looked at through binoculars. That is, transitionals are lacking but the ones we do have fill in enough gaps to link the major groups of species together. This linking is consistent with backwards extrapolated timespans and with the overall theory of evolution as it stands today. And to all those that don't understand Brad's posts, read more scientific primary literature. I'm not judging, but Brad's style of writing is very reminiscent of some of the microbiology papers I have read. They're more organized, yes, but the condensation of ideas and the dependence on knowing the scientific background in the area of interest is quite similar. In my earlier post I have a link to a panbiogeography site that helped me quite a bit (I had very little understanding of vicariance before hand) and will hopefully clear up some of the terms that Brad uses. Beyond that, we all have the long task of reading everything that Brad has read, a task even I will probably avoid. I'm not trying to defend Brad, he does that well enough himself, just trying to help those that want to understand what Brad is getting at. PS- I didn't mean to refute your Alps with my scorps. If anything I was trying to support your theory, if at least for one post. I wish more creationists (not you) would at least learn about evolution before trying to knock it down. This might cut down on the number of posts around here, but at least the conversations would be a lot more interesting (as this thread is to me). [This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 11-24-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
To save everyone else haveing to reproduce that work (or missing out on the whole thread) could you explain the terms being introduced? Vicariance and panbiogeography for example. I'll try, but don't take my definitions as scripture, I could be slightly wrong on a few. Also, check out the site I mentioned in message 41.------- Vicariance: From Merriam Webster:fragmentation of the environment (as by splitting of a tectonic plate) in contrast to dispersal as a factor in promoting biological evolution by division of large populations into isolated subpopulations -- called also vicariance biogeography. My own description: geologic disturbances or intrusions into the ecosystem separate subpopulations of a species and subsequent evolution changes those two populations into new species. For example only (and from dim memory so it may not be true), the Congo river seems to divide chimps, lowland gorillas, and bonobos from each other. The formation of the Congo river could have isolated a singles species in three areas and subsequently three new species formed, ie chimps, gorillas, and bonobos. In my example of scorpions, the break up of Pangea spliet the scorpion population with one subpopulation in S. Amer. and the other in Africa. Panbiogeography (my own description): This is an area of study that stresses locality and vicariance as a major evolutionary process. It's not a separate theory of evolution, but rather a different mechanism than dispersal (which I will get to). Panbiogeography tries to tie the appearance of geological structures with the emmergence of new species. Also, a species affinity for a certain type of environment is thought vary little which keeps a species tied up in one general area. Dispersal theories argue something different, as will be discussed next. Dispersal (my own description): This theory is different than vicariance in that a species physically transports itself to a new area instead of the area moving it. That is, mutations occur that allow a subpopulation to cross a geologic or physiologic boundary into a new ecosystem. Once this subpopulation establishes itself genetic drift causes the formation of a new species. Sometimes people call this a founding population, kind of like the Puritans coming to America at Plymouth Rock. Also, dispersal can happen by chance as well, such as iguanas floating on logs and landing in the Galapogos islands. However, movement of the species is stressed instead of geology cordoning off subpopulations. In both mechanisms, isolation is the key to diversification but the cause of isolation is somewhat different. For definitions of the different types of baramins try looking at this page. Here are the quick definitions from the website holobaramin: The holobaramin is all and only those known living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship. It is an entire group believed to be related by common ancestry. monobaramin: a group containing only organisms related by common descent, but not necessarily all of them. (A group comprising one entire holobaramin or a portion thereof). apobaramin: A third baraminic term is apobaramin (Greek apo, away from), which is a group consisting of the entirety of at least one holobaramin (Wise, 1999—2000). It may contain a single holobaramin or more than one holobaramins. But it must contain the entirety of each of the one or more holobaramins within it. (note: this one is a little confusing to me, in common parlance it is all the apples and all the oranges, all of one complete set and all of a different set) polybaramin: employed for another mixture of unrelated organisms. It has been defined as a group (two or more specimens) consisting of part of at least two holobaramins. It may be any of numerous hodgepodges which could contain holobaramins, monobaramins, apobaramins, and individual specimens. The website has diagrams that clear things up a bit. And also, I don't ascribe to these species groupings, I just want people to be aware of their definitions. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024