Distinguishing Baramins

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:

---

It can not be this as this is where I was at when you called for not tabling the point. I didnt know that Nosy an Me really do want the same thing. The work is in progress but is a bit too bslogical so if I could have the mammy razor please... Well something out of this raw short hand WILL be available to be taught onse I get my nose out of its way and work out the remaining techinical issues AND THEN FIGURE OUT the best language to introduce the teaching on an easier to comprehend basis but meanwhile it would be something like this-

​

Creation Biology: Towards a Unification of Baraminology and Mendelism
Google took off a paper by Dr.Kurt P.Wise from DOTankerbergDOTcom which contained a couple of sentences:
"Baraminology is a new field of science. It is the science of baramins- the study of created kinds. Baraminology will ultimately include the identifying, the classifying, and the naming of baramins. At this ponit it is concentrating on how to identify baramins. Classification and naming will come in the course of time."

​

The following terms (adjectives/nounds) have been proposed for baraminic "identification".

​

"baramin"- Marsh
"true lineage" - Remine
"biological trajectory" Wood/Canvanaugh
"qpo, mono, holo,poly, archea,neo"baramins-Wise

​

In the following course of terms "Creationary Systematics" "Discontinuity Systematics" "Baraminology"
-----------------

​

Instead of accepting provisionally archeabaramin and polybaramin I present a polar procedure that does all the identification, classification and naming via one recursive algorithmic comparative thought process by yoking the comparative creation biology making/modeling to source of error detection in dispersal vs vicaraince (tests from cladisitc data sets) so USING baraminic grammer to expose biogeographic prejudice for vicariism that is not wholly taxonomic but is assumed so in the simulation wrong used Mendel's Olby developmental bionomial in the plenum that transversality applies to D'Arcy Thompsonian misrepresentation(s) by Gould in morphometric visualization.
Gilmore p 16 "1. Change of variables In order to describe physical problems in R^n, it is useful to set up a coordinate system (x1x2,...xn). Any coordinate system will do." This book sends the reader a view of a baraminic "coordinate system" of baraminology as a part of Discontinuity Systemataitcs applied Panbiogeographically as part of Creationary Systematics in the orbit of a Copernican Sea Change to a possible issue of age and area relative to selection levels being under the control of the solution of equations Lewontin has elsewhere expressed as Coupled Differential Equations of involution.
Gilmore p 16 "If another coordinate system x`1, x`2,...x`n) isestablished" (D`Arcy Thompson Morphomometric all Affine Geometry Objects)" it si possible to transform back and forth between them. So BOTH creation discipline and the disciplinary stricuture of evolutionary theory are used to further this science passing the Lemon Test of the Supreme Court USA. The legal battles between creationists and evolutionists reduces to finding any point p element of R^n at which the Jacobian determinant XXXXX is nonzero.

​

This happens both by the current stage of baraminology transitioning from identificationj to naming and classification and because different cardinalites of infinity divides in subjective use of the morphometric tangent referecence space of any clumped or unclumped morphospace the descriptive (value (without time judgements)) of the catastrophe set, elementally useful used using, infinite induction across the binomail difference of hybrid OR parent PER topography ON EARTH and a change in the Number Class to seperate a zero PLANE grammer of the surface (layer) in real space and time under form-making adjustibility by the kind of biogeography, that is, is different for each taxogeny (by telic means but not necessarily end ontologically) identifiable baramincally with limit point qualification lexicology.

​

This allows a means to determine if statistical tests of Vicariism may have wrongly been done by an all taxonomic vicarrism (transversality across ANY metric) and should instead (not done because of c/e transcendental illusion not being made empirical) have rejected chance dispersal if... The search fo rthe seperatrix however is confined to interfinger if you will any energy of the topological not topographic space of not metaphysical Matchette 'force' of two limit point baraminic element derived SETS (the qualification can lead to quatities should the impression be pressed and not rubbed) even if tranfinite pure math may go another way. These measures"" beyond mrophometrics are presented instantiated by two different number class ordinations from the same database warehouse so crossing only in their geometry (by ordertypes?) the obuject of Rene Thom's BIOPHILOSOPHY not bifurcation math nor physics of complexity.

​

The limit point sets of the differently manifested kinds of baramins in terms of Mendel difference of the country vs garden in hybrids vs parents categories statistically biometric are "read" from number class "pointer' in the electronic version written first and foremost by the baraminologist not the hierarhcihc philosopher of biology without influence directly of statistical testing in the dispersal vs vicariance expermental math unless for instance the tropism involved be actually seperated from the actual gradients so correlated int he same path analysis of cause.

​

Topograpy is generated when the relation of all the baramins (to the polybaramin) is combined witht he interfingered catastrophe set representation of ALL the cricisims of birfucatable applications and IS modeleable assesing Cantor's A,B,C,D,...L real Numbers when the math of a limit of real number sequences is dependent with the limit point of a set instead biologically is linked by cause or correlationof Lebseque "collections". This still permits a "smoothing " of the Galton 'polygon" metaphor and permits indeed by turn Sewall Wright's shifiging balanace theory out of the same data evetiaarily but might suggest reasons to disbelieve species selection while also suggest in a progressive research campagain that compostes panbiogeography and the phsycis and engineering of catatrophe set theory that may be revealing a source of varation left undetected in the datat due to the international resolution of the Mendelic - Biometric difficutlty of isolation from a lingeage continuum. The continual seperation of baraminc lexic grammetology however may not show that some change to tcurrent use of "mutation" is biology is called for. That will depend of on the fits of the data to and in thetwo model approach not a debate about the physical naturalism that is matterially equivalent in the form that remains despite biological change.

​

This result is achieved by having the neobaramin concept contain both signs and symbols for sets but only the symbols are used to demarcate what is presently but choice of "delay vs maxwell" conventions THE CATASTROPHE THOERY SEPERATRIX (presently for any future Mendelism) via rejection of archeabaramin in the algorithmic coding of the loop from polybaramin ( the polybaraminc 3-Space(shortcutted in Gilmore instance p588 "In spite of this, the idea of mapping functions into Euclidean spaces R^n in order to generate a topology is useful and appealing. We use this approach as a hueristic tool. )) to topology via the topography of all baramins. There is no presumption that possibly more than one orbit of life is involved in this program as baraminological lexos seperates (via phylogenetic discontinuties) the database collectivity rather than attempts to unify all the data into one heirarchical anscetralizing directory tree-lineage.

​

The grammer for classifiying, identifying and and naming baraminology comes about by inverting the topology of Wise aned Remine as per Friar's understanding.

​

through a catastrophe set instantiation of the topography which creates the signs and symbols of the terms' lexix writing space making a difference of limit point set signs and catastrophe set symbols

​

and providing a program to find the seperatrix only on the lexic boundary in the terms' grammetology.

​

I have not got it to the point of developing the texts to be cited.
  —Brad McFall

---

I responded with the following:

quote:

---

Brad,
Just a few questions:

​

1. What evidenciary justification do you have for assuming created kinds (baramins) when constructing taxonomy?

​

2. How will you deal with the progressive movement into separate baramins (as they are understood from YEC lit today) as seen in the fossil record? Example: Reptile to mammal series with jawbones becoming middle ear ossicles, Archeopteryx.

​

3. Does your curriculum rely heavily on extant species in current ecosystems? If so, why is the fossil record and extinct species ignored or played down?

​

4. Is catastrophism, most notably the Noah's Flood, important to your model and curriculum, or is punctuated catastrophism (meteor strikes eg) with intervening periods of uniformity to be used?

​

5. Why should we use baramins when they have yet to be defined?

​

I think you posted something similar on another thread, but I may have misunderstood your overall direction (evo or creation). Personally, I think that using a baramin lens to look at current speciation may lead to local baramins but may miss the boat when genetics and the fossil record are brought into play. Vestiges and atavisms would further blur the lines between current baramins as seen through the lens of uniform evolutionary lines with common ancestery going further back than baramins may want to allow.

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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 websiteholobaramin: 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.