Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Distinguishing Baramins
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 3 of 80 (67460)
11-18-2003 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Loudmouth
11-18-2003 3:18 PM


electronic damper
Dan wrote about this
quote:
Re: subtext
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One additional question:
What age group are you looking to teach? For instance, I'm assuming Brad's lesson plan above is not intended for our nation's public schools.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
and so as to provide a "buffer" back to this issue I will answer that post here else the rest-aside from that which Loudmouth provided will be continued back there (BSM).
I hope to continue to show in response to Loudmouth, Zephyr feel FREE to come on over even though I already answered you before...
Yes DAN this is simple stuff and will be re-wrtten for the Public Schools if I have a way. It will be EASIER to use it as an example for the K-12 then to get just one more creationist idea accepted AND taught on the university level. That can only come with more time. My suspicion would be that when baraminology has moved OUT of the phase of identifying it will start to become part of standard teaching in classification when not taxonomy. In the mean time as baraminologists do their work it can be introduced UNIFIED with a particular part of hypothesis testing in evolutionary theory without dealing with ALL the broader issues I will start to hopefully do more than address in this thread. If one is only interested in teaching baraminology wihout my take then the new textbook available this year may proove helpful. I dont know as I have not read it.
One can get this book on line see
Zephr was using baraminology to argue against creation science itself but the topic was to present a curriculum and so He was rather more than me not on point of the topic as but a response but I am PASSING baraminology as an argument to the parameters in the discussion of vicariance and dispersal. Loudmouth questions this. However my work on this subject today may be limited to Z's valid response in so far as the man "Pritchard" still substitues in my psyche for the current difference (if any) between Friar and Wise on *thinking* of turtle baramins. We all know turtles are not primates I hope. So, today I may not address the question of what kind of a kind mankind and apes are or might be but Zephyr could likely figure out what I will or may write on the topic if he tries his head on baraminology. He may only want to use it against creationism himself, I dont know.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Loudmouth, posted 11-18-2003 3:18 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 80 (67488)
11-18-2003 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Loudmouth
11-18-2003 3:20 PM


quote:
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.
Thank you Loudmouth and I hope that the admins are above board with all this...You even provided me a target for the entire thread GOOD JOB! I Know I can deal and discuss your issue of local baramins vs LONGER TIMES than creationists generally want to appear in fact, in fact as you mention in the next sentence I did not yet quote here. First some answers and feel free to modify your questions however you would like,
1.- I will not be using or even suggesting using barminological data in exclusion of any kind of systematic procedure by any kind of taxonmist but I will use the taxa created in creationary systematics as an outsource test of error bias in the question of dispersal vs vicariance that by the very tests done could more finely discrimiate geographic vicariism and taxonomic vicariism which such an "outside" database warehousing warehousing THE SAME SOMA. The "objects" in the data base will be electronically maintained by different database structures however with my preference for the evolutionists's stuff (I am going to simply this representation into creation and evolution while if anyone has learned anything from my posts it is that there is no such bipolar reality - it is only an idealization to get the point across, or an illusion if you will) is to use affine geometry but the baramin database will flesh out a difference of limit point sets and sets of real number sequences that have limits. The ability to actualy graph in the baramins before the morphometric equivalent will occurr because baraminology is a rather limited field and has only discussed so far a small amount of nature's diversity. So I DO NOT presume or suppose that the classifications that come out of baraminology "justify" rejection of any other "scheme". Lord knows current taxonomy not only has procedural differences of absolute opnion but also national differences in implementation. The reason I will be be potentiall promoting discontinuity systematics is to further panbiogeography and NOT to merely simply the current state of the art of vicaraince vs dispersal BECUASE THIS STATE exists at the expense of a part of evoutionary thinking IN CROIZAT and a SUBSET of the GEOGRAPHY that post-Remine patterns of baramin DIFFERENCES metricis if the empirics be afforded statistically.
2-I will deal with the fossil record in the Croizat truism that fossil and living distribution are not contradictory. In particular I will be using the attempt in the Principia to view DISPERSAL shfited westward from distributions in any collection localities of fossils and living records alike. In order to move in this direction Croizat had provided (an unused) TERTIARIZATION that I will test Wise's position on Pre-Flood biogeography with where either the Permian is the actual geology or Ogliocene/Miocene is the conservative effort unless I have knoweldge of a better geological seriation. This method of this particular part of Croizat's stuff in particular has to do when hybrization (bottom up baramin creation in current lexos of speciation by bararminologists) and reproductive isolation is BOTH stopped aand let pass (in form making)(not necessarily space and time)Therefore there is still an issue with time to resolve. If the fossils help out. All the better. Currently there is more talk of steve's punc eq than deciding which taxa may or may not (if a baramin is more a family or a species or top down from the BIBLE etc) being isolated continue to change in SYMPATRY or what Croizat named "overlap". Nelson refused to pay homage to Croizat's baselines and MAIN MASSINGS which in this little work up is only a point in the Middle of Africa for any two masses relevant to for instance allopatry vs sympatry neontological to any Gould large time claim, Yes you need to do and understand BOTH creation and evolution to do this biological extension beyond the NZ instantiation of panbiogeography. There is a lot of work here. Only the simplest will be extracted in the teaching of both creation and evolution after we know what part does the best to raise science as a whole.
3. I am getting tired so I wil be cutting my explantions a little short for the rest of today. This will depend in part on how the baraminological community accepts my work. I have already posted snail wisesome things to ICR on my understanding of baramins. I will be pressing for the particular use of the carabid bettles in the Alps when it comes to using my model of an inverted topology of the current set theory of the relation of mono, apo and holo baramins. I am not certain Friar analyzed the turtles correctly but I need to think more about it all. But as for what kinds to use with the kids...well I havent thought of that yet.
4-Wise isnt scheduled to speak on preflood postflood biogeography until this summer and I am not deep enough into the acutal thought processes of baraminolgists to get my own answer which may be possible by a little more research on my part. The Croizat exemplar brings the ICE AGE into focus but I dont know how this will interface with that climetological aspect of creationism as of yet. I am going to be doing all I can with the topology and topography and hopefully staying within the bounds evolutionarily of topobiology to remand all the patternable answers as to the model parameters but it is possible that the facts may "force" discussion into this area. That will not influence the using of a combined evolution and creation for the students but only how tight the interaction between creationism and evolutionism can become. We already know it is loose to non-existent. I hope to change all of that.
5-I am not sure what you mean here- really- just like Nosy didnt understand me. You are aware I take it of defintions of monobaramins, holobaramins, apobaramins, polybaramins? I will be suggesting a Catastrophe Theory panbiogeographic limitpoint infinity grammer to get defintions that does not rely on the current view of Wise's, I think, of top down and bottom up by getting a little more topologically clinematic than is presently logically used. It may even be possible to use this view of baraminology to mend the difference of Poincare and Croizat. That in and of it self would be enough to capitulate teaching Baraminology in college as well. Some of this depends a bit on how the age of information becomes the age of biology and is out of both the creationists and the evolutionists control.
I'll have to do take a break and do a little more work before I can answer your final question about vestiges and atavisms but by then at least I will know whether I am talking to you about a plant of an animal I hope at least. Best Brad. God Bless. Oh, I almost forgot- what makes this all possible, the most important thought, is that panbbiogeographers havent been able to decide how a width of a track is to be understood or determined. Baraminology will continue to exist in the distance this measure provides for sure. It will exist on Creationist bases as well. Please learn. Evolutionists in general ignore Croizat on first pass and Creationists even more. I even think I recall now someone prominent evolutionist making this observation? I dont feel like searching for it. It seems like it is only politics that prevents this simple reading from becoming required writing in the schools. It takes a lot of social effor to get a simple educational result. We are not here yet.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Loudmouth, posted 11-18-2003 3:20 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Loudmouth, posted 11-18-2003 5:34 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 6 of 80 (67500)
11-18-2003 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by JIM
11-18-2003 5:17 PM


When the door was a jar.
Cladistics never was jargon to me personally. I simply didnt buy either the particular computer instantiations or the Croizat dispute on Hennig. Barmaminology is only "jargon" as long as one is not in possesion of the process one used to DO it. Cladistics even on this view would be LESS jargon not more as it really was only a matter of being in possession of the computer programs that output clades. You do have to do some thinking that I will probably be able to show was already done by Croizat by 61 that Remine picked up on from Marsh earlier or contemporary with Croizat. I will not be demanding on use Wise top down to get this perspective that is shared. It will be important to DO TAXONOMY, the benefit of baraminology is to provide soma DISCONTINUTITES which is not what phenetics, cladistics or phylogentiecs NECESSARILY remands and retains. The point is that there is a lexical seperation beyond what is used by evolutionists. This provides a "sister" group test of GEOGRAPHIC vicariism once applied exclusions of all taxonomic variisms are id'd and kept out of the data. The statistical signifance needs to be established but this does not mean that BIBLICAL CReationism is counter indicated as JIM indicates. These terms ARE NOT IMPRECISE but the USE of them are not in total agreement , By yoking them directly to tests of dispersal goals means that in the continued naming etc of baramins not only will the evolutionary intereaction with creationism get stronger but by common discovery creationism will itself improve. I am not going to respond to any and every negative a post and I am certainly nt going to try to respond to every one who wants a piece of Croizat's balacony that I can afford nowadays for this known "never a serious biologist" that was an Italian joke perhaps you missed it. Croizat was more serious than Mayr. I know this by experience. Cummings notions of typology may not be correct but I have not given the Aristotlian relation much Galelian thought on the SAME LINE as of yet. And Admin it is not me that creates "ramblings" it is trying to deal with posts like this that fills in that color law.
Yes, "significant holistic similarity or difference" as in a refined baraminology at present (2003)is mere jargon without the set being transfinite.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-18-2003]
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-25-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by JIM, posted 11-18-2003 5:17 PM JIM has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 9 of 80 (67509)
11-18-2003 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Loudmouth
11-18-2003 5:34 PM


It looks familiar but it has been a while. This may have been the text that tipped me off to Stoddart whom I can not disagree with more about on Croizat (but Stoddart's writing helped me work out my own difference of opinion with Simon Levin's view of ecosystem math). Take your time. I am not ready to answer Z yet he provided a nice hook for me to keep my hat on until I am ready to fish for some green peas. I think that may be the suymposium issue that displayed the breath of what NZders were doing with panbiogeography. If that is the correct memory this is a "light weight" discussion of the topic.
On panbiogeography relevant in this thread I take it indeed as Croizat wrote "It is likely that I have handled as many records of the distribution of plants and animals as most of my peers ever have.The result of my experience is that records are to biogeography what lenses are to optical instruments." Principia Botanica (recognizing Atlantic European Distributions) p. 1420. I hope this finishes off the breadth of Lizard breath's forked tongue should He/sHe not reply?
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-19-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Loudmouth, posted 11-18-2003 5:34 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 11 of 80 (67539)
11-18-2003 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by mark24
11-18-2003 7:20 PM


Mark I am "suggesting" using phylogenetic discontinuity via cladistics vs panbiogeography to purport to seperate taxonomic vicariism and geographic vicariism. The scope may not be as broad as your suggestion but it is comphrenendable and not the same apprehension. If you do not support a rejection of Neslon failure to use baselines and main massings you could legitimate MISS this logic. But this notion worked up to a particular example I bet could get published in Systematic Biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mark24, posted 11-18-2003 7:20 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by mark24, posted 11-18-2003 7:40 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 13 of 80 (67557)
11-18-2003 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by mark24
11-18-2003 7:40 PM


someday I'll update this into a projective drawing
Mark I am done with new stuff for today. I pick it up later. This is how I view the baramin to "look" short of topological neighborhood changes of the restrained "biological character space" to be integrated with the "incomprehnsible"Provine views of Wright's "adaptive landscape".
########################################################
###############################################polybaramin
##########################################
#####################################
(M)#########*@A@*######(M)
(O)######*###@P@###*###(O)
(N)####*#####@O@#####*#(N)
(O)#*H#######@B@#####H*(O)
(B)#*O#######@A@#####O*(B)
(A)#*L#######@R@#####L*(A)
(R)#*O#######@A@#####O*(R)
(A)##*#######@M@####*##(A)
(M)###*######@I@##*####(M)
(I)########*#@N@*######(I)
(N)###############################
Nested group features hierarchically may not exist but that is an empirical issue which is not going to change the topological presentation of my representation in Baraminic thought. The APOBARAMIN has two degrees of freedom in one neighborhood. The HOLOBARAMIN has two independent one degree of freedom neighborhoods. The MONOBARAMIN has two independent two degree of freedom neighborhoods. The polybaramin is a possibly discontinuous neighborhood (Cantor showed continuous motion is nonetheless possible in discontinuous spaces) of unknown degrees of freedom IN Eucledian 3-SPACE. This view inverts the set understanding of Frair on the terms; but I have yet to work this into the panbiogeography of turtles having only a chamelon eye with it for any Euphorb. The boundaries of the terms as Frair intended them can be seen at
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-24-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mark24, posted 11-18-2003 7:40 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by AdminNosy, posted 11-18-2003 8:18 PM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 16 by Loudmouth, posted 11-19-2003 3:55 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 17 of 80 (68077)
11-20-2003 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by mark24
11-18-2003 7:40 PM


let me know when it makes sense
Dear Mark24,
There are FIVE steps involved in my thought process that I admit sometimes short cutting when I cant keep up with the posting cycle on the board. The ladder I use in this thread is not something that is so general that it excludes other(s)’ topics but when as in the case of the somewhat recent exchange with Randy my knowledge of these steps is substituted for YEC bashing I get/got somewhat hot.
Step1- Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion
#######Step 2- Biogeography before a bottom up baraminology ( see Wise on baraminology) in a topographic topological and or topobiological evaluation of ecology for instance. Creationism does not necessarily survive in this colony.
#################Step3 Vicariance vs. dispersal
#if vacariance is supported#########Step 4- Can a conclusion about geographic vacariism be made.
The RESULT was./would be/is Taxonomic vicariism MUST be excluded.
The LOGIC absolutely has been- @If not @-chance dispersal could still be misapplied or mismodelled no matter the assumption of a relation of distribution and dispersal.
After these four or five steps in the process there comes this result that Baraminology (even if a few taxonomic errors come with it into the data base (those will be dealt with latter on ecological, collection locality bases etc)) contributes to but if the logic rules against the indication of cause from the correlation so achieved (SO FAR I HAVE TO FIND ANY ONE HERE ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND, FOLLOW, AND FOLLOW UP on what this achievement CAN BE- When Keith spoke in general it went nowhere), there is still an option to reject the creationist influence in the experimental philosophy (some what but fully indicated by a response (but as we shall see is not really directed to the context I am operating the content of this thread number wise in, the numbers use comes BEFORE the logical question).
Now in writing up the simpler version of this for school children all of this gearing needs to be kept out of the presentation until the student grasps the route or path the work goes in and then IMMEDIATELY this background needs to come forward. In FACT — if vicariance is supported then there could be a causation of phenetic distance and intra baraminc distance (see BSG). The time of minimal Spanning trees vertex polymorphisms my map to baraminic volume (I gave a 2-D white wash of this inter alia) geometries (next I will show how to construct this geometry rigorously) no matter the local topology the vicariance spanned topographically. But it is wide open how to divide the cause of rotation and revolution provided certain possibilities in the polybaramin not the holobarmin?? remain unresolved. So green guys complaint is founded only after all the English expressions are exhausted. I will actually USE Croizat word inconsistent if you all are going to nit pick. This is not meant to discourage you from climbing Mt Baramin it is only a peneplain high in my topography.
Using this as a plausible means of hypothesis testing in the relation of ancestral areas and ages of vicariance biogeography (Yes Loudmouth I know I have more to address from you) THE TRUTH of statements that depend on Croizat et. Al. SYS ZOO 74(classical introduction of no-centers-of-origin biogeography) depend on the THOUGHT process in Creationary Systematics. This may make the creators of project-Steve cringe but any else short of a law suit seems to me to be simply READ by students of my generation writing from what another generation passed on. How long the dinos will remain in Zimmer’s and not my adapation is any ones’ fall.
My understanding so far of Discontinutiy Systematics had me emphasize the polybaramin over the holobaramin but if Frair’s turtle view holds (more on this in response to Zephyr) up metrically no matter the singularites for the panbiogeographic primate then I could be proven wrong in my simulation of time about which kind of baramin is used in the process of changing vicaraince biogeography to a protocol more in line with what the Nzlanders have induced than the current electronics of the mapping THAT DOES NOT SIGN OFF ON A PARTICULAR DIGITAL SIG OF CROIZATS VICARiiSM but indeed DOES coopt or expat the TERM for something that is physical and not biological.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mark24, posted 11-18-2003 7:40 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mark24, posted 11-20-2003 7:39 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 18 of 80 (68080)
11-20-2003 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Loudmouth
11-19-2003 3:55 PM


Re: someday I'll update this into a projective drawing
I had said,
quote:
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
but I am still setting up what this AREA is that comes next in this wording- you are concerned about this AGE and I will get to it. If I am not mistaken there is only a techinal computer programming issue about to work this this different use of soma systems. There is NO doubt that it will be this working model, once it is done, will be what comes into the hottest line of fire just as each better cladistic creating alogrithm is but that is the actual doing of the acutal science. The point that I have yet to get over here is that real science can be done by embracing both creation and evolution. I know you are receptive to hear to it but seeing how the logic itself of the possibliyt fell on deaf ears I can do nothing but "hard code" the whole thing. and unlike evolution or creation takes more hours in a week than society has for even sleeping. The citation from Gilmore was to represent how someone else established an transform between two different systems of ordinations. The book is "Catastrophe Theory For Scientists and Engineers" by Robert Gilmore 1981 Dover Publications- I have not done a lot of research on how to idealize a general morphomometric represenation of any "phenotype" (I am on Rohlf's e-mail list) but I am fairly certain about how I am going to depict the Baramin realtionships. There will only be two phenomenolgical objects (there may be a modification of this as Mendelism gets worked into the picture with acutal information from bottom up baraminology of hybrids etc). These are limit point-sets and sets of solution of the problem this Gilmore book presents. I have an unique Idea how to do the solution within the GEOGRAPHIC boundary that my picture of the barmamins brought to mind and I am trying to work out all the implications of that for it would be more likely to actually be a part of catastrophe theory if it works than just a sophisticated soma graphing software. I cant say I feel like Einstein with the last step before using Remanns math but it is much like that here. In any event the boundaries of the different kinds of baramins will "interfinger" their limit points where the set theory representaton is topologically congruent and depending on the way the interfingering occurrs different elementary catastrophes would be found to underlie the projection to the polybaramin if I am correct. That is the idea. Even if this idea can not work. It does not mean that the logic of USING creationism to DO vicariance vs dispersal does not exist it only means that the particular way I am going about it may not.
I am almost finished with Zephyrs post and then I will come back to yours before I go on over to the logic thread that rasied an issue not irrelevant that I must at least address.
I sort of "rambled" this response because I put off finishing the Zepyr post as I want to look into the internet stuff on baraminology a little bit farther than I have gone so far and I have only a certain amount of memory to make up for all the millions of points that must be still in dispute. Who knows maybe I can become even wiser than the fool I already am.
In the Zephyr post I will start to discuss turtles and I could more than happily work them into a particular "hypothetical" but my target is TIME K. Wise used or is going to use to discuss archea baramins neo wise with biomic information collection. As will also come out in that post the missing information that could be used to attempt to "Crash" my whole system of thought may be available with Marmorops of SA so that perhaps is the evolutionists taxa of hypothetical choice. What genome I will be able to come up with to use if that continues to seem to me to be the fleshy difference will likely NOT be a catus needle but I really dont have a better scope on what kinds are involved yet this is a better narrowing of the choice of diversity influential in the discipline than I had when I first moved with you over to this post thread head.
I will be using Croizat Principia Botanica p 1483 "Working here toward a preliminary clarification of the terms of question, let us assume that the taxonomic fornula, so to speak, of form A is expressed by a sum of characters a + b +c +d + e; that of form B by a sum of characters a + b' +c + d + e'. The two forms, A and B, are accordingly the same in regard of characters a, c,d, and come apart by characters b/d', e/e'." One may think that the letter "d" in "d'" is a typo for another - B but let us think about this first. This has to be worked into Gilmore's notion of R^n coordinate systems. That is not a trivial programming exercise but need not answer Mark24 for Mayr on cladistic analysis vs cladistic classification.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-22-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Loudmouth, posted 11-19-2003 3:55 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Brad McFall, posted 12-24-2003 11:40 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 21 of 80 (68122)
11-20-2003 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by mark24
11-20-2003 7:39 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
You do not accept that cladistics exists at the expense of dissemination of Croizat's method working then? If that is how you feel just ditch the witch's f and let the feather fall. I can not address you directly then (here on EvC (but we could talk about the history of biology for instance in ways that others do not have the experience to address) because the aspect of evolution thinking that I am crictical of for c/e debates, $relies$ on a minority view of cladistics I would suppose then describes how you thought of it. You can reject my starting point IN THE WORK as will likely be the kind of criticism I will get as soon as this stuff gets out of EvC and I appreciate that. I am not saying who or how this stuff should actually be promoted in the social reality of c-e. I hope by then this site can find a middle ground.
And to give you a specific cladistic example means to USE an acutal cladistic program just as Loudmouth asked for an acutal demonstration of the phenotypic transformation. THAT IS ALL I was trying to do at Cornell. I have not the resources and the point I am making here is that evolutionists blocked me from contributing. Slowly, on my own time I am getting the work done, but no one pays me and only a few you "guys" out here, encourge me. The error in creating the TREE is the issue and you will find that I will be using Graph theory of minimal spanning tress INSTEAD of tree structures. Technical dissagrement will arise in addition to that which I was discussing with Loudmouth as to why the AREAS that the "trees" cross (process of "resolving" a clade) should be framed in the strucutre of a tree or not. My work will be done WITHOUT them so as to free the metric FROM THE MORPHOMETRIC tangent reference space not the topographic topology unless molecular biology of topobiology FORCES otherwise (You got frustrated before you found out the kind of evidence that defeat my system) but I have not figured out what is a mathmatical expression for this. I dont even see a incompelete or inconsistent error in this regard. If someone understands what I am saying and THEN shows I am wrong that is something else altogether critical and a welcome event should it also occurr. Please dont get frustrated. THIS IS SCIENCE. And I am doing it in as close to "real Time" as I can. Deny this if you will. I wont gripe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mark24, posted 11-20-2003 7:39 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by mark24, posted 11-20-2003 8:01 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 22 of 80 (68124)
11-20-2003 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by NosyNed
11-20-2003 7:48 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Thanks NOSY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 11-20-2003 7:48 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 26 of 80 (68154)
11-20-2003 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by mark24
11-20-2003 8:01 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
One- track width is not defined - if it was I could respond IN THE POSITIVE
Barring Croizat BOY -O,
I answer in the negative which can even turn the logic around depending on the orinetation of the track ALONE as to Gould asserting "Structure of Evolutionary Theory" p 1175 "In a brilliant opening move, Dobshansky began the third (1951) edition of his founding document for the Synthesis, GENETICS AND THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, by recognizing the diversity of modern organisms, and the striking discontinuityies within this plethora of form, as the central problem of evolutionary biology - at a time when most collegues would surely have cited modes of continuous transformation, or mechanisms for changes in gene frequencies, within single populations instead. (Despite this unconventiality in subject and level of focus, Dobshanksy opted for a traditonal selectionsit explanation by tilting the first subsection of his book: "diversity and adaptiedness.")..."Furthermore"p1177"the adaptive peaks and valleys are not interspesed at random. "Adjacent" adaptive peaks are arranged in groups, which may be likened to mountain ranges in which the separate pinnacles are divided by relatively shallow notches. Thus, the ecological niche occupied by the species "lion" is relatively much closer to hose occupied by tiger, puma, and leopard than to those occupied by wolf, coyote, and jackal. The feline adaptive peaks form a group different from the group of the canine "peaks". But the feline, canine, ursine, mustiline, and certain other groups of peaks form together the adaptive "range" of carnivores, which is seperated by deep adaptive valleys from the "ranges" of rodents, bats, ungulates, priamtes,and others. In turn, these "ranges" are again memebers of the adaptive system of mammals, which are ecologically and biologically segregated, as a group, from the adaptive systems of birds, reptiles,etc....But the striking discontinuties in morphospace and their ordering into taxonomic heirachies surely dont at least "reflect the objectively acerainable discontinuty of adaptive niches" - and Dobshansky certainly understood the
%
%
*
unstated
*
major reason for such inhomogenity,..."
So please no four letter words nontheless.
I dont believe that niches exist nor does species selection but that is my "professional" biological perogative of this twist or turn. This assumes some common sense of biological and ecological notion in common to herps and mammals. This does not exist else that famous Kansas herpetologist himself in Malysia would not have thought a cacilian was a snake he would have first seen it as a worm. But you do not have to have had that experience to disagree with me. I am sorry you see it differently. Gould saw it differently than me as well as Zimmer probably does too even though we were friends when I gains the experience. Perhaps that and not creationism got in the way. Hutchinson's beetles in a niche ARE for me but the hidden gonad of kind of beetle by the humor of a seeable Croizat map. This will be introduced in the thread later. I got paid by University of Florida Gainsville to watch and learn how Puscillus (eaters of white fly larvae) "do it". I did. The issue is that Croizat may have found a way around this as well. It is hard to say as I need to get to some time issue which is in my present iteration of reading Croizat. Gould seems only to have read Croizat two times through any section of his print but I am holding up on a third reading. I am not sure if any NZders have read this far but they may only instead like you, they have a different "back yard" to look in than I.
I use diversity and adaptation but do not hope to end with the same edge of choas as Gould as I think that could have confused topography anbd topology. I am using creationism to show this! My notes on this aspect of population phenotypics I highlighted Dobshansky words Darwin was quick to see the problem, but not so successful in" (Chapter 16 Mechanism and Teleology) p339"He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing...ought not to hesitate to go further and to admit that structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination...to such startling lengths."
You didnt get passed STEP UNO because I will, have and continue to hope to include teleology aka Kants proof of God by left and right in chiarlity and bilateral symmetry developments which you are not in error to have a differnt opninion about. It is just different but it will apply equally in MY terms , which you need not buy, to non-mammals as well. If I have to talk about mammals I am back on the issue of temperature, genetics, non-adataptive traits, ICR book 2 Trilogy Chapter 9 birds and marsupials and a correct spelling of out the title "Phylogeography and Systematics of the Slender Mouse Opossum MARMOSOPS (Marsupialia, Dedelphidae), mitochondira, non- naturl selection death from without....Yes you have a better understanding of biology here than many. Congrats.
But you have opened up an additional evo dead thread with this and right now I am sticking to the discussion of the geo nature of baramins rather than the inertial effects that will undoubted bear as well. And if you must know, in 5th grade we studied HERPETOLOGY in science class and because I knew more of the kinds I, BSM, taught all the 5th grade classes ( and continued to teach them through 8th grade) NoT the Older teachers. In 6th grade we studied MAMMALS. I could not and still have not been able to focus on ONE SINGLE MAMMALS Family in kind (to herps). No one said a thing ever about my teaching even though I would NOT have been able to teach the 6th grade class. Barminology will show if I am correct there is no, can i say it AgaIn know NO "tilting". Fell free to power the wind mill if the chance to dispersal from Matthew's dispersal moves you. I have been able to "flatten" a peneplain a Mercantor projection of the North Pole in the process of moving into Atlantic Europe what was before 1961 not illustrated IN THE SAME WAY by Croizat boy-man he never the serious scientist Italian was.
I have worked this thought over and over its time to get it over to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by mark24, posted 11-20-2003 8:01 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by mark24, posted 11-21-2003 5:47 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 27 of 80 (68155)
11-20-2003 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by NosyNed
11-20-2003 8:09 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Yeah- if my "mind" still confuses a potato from the observation of an amphibian vs a worm or snake- NOT! I hope it is not my mind. My current reading of Croizat thrashes out the skin of egg-eating snake and the needle of a Cactus button. That is not psychological but biological. Oh well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 11-20-2003 8:09 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 30 of 80 (68211)
11-20-2003 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by zephyr
11-18-2003 5:31 PM


someone is messing with my network connection I am trying to make my presentation better here- Here is all I could recover without rewriting
Apeand Human vs Turtle Holo-Baramins
Frair's presentation:
quote:
nother holobaramin could consist of the sea turtles (see Wise, 1992; Robinson, 1997). A diagram showing general forms of living and fossil sea turtles may be found in Lutz and Musick, 1997, p. 8. This diagram is called a cladogram and is based upon studies by specialists Gaffney and Meylan, but not all authorities agree with their assessment of available data. See also Hirayama, 1998. Figure 4 is a very generalized representation for all living and extinct marine turtles. In all of these types of studies the actual goal of discontinuity systematics is by means of empirical evidence to determine the boundaries of common descent and thus to converge on the holobaramins.
I was able to read a clade out of Croizat using my own data on the locations of the snapping turtle in and around the Raritan River NJ. The most important take home lesson is that creationism permits one to understand to the fullest that conventional (biogeographic) symbols and graph (or map) can be the same in a sense.
I am interpreting the 1400s pages of Croizat’s Principia Botanica to span any Wise notion on pre and post flood biogeography. This may be a mistake of mine but at best it biases in the direction of evolution not creation timings (as the the two issues that Randy and I never got to discuss (orientation vs track width empirics)(but I will not need to support Berkely marsupial work (Phylogeography and Sytematics of the Slender Mouse Opossum Marmosops (Marsupalia, Didelphisae) by Mustrangi and Patton) with the word (phylogeography instead I will pronounce near artic or borel- alpine)) so if objectionable will simply be droped my creationists in the dicussion at least for me in like kind that Frair saw Box Turtles as APOBARAMINC. There may be other and different readings of Croizat, especially in Zephyr issue of the ape and human baramin but I am using it(Croizat's) as a Method which is not something that vicariance biogeography (Hedges criticism of vicaraince in Lizards of the Caribbeans for instance do.
For instance p 1424 The map attached (Fig 176) is after Holdhaus, op cit., PlXLVI, and gives the distribution of a coleopterous insect, Barynotus squamosus. This distribution rather closely agrees with that of another insect of the kind, Otiorrhynchus arcticus (see op. Cit., Pl.XLV) in Scandinavia, Iceland, the British Isles, the Central Massif of France and Pyrenees. However, O.articus adds to the range of B.squamosus a few outliers along the axis Upper Elbe-Eastern Sudeten also reported in Fig. 176.Principia Botanica p. 1424. Here is a paragraph that if B&O are taken AFTER the kind and not resented as being a kind of baramin, I for one, can use the map attached as a symbol and data as one. A lens so to speak. (So for instance in the phylogeography" paper on the Oppossum (op cit) I see how THAT data if furthered up with ecology etc could? Answer my issue with Randy on track width and possibly be used against my YEC support( the NZs use grid analysis wit y o n e s f a l l . Some one obviously has an anti Brad or anti YEC illegal program that corrupted my attempt to present a balanced presentation here. All c-ers take note.
( the NZs use grid analysis with main massings but get to look at the Brazil before I do, here I am looking at the relation of the Atlantic Ocean and European Atlantic distributions) given there but in this thread we are discussing phylogentic discontinuity not any only phylogeography as Mark24 was frustrated enough with me to pronounce. I am not use this map in the same way as Craw or Grehan as doing panbiogeography will or do but I would understand the adjective boreo-alpine in the same univocal sense. It is even possible that Croizat intened as regarding a Difference in massings that kind not be taken ill but instead as the Bibilical notion itself but the NZds would be in a better position to judge of this as they have Croizat’s raw notes. But for me instead or in its stead with respect to Wise’s notions I need but refer to p 1431 "Proper biogeographic thinking must strive at all times and on every question to follow time, space and form jointly in an orderly progreesion of movement. In this viewpoint I do not concur. Either we are right or wrong by main principles and methods nd, if the latter no amount of carefully worked out detail can save us. The old biblical dictum that nobody is priviledged at the same time to serve two masters is here proved correct once more. See further fns. to p 878, 950, 1364 , and p. 1376. when walking in my back yard.
I guess however that we arelikely to remain longer with p 1422 "It is certain that many readers of these Principia will feel highly outraged by my whole attitude...in regard of Charles Darwin...In sum, what Charles Darwin did bungle ...is not easy to de-bungle even today."footnote which I would say put evolution ahead wrongly.
The scientific creationist issue is for instance if the question of the subsetting of humans vs turtle holobaramins be by MEDIATED design- I see no hindrance in mediating one such that the issue of the # of kinds of kinds is not the problem of Ark husbandry as Zephyr reasons but rather is one onto to one to one or onto transforms within discontinuity systematics.
The only scientifically outstanding issue is not a top down one as Zephr’s understanding seems to belie (to me) a Wise prejudice for but only Gould’s reading of D’Arcy Thompson which in various posts I have targeted (but unsuccessfully based on the ability of posters to follow my posts) as but the bag lunch I had with Gould in the 80s
I have not in this thread started to show how the signs of Mendelism that all about in molecular biology are linked in my topological inversion (but I will take this up in the thread with :upside down ee if it does not occur here) of the boundary terms of Remines systematics ( it is my hope that someone else understands what I am doing first) but I have attempted in other posts to interest people to no avail and while we seemed to be stuck as Keith nicely posted on the Lousinana issue of rasining the general level of understanding that though not come out a wash is a wash. Litteraly.
So it would appear that my use of turtles in evolutionary theory depends quite crucially on what Wood said by some species in the baramin access the trait that is only accessed at some point in history after creation. Take this as MY creation of the limit point boundary in the crude graphic I supplied if you need a HUMAN messenger for now if one must. This would be a good time to discuss an advance of Baraminiology OVER Linnean Classificaion history SYSTEMATICALLY but others will likely prefer to see all the guts of my view on this soma so as to try to find a flaw theortically to bring down the its pragmatic operation as whole. If only they did the same to the Sewall Wright- Fisher tension absolutely..alas..
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-24-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by zephyr, posted 11-18-2003 5:31 PM zephyr has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 32 of 80 (68216)
11-20-2003 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by wj
11-20-2003 10:33 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Wj, this is a thead about distinguishing baramins not distiguishing if brad's mind has a baramin in it or not. Please take up any other Big red comments in the Coffee House or Welcome Vistors thread where you cango to my school if you like. They do not study Croizat enough at Cornell to use this method of relating barmins to biogeography but you may get it too. Keep hop hopeing. I wouldnt mind if the admins deleted EVERY refenece to the difference of mental and physical, Betran Russel wrote "I have made it clear, then, in what sense I should say that the word 'red' can only be understood through aquaintence..." I am smarter than even the profs at CU. Later we may distinguish what Russeell said about mental vs phsical over on the :ae: thread headed heading but again if you want to talk about me and not baramins or the particular idea I have about them please do not jump up here again. THEY WILL NOT DOUBT DO the content of this thread once it gets finished here or elsewhere. Fax is Facts. Ok I see your edit still- I have a right to say this about this place. I wouldnt still be here in Ithaca if I did not like the locale. And Cornell is the only thing that makes the local global here.
Gould wrote only DUM spiro, spero. in this regard but that is not enough for you average Cornellian to embrace his (gould's) more fuzzy 'aptation' as a policy before any adaptation that these baramins may suggest. I certianly rembering reading Gould's work at Cornell and being impressed enough to fall in line but Cornell did not and would not. CU is really about Beviorism as Tinbergan said about psychology and animal behvior but I have lost the quote back in Fredonia. It was somthing about the Cornelllian attitude was to only ASK a question. They still really only want to ask and answer to more elite authorities than themselves. Somehow you have confused this schools ability to DO EVOLUTION and my MIND. wrong content for this thread.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-20-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by wj, posted 11-20-2003 10:33 PM wj has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 36 of 80 (68513)
11-22-2003 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by mark24
11-21-2003 5:47 AM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Mark24, If I understand YOU-youself correctly I would be saying that the mammal differences that Gould pointed to and you wanted a comment cladistic or evolutionary classification wise on ARE NOT MATERIAL. Gould would say I am out of my mind but I know I am not "out" of my herpetology. Whether this is a physical or biological difference I would not know at this point IF TRUE. Part of the issue IS that the relation of levels of organization of discplines physics, chemistry, biology is what mankind HAS to investigate any differences in levels of selection and yet the hierarchy that *may* be formed by workers in these fields could be OTHER than that which the levels of organization are in nature. But we wouldnt know this from the scienes as they are presently configured but rather by supernatural indications or in my case I also contend for different physical dynamics but that is not a part of the subject of this thread directly unless I could turn some such SPECULATIVE Causation into a relation within the traditional disciplines by a garnered correlation. The issue relative to Baramins would then, in my mind, be about if a singularity instead of a metric difference maps across an onto plane that can (in this "theory") bound or binds the descriptieve lexos of the newer grammer. But this is beyond the presentation AND simple statment of the procedure so I simply revert to step one until more of the work "comes in" which you kindly underlined. Thanks for the comments.
In this sense my position, once you can grasp it, need not be troublesome , as it can be falsified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by mark24, posted 11-21-2003 5:47 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by mark24, posted 11-22-2003 3:10 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024