Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Distinguishing Baramins
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 10 of 80 (67535)
11-18-2003 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Loudmouth
11-18-2003 5:34 PM


Loudmouth,
Surely inferring phylogenies via cladistics to support baramins also destroys the notion of baramins? since using exactly the same criteria you can infer phylogenies that require macroevolution.
Mark

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 11-18-2003 7:30 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 12 of 80 (67541)
11-18-2003 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Brad McFall
11-18-2003 7:30 PM


In English?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 11-18-2003 7:30 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Brad McFall, posted 11-18-2003 8:17 PM mark24 has not replied
 Message 17 by Brad McFall, posted 11-20-2003 5:42 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 15 of 80 (67652)
11-19-2003 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by AdminNosy
11-18-2003 8:18 PM


Re: someday I'll update this into a projective drawing
Yeah, lucky me. Now it makes sense.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by AdminNosy, posted 11-18-2003 8:18 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 19 of 80 (68113)
11-20-2003 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Brad McFall
11-20-2003 5:42 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Brad,
Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion
Sorry, I stopped there.
For fucks sake, Brad, this is such hard work. Do you run your writing through an incomprehensibility checker before posting? Why can't you make sense? For once in your life, just M-A-K-E S-E-N-S-E, is it too much to ask?
If you can't tell me simply, & in English, why baraminology isn't being hypocritical in including cladistics, when cladistics works against baraminology using exactly the same assumptions, then I'm not interested. We occasionally get posters on evc who's first language isn't English, & frankly I have a much easier time understanding them.
It works like this. Foxes, wolves, etc. are supposed to be one kind, this can be shown cladistically. Creationists are happy with this for some reason, but not with cladistics showing that canines are related to felines & bears. The same assumptions are in play. Why aren't they being hypocritical?
A simple one paragraph response, without reference to Croizat, or anyone else for that matter, will be sufficient.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Brad McFall, posted 11-20-2003 5:42 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 11-20-2003 7:48 PM mark24 has not replied
 Message 21 by Brad McFall, posted 11-20-2003 7:57 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 23 of 80 (68125)
11-20-2003 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Brad McFall
11-20-2003 7:57 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Brad,
Pay attention, Croizat boy.
It works like this. Foxes, wolves, etc. are supposed to be one kind, this can be shown cladistically. Creationists are happy with this for some reason, but not with cladistics showing that canines are related to felines & bears. The same assumptions are in play. Why aren't they being hypocritical?
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Brad McFall, posted 11-20-2003 7:57 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 11-20-2003 8:09 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 26 by Brad McFall, posted 11-20-2003 8:48 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 25 of 80 (68133)
11-20-2003 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by NosyNed
11-20-2003 8:09 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Ned,
You're right, I confess to suffering from frustration, & fair play for not going "Admin" on me.
Mark
------------------
"The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one's mind a pleasant place in which to spend one's time" - Thomas Henry Huxley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 11-20-2003 8:09 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 11-20-2003 9:24 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 33 of 80 (68255)
11-21-2003 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by grace2u
11-20-2003 9:58 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
grace2u,
As an observer on this thread and newcomer to evc, I would just like to say that I appreciate Brad's comments, perhaps more than anyone else's on this site. They are somewhat poetic in nature and I would say that this forum would not be the same without him.
In that case, please can you translate them into a format that any other English speaker can understand.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by grace2u, posted 11-20-2003 9:58 PM grace2u has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 34 of 80 (68256)
11-21-2003 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Brad McFall
11-20-2003 8:48 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Brad,
I have worked this thought over and over its time to get it over to you.
LOL! Well, I agree, it's a shame you spent so many column inches being utterly incomprehensible.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Brad McFall, posted 11-20-2003 8:48 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Brad McFall, posted 11-22-2003 1:00 AM mark24 has replied
 Message 80 by Brad McFall, posted 10-28-2005 7:05 PM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 35 of 80 (68257)
11-21-2003 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by NosyNed
11-20-2003 9:24 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Ned,
It is very understandable. But look at the last little post! They are quite wonderful taken by themselves. You have to appreciate them for what they are but don't try to understand them. Though I've noticed some people can. Could it be just you and I? Is it us that are "out of it"??
We are legion.
------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 11-20-2003 9:24 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 37 of 80 (68520)
11-22-2003 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Brad McFall
11-22-2003 1:00 AM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Brad,
Mark24, If I understand YOU-youself correctly
You don't.
My complaint is as follows, baraminology based cladistics uses exactly the same assumptions as mainstream cladistics. It is therefore happy to infer "lower" taxa cladograms because it fits in with the biblical account. It denies high taxa cladograms despite exactly the same assumptions being in evidence, because it contradicts the biblical account.
The selective acceptance of cladistics as a method for inferring relationships is therefore hypocritical. Basically baraminologists accept what fits the biblical account, & reject what doesn't, on that criteria alone, making the argument that baraminology supports the bible circular: You have to accept the conclusion before the premise, evidence is culled based on whether it supports the bible, or not, ie, an a priori acceptance of the biblical account is required in order to accept or reject evidence.
Not a good place to be for any scientist, even pro-bible pseudoscientists.
Mark
------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Brad McFall, posted 11-22-2003 1:00 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Brad McFall, posted 11-22-2003 12:28 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 39 of 80 (68534)
11-22-2003 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Brad McFall
11-22-2003 12:28 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Brad,
In the END I am (LIKELY- but this depends on the facutal evidence) going to reject cladistics for a future fusion of Principia Botanica AND Panbiogeography in Space Plus Time Plus Form but in the process it will NOT be necessarily/necessary to ONLY motivate baraminology scripturally. I am not all cozy with Wise's use of the top down approach IF he sees all DNA relevance within that phenomenology that holds hybridization as "bottom up". My concept is more involuted but I have not found evidence that it is convoulted. Perhaps if you understand what I am saying you will be able to find such a flaw. I have not so far.
Tell you what, I won't respond to you if you won't to me. Deal?
Mark
------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Brad McFall, posted 11-22-2003 12:28 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Brad McFall, posted 11-22-2003 12:37 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024