Distinguishing Baramins

Ok, maybe I didnt understand you correctly.you wrote

quote:

---

y 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.

---

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.I am hoping that what I am creating here will allow a more objective basis for acceptance and rejection of clade-graphs but I may really be here objecting NOT to cladistics but to certain concepts so far produced in baraminiology. I am tempted without anymore thoughgt to think that Sea Turtles are a polybaramin not a holobaramin but I have not read Wise's paper on turtles yet. This is a rejection of species or traits not clades but as I said in a earlier post I was able to FIND"" a clade IN THE WORK of Croizat by doing "panbiog" with herps and focusing on snapping turtles' location so I can see that it may be that the very programs that generate the clade will either be superseeded or shown to be false. This would depend on as you say "sam assumptions being in evidence". You started to show this to me as Croizat-boy. The advance that I am proposing is that outsourcing the difference of geographic vicariism which DOES seperate "branches" in any clade graph by baraminic subjetivity may through the relation of taxonomic vicariism to barriers in vicariance biogeography give a biological reasoning supporting some one acceptance of certain metrics of the "tree geometry" over others AND NOT BE AS assumptive as you did indicate. You may be correct that there is already enough data to do this without using baramins and so if that is the case then it will be a matter of efficency or effectiveness as to using baraminic thought in resolving issues of the point set density of the reproductive continuum in ANY (GIVEN) Lineage no matter the application of Mendelism. My suspicion is that baraminilogy will change top down with this catastrophe theory implementaions as to parents traits being bottom up and hybrids being top down not the current other way around but this is a creationist development unless like minded evolutionsts figure out how to use it for themselves as well (Mitchonidrial DNA change in the relation of birds and marsupials?). In general we really are not at cross purposes here. I see your position quite a bit better now. I simply reject Mayr's scholarship that saw the writing the slots in terms of nominalism, essentialsim, evolutionary classification,cladistics and whatever the other category was that Mayr used escaping me at the moment.It took years for the NZders to come out with their understanding of panbiogeogrphy full-fledged to which Nelson still did not find of enough value and there you are probably talking about dozens when nameing 12 people is at least possible. I am only one person. I find it some what telling that the Texas Board on school books for biology took out the position that Darwin is 'essential'. That says NOTHING. The current understanding never found it thus any way. NATURE then had it printed that "both" sides were "happy" - Bull - I am not.It seems then that this will only make sense to you in terms of consequences not in terms of goals. That's OK. You position seems clear. My work may change it however.

DEal-

Pretty much you are on node when not also track! No pun intended. Congrats for trying to work with the same stuff I am!! I will comment in a bit more detail but just to let you know that prety much you even got my idea of holobarmin correct. I am using a map from the Alps rather than an amphiatlantic association in criticizing the Age overall in line if not truth with that which is supported with ICR.There is a further evo wrinkle that by using scorpians rather than beetles may spell an contradiction to my general "trajectory" that indeed you narrated quie well. I think thta Croizat was using the scorps on issues of Permian age which IS relevant to my ideas on turtle taxonomy but still may be a bit removed in time from what the actual protocol I am working up will be able to address with confidence. Much like carbon dating is used for less years than is sometimes popularly supposed etc. This is also being a map of South America likely to be at issue if some one DOES NOT PANBIOGEOGRAPHCALLY follow my subordination of nodes to tracks and instead insists for the longer time frame than the ONE AGE I am trying to distinguish the dispersal from the static distribution in. But I will try to give my own understanding of this larger picture that creates a vision of the Pacific shoreline later in detail. For now here is a panbiogeographic link that could be interpreted AGAISNT what I have said so far IN TERMS OF AGE. My guess is that the form-making differences will trump the current corrleations of geology and biology that Grehan prefers. I have spoken on the phone with John and had some correspondence with him over the width of "tracks" but he has broken off corresponding with me. My guess is that I support too much creationism for his taste. He certainly is not yet in any way trying to use the orientation of tracks relative to "Gondwanaland" to put the geologic colummn into question. I am. I am doing this from a trasition to translation in space perspective by clearly seperating taxonomic vicariism from geographic splits but there nonetheless DOES remain the "transitional" issue in the soma of phenotype vs genotype no matter how the genetics is qualified. I have found a big idea possibility but it is still speculative pending specific mutant information in that it may be possible to see a change in form of Day Lilys by the simple difference of a "+" or "-" sign attached to a equation should mutants be found in the simple catatstrophes quantitatively and not simply descriptively as I now have it in that which I may be using to SEPERATE Croizat's USE of conceptual and formal taxonomy WITHIN BARAMINOLOGY. Baraminologists may object to my use of tacking the set theory logic of the kinds to a map but then some one of them may be simply seeing a monobaramin here-where there-where I may indeed find with you a Scorpian holobaramin. Only time will tell. It is also possible that the "transitional" may be addressed simply in the gaps which is common to any kind of vacariism if the physical possiblity Gould calls "direct moldoding by physical laws and forces acting upon the developing organism"p1180 exists in the steady continuance of like kind. God Bless You and Thanks so Very much for your effort.th ICR.
"direct moldoding by physical laws and forces acting upon the developing organism"p1180 exists in the steady continuance of like kind. God Bless You and Thanks so Very much for your effort. In order to iron up this wrinkle the panbiogeographer able to follow my reading across the globe MUST Deal with To iron out the real time wrinkle this
------------
sjgould - "this "maverick" theme has played only small role history evolutionary thought (a fact should elicit judgment about acutal importance, as well all recognize today's ignored or ridiculed can become centerpiece tomorrow's revolutionary theory.)" tsoetp1180-

​

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-24-2003]

I have given this a good look and aside from nit picking it DOES look like you have fairly presented my view and understanding. There may need to be some changes from a creationist consensus as IT itself changes but this looks pretty much corrent. The other thing for clarity may be to say that DISPERSAL = translation in space & form-making. But you explained this in your text. Very Good Job. Now lets see who says I need meds. This is all I was every saying. Great! The only baraminc difficulty could be if one insisted that the the likely tectonic barrier is WIHTIN a scorpian apobarmin of the current static distributions on two continents. But then ONE WOULD BE DOING THE SCIENCE of creationism and this is what evos here claim can not be done, does not exist, and is a muth. They would be wrong based on your single post. Thanks again. I am still going to go back and edit one of my earlier posts before I get into this discerpency in the particular age. Some how the "evos" think that this can mean that the whole thing is wrong (without even knowing the rationalization itself) and some third party to me that I was "crazy". I am glad time has finally caught up with these particular nay sayers.

quote:

---

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.

---

What they don’t explain is given by Croizat in 1961 p 1462 when he seques into the face of speciation, Question 8 — Your comments contain a rather transparent intimation that the species may not be the yardstick of origins in time and over space. Is this intimation intended? Answer- Of Course, yes, In Darwin’s own times there was a grave question whether the origin of species was eminently fixed by an act of divine creation or due to natural, gradual alteration. In our times there is not question with that any longer; therefore, the origin of species has lost its cogency both as a controversial scientific subject and as a driving popular slogan. It is true that cytogeneticists and taxonomists are interested in determining conditions under which gene-flow ceases, and the species might be said to originate.If this be attempted, it is readily learned that what is, or seems to be, the concept of species cannot be applied without qualifications fit to meet sundry contingencies of semi-speciation, subspeciation, superspeciation, controversial speciation, doubtful speciation, etc. Qualifications of the kind would not be required if the concept of species — or what looks like it, anyhow — were the genuine standard of reference in the premises. And so on reading Cumming —You will be able to find that what looks like this I AM with baraminology trying to find IN THE PREMISE THAT the distributional dispersed postulations are asserted from.The issue is if the level of category is still not standard (we have now both creation and evolution and the controversy has been renewed since the 70s) will issues of group selection between say Wilsonian Gouldians vs Dawkinians have a better picture of the nexus or Creationists who may be more concerned with the death in the group than its life? This is not an issue of whether an undergraduate needs to be given pills and kicked out for not adhereing IN THE SCOPE OF THE DEGREE the lack of mentoring that was. I am using more Phaneroic Bricks than the difference in the appendage between Scorps or Bugs that Gould wants to see Cornithianized in columns. So while John Grehan WOULD locate the facies in the correlation of geology and dispersal or better yet kinematic distributions I find it in the rejection of Gould’s lumped morphospace which does not as (Grehan wrote a paper against Gould on orthogenesis which may have been superseded by Gould in his last big book) you say-

quote:

---

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.

---

see a google search of baraminology ( I had a googlized version of a Wise PDF that I couldnt figure out how to get the correct address in here for yous all) we all know how to search for stuff it is really only a matter of will as Loudmouth opened ours all to.
baraminology can be thought out without evolutionary taxonomy as a null but then one has to look at the details such see BSG

quote:

---

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.

---

One will need to keep separate two different uses of baraminology in this thread, so I will say tongue in cheek distinguishing baraminiology. One is the use of it as theory of classification in its own right which you now seemed to have questioned by TAKING time out the question. That would be a bad move on your part if that is what you intended for I am open to criticism of it as a science of classification. But then you would have to make as clear what seems to you as it does more than seem to me. But that is why there are specialists and the gumbo is better for it.The other is my use in the speciality of biogeography to USE the taxonomy of baraminology to discard dispersal vs vicariance claims within evolutionary thinking. Thus creationism becomes a metadata ONTO evolutionary discourse and the NULL is comparison to nature. For instance the work would have few job orders if all rates of change are merely geneically selected and NO higher order issues are involved, although a case may still be made if the physics is thrashed in by the time such a judgement becomes cognizable. All I need have is a conceptual taxonomy and the locations of the different formal taxonomic categories on map. (where are all the apobaramins?, will the polybarmin please come out of the bath room? OK twin mono-holo sisters where are you standing on the globe? These kind of things. ALL else will be be just the principle methodically applied to FROM static distributions to panbiogeography.

quote:

---

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?

---

I will not say there is not an issue here but it must be done with supercomputers and the best knowledge of genetics around. The issue on eVc for me is why if I wanted to actually do this was I not allowed to? Some day even If I don’t get it done someone else will for the question itself seems to bother people on the web little to less than it ever did when I first started asking it on line.

quote:

---

Would we be talking about catastrophism vs uniformism?

---

I am going to reject Gould’s steps in time if I can figure the hard parts of organisms without his Corinthain Columns and Croizat left this somewhat to the reading as to laws that are not ongoing (to provide space for a textbook and not 10,000 pages to be written) so it will need to be by our collective faculty of reason , no matter which side we/one prefers that answers that one. I am still not disabused of the creationist showing that only a single age is involved and that random mutations and conservative natural selection don’t have the energy to figure this out but when Gould talks about a digital switch it gets very complicated (except I have a long time ago rejected Kaufman’s motivation by flashing digital lights) simply to get the issue out of the data base and into the word process no matter er error how much $ will be thrown at it. My interest in evolution has never been to show that changes of forms can be thought (or not) as Newton may have gold and sulfur alchemically but only how out of whatever it is that is constant across generations can that formal stability be used to extract energy reverse developmentally. If calling more attention to Mendelism and not contraily speices fixity and the origin of seperately same looking groups no matter the math then I am all for whatever science Creationism can do as it is clear the kinds of disagreements we get in the evolutionist literature. You seem to be objecting to Creationism as an evidentiary writing FROM other science works. I must say that I have been able think what creationist stuff I do follow completely in seamless thought that travels my week uneventfully.If there are only 8 forms here and always only that number than you may be able to convince me you probably got what I was trying to with the twoschools.. You have done quite a service with starting this post and I am glad NosyNed noticed.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-24-2003]

Is the lack of interest you cited what you meant by the difference of Ross and Frair? Can you show me where to find info on Ross's turtle ideas??? I had heard of Frair and read him when I was a teenager and had no association of him as a creationist until after dealing with rejection from Cornell.Croizat Principia Botanica p1486-1488 Question 7 , "Were printing space no consideration I could bring to record more than a few examples. Here alas, I can but refer to one of the most striking cases of "parallelism/seperate creation" that has ever come to my notice (see Panbiogeography, Vol. I. p.151 et seq.); and since you do not know as yet whether forms A and B are animals or plants..." "Of course, it is not impossible that further diligent enquiries conducted on A, B...Doubtles many are today the taxonomists who assume classification as an absolute and biology and so also dispersal as a realtive consideration""The populations massively in the New World did shed their teeth, and finally emerged out of A+B...as A(Iguanidae). The aggregates massively in the Old World retained their teeth, and so "segregated out" of A+B... as B (Agamidae). By "parallel" eveolution out of A+B... (emphasis is here on the dots) also emerged the Chamaeleonidae( see previous footnote) with which we are to have no concern. It is useful nevertheless to mention them as evidence that the group ancestral to A and B also contained genetic powers qualiyfing for other aggregates in due course of evolution."...This but means, of course, that the problem which we here face in point of form-making and translation in space (i.e. dispersal) is not to be primarily involved with taxonomy , when taxonomy is itself but secondary. I see no reason to qualify this statement at length. Arguments of deeply taxonomic hue (but shorn, alas, of biogeographic meaning) could be moved to the effect that differences of dentition are not...""Biology is the absolute, classification the relative consideation: The latter comes and goes, the former stands.""Afterall, an objection or criticism is not PER SE indication of profound science."[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-25-2003]

So then is a Midland Painted Turtle NOT a different species or baramin than an Eastern Painted Turtle on Ross's notion while a SOUTHER painter might be given the relation of the Westerns in the same turtle diversification of Ponds, Bog, Wood, in the same time? I can see that as herpetological possiblity especially if one pays no regard to Blanchard's. Where did Ross make this assertion or claim?I have evaded NO issue and I write in here for the creationist side with regard to this issue. The point is indeed that the times given by SOME evolutionists are criticizable by panbiogeographers NO MATTER HOW MUCH TECHONOLOGY is used to assist in the data analysis. Did the Caribean lizards really hop from the mainland and/or Brazil to Saint Lucia or was Darwin ABSOULTELY wrong that the Galapogoes finch look like NO MAINLAND forms such as the BIRDS not lizards on St. Lucia. Yes I split the rock but I spilt herpetology not at all. The more fossils we use to discuss this the better. And the more genomic information we have better also. Using island itself as data however is not. Gould for one now seems to me *confused* about "causal" (chromosomes and genes did it) vs geometric"" (shape of fossil or plant). If he only read the Principia Botanica about Lyell he may have been able to reject Croizat in this "or" but he set up his understanding by a new scholarship of Lyell which he rejected rather than SYNTHESIZING what he ALREADY had felt was hardened. I have never felt the histroy of biology this way but Lewontin is also correct to challenge the mole bios whomever believe that simply doing granting biology to the most expensinsive methods are going to work. Frair was doing biochemical work when THIS was the forefront, you are only really presenting the same method. Croizat introduced concepts of hortizian and parian distribution to deal with this rocky issue but instead we are splitting the genomic stuff in discussion rather than simply disecting the data already available. Money is not always the answer. It helps when one has nothing further to say. But I think Mayr is somewhat correct against Gould.Ignore this paragraph if you can simply show me where Ross made his claim? on the radio? in print? in a private letter???? And feel free to argue against me on Croizat's notion of Permo-Carbinferous glaciations but I have this all by OBSERVATION so any spiritual dimension will only confuse you if you are not metaphysically well grounded. Gould was. So is Dawkins. I disagree with both.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-29-2003]

Part of the confusion as to the history of creationist use of biology seems to have been in Marsh's use of "after" meaning 'reproduction' and later (after Price??) using DOUBLE strecke discontinuties for both reproduction and morphology. I will be distinguishing this view of flesh from a "standard" (shall I use "GOULD"?)evo-devo harmonic one by explicating particulately the two cuts informable as one physically. This is still a bit of strech for me to write without metaphysical assist. See alsoThe interesting rupture of history would/will occur should the splitting in baraminology result in a robust enough tradition that "discontinuity" (for example finding bacteria on mars and documenting a bacterial-toxin+antidote module programmed cell death varation ON EARTH vs ON MARS able to be a hopeful monster genomically) is no longer a soley creationist thought process. At that point creationism can only be oppressively regressed should it still fail to found its find.I have not specified as to Loudmouth's "age" when such a puncture of the refined baramin concepts events historically but I have indicated that if the deaths(cellularly) are accountable polybaraminically then the contribution of the topography (per common geography (mars and earth are not the same in this sense) can be refined between the foreground and background in the baramins figured herein this thread.if one does not read the history of Cantor's intent in any way Platonic I see NO need to refer to Mayr's 82 discussions on Plato and Aristotle at all in making an actual infinity defer to the absolute of any "potential" region the link provides. Philosophy is wide open for this.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-25-2003]

There seems to be some issue about the relation of Greeks and "evolution thinking" and the assusation of some continental biologists that Croizat used polyphyletic groups in his methodology yet I see no difficulty in holding off a use of an "archea"baramin until this evolutionary question is better tooled to the same machine that "draws" changes in any organic form for certain certainly the "or" of

quote:

---

apobaramin,polybaramin -- polyphyletic or paraphyletic taxon

---

does not seem to me on the evo no matter the devos side. More on edit. till then see If all evos STUCK to the holobaramin as THE ONLY baramin holism legit for use in cladistics some constraint or restraint may apply to the development of the refined baramin concept even with an essentialism excluded in principle but there is not such authority in science nor should there be. If after such a self imposed restriction creationists were later to use cladistic programs soley to benefit a prior schism in interpreation it *would* be a rip off but if instead it is simply a response in its first incarnation"" to Cracraft and likes it could not be a rip nor a tear until after a significant number of evolutionists actually embrace the sorts of classification of morphospace proposed divisible by baraminologists either for genetic reasons or reasons of heurstics and pragmatics. I know the sentence is still too long Moose. I am working on it.It does not seem hard to fathom how in the interest of distinguishing holobaramins that use """related""" monobaramins and"""unrelated""" apobaramins in the aposterori use-case via the dissimarlity measure called "baraminic distance". That all seems on the up and up.

​

Manifestly, "to identify a true lineage you must already know the ancestor-descendent relationship" in critism of Marsh may not be quite right if for instance deductive biogeography can constitute both reproductive and morphological seperation in the same logic. It would indeed be instainshiable if "wing distribution" (Croizat) exist in the exemplar no futher differntiable work may be needed to identify the taxa as par fo the same monobaramin but then we may know if for instance the archeabaramin of holobaramin is a class within a polybaramin set or not.

​

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-26-2003]

​

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-26-2003]

Are you really trying to say this, the work by me, Brad McFall, in this thread specifically my attempt to refine in the quoted thread, is incomprehsible but Eldridge p121 is not? The Triump of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism HO|T ( not the double sibling football players seen on FOX today)2001. Seems like Mammy would know this difference of Gould and Eldridge. "But if the Class Mammalia is "obviously" a basic kind, why can't we see whales and bats as arising simply from variation within a created kind? These statements, of course, are inconsistent at best and nonsensical at worst. One cannot but agree that creationists indeed have trouble with the notion of basic kind." One can Shouldn't ones' or my ability to answer these questions disqualify the legal implications either appearing side draws??? The political has emerged let us keep it fully submerged so that science and not lawyers benefit the generations difference. The fact that I have never vered from amswering this charge of nonsensicality nor incomprensibility MEANS that there is not a single way to respond to any given creationist sedimented trancendental prefaculty. One can.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-28-2003]

to connect genetics with baramins it was necessary for me to associate geography with the "thingyness" in this thread. This is what I drew before
the discovery of the skull in the farther East.

Ok, but it's not "up" for me. I am very very very concerned for the failure of a leading herpetologist, Kraig Adler, to notice my ability to discern possible herpetological speciation. It is possible that this is ONLY a symptom of what Richard Lewontin drew attention to at the end of the 60s but seeing how discussions on unisexual amby(bly) stoma's has changed since this time I am willling to try to use the seperations that creationists might provide to get some more from the cold blooded dichtomies that seem to be used more against creationists than FOR the creatures themselves. Of course I perfer the warm-blooded kind but a job is a job. You have some interesting observations but crap sometimes migt be the new rap muse.The citing of scrripture I take it to have been a means to try to self-unify the differences among baraminologists. On geographically associating the various logical categories of baramins I have committed myself to a stake in the empirics no matter how consensus reaches the larger community but something from nothing it was not.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-17-2004 05:02 PM

Actually the idea of using it as a "control" is a very good one else the bteen theology that IrishRockhound and TC might moderate equitably elsewhere might tend to bias in the creationist direction. Laughing is a symptom. My diagram could possibly put Wise in a YaleMan rather than being Harvard2 as corneLL is sometimes labELLed. This would be a dent against creationism if that happened. I am letting the cookie crumble without playing God. I didnt think it would fall that way and as long as laughter is what EvC called up for service i doubt that Tc'S and IR's good intention can free willy any better. I hope this observation is off mark. I realized however when reading Agassiz's life history that the internet facilitates the idea the of rate changes faster than one can navigate the labrinth of either direction but this was mediated by the difference of dynamcis and kinematics but as long as evolution is mostly concieved in terms of probablisms it will be difficult to show that the contingency was already a priori divided. I might be mistaken about the fusion of Croizatvicariance and Discontinuity Systematics but I would like to see more intricate talk than we have accomplished here V wise so far.You see, if the control is "set up" properly it enables the worker to avoid the ambigous biological psychology difference between anthropologies vs culturalities. Gladyshev feels confident that sexual and social hierarchies are entailable by divide and rule phenomenologically but should the noumena negatively exist being in the subject of thermostat and SEX ALSO (it may not) be constitutive inherently therin not only would such a control be sufficient it would be necessary. Creeping things arose!

Control of SCIENCE and control of scientists are two different things. I suggested scripture was a means to organize the discrete community of discontinuous thinkers of the morphospace. I have reached the conclusion that MODERN 1900 science FAILED to incorporate biology into it's DYNAMICS. Control of the difference of process and system IS NEEDED. I was not suggesting that this change MUST occurr through reorganization of creationist curricula as I wouldagree that a minority group of scientists ought never to dictate for all and this was not how I would have thought the change would occurr. If baraminologists can suggest algortithms that novelly combine morphospace in a posteriori ways that better grade up this failure then I dont think it matters should the people doing the work are those who go to Church or not. Actually, had I myself not be failed by the current pedagogic system I would have thought that science was compentant itself to DO THE WORK! The reliance on non-linear and less non-equilibrium modes of thought have caused the problem that by itself SHOULD NOT have failed a student such as myself. That it did only point the fact that the scientists but no the science needs change. The problem is with the scientists at the top of the "food chain", the elite, whom every one HAS to read etc. Imagine if I WAS THE elite! Someday I will have to take Carl Zimmer to task for wasting THIS generation with "contradictions" over a or the GOD gene. According to Gladyshev the sense I recognize and I could get Z's words to mirror, FIND NO CONTRADICTION. Yes DETERMINING the equilibrium in a potentially vicariant situation is more work than fiding a computer bug but I find that chance evolution FAILED and should this not be rectified with supramolecular chemistry etc nanotechnology will not reveal its errors until there is a systemic ecological catastrophe, in addition to the discussion of global warming. Besides, if creationists are to make these advances, then they will be for everyone, regardless. I had hoped that people here would not be as pesimistic as they are for thier is plenty of positive work that can be done.I am not in a place to work in the lineage response specifically. The last time I gave this thought some attention I was working up Croizat's notion of Occam's Razor and his chapter on Panbiogeography and Catholocism. The analysis I have done would enable me to make some comments but I do not have all of my materials during this winter break. You however need the synthesis and this depends ON THE ACTUAL biogeographic material in the literature as well. I have not done a through enough literature search of that. If you are seriousNO ONE HAS BEEN THIS SERIOUS ABOUT THE CREATIONIST INTEREST I GIVE SO FAR HEREplease append ONE further post indicating that you will more than follow in the mode of ALL other posters to me here and that you will follow up as I continue with THAT. That specifically COULD involve discussions of computer programs used to determine various distances but first we must air ALL the theoretical possibilites. If you are only interested in still saying the word "Crap" dont bother.I am suggesting that EVOLUTIONISTS have cashed in their own TRUE historical uncertainty for ad hoc, arbitary, AND capricious faiiling of students. That is against the law. That is my claim it is prior to discussion to truth claims IN science for if there are no scientists there can be no science and if your position does not afford me BEING one, then you are not in the position to let EvC talk substitute.That would be a mistake and false on your part, as I have already, used, EVC to advance Science, and I can show that it has more value than all of Zimmer's ENGLISH combined, whether you recognize it or not. If Baramin's go the way of phlogiston that is ok with me, but my INTUITION, the likes of which Russel denied to futher/future science by not taking Cantor's marginal notes seriously (or my many posts here for example), exists, and should I die, I only hope I am able to dismeniate the discipline that I have used to achieve what I KNOW.We do not look at organisms as wet enough. There is too much machine in the man and not enough machinations. Baramins provide a further division of the soma so that we can get more water into view.

I too, like Nosy, was somewhat to more or less impressed by SPLx's post above but it was him, not me that referred to "scripture" first. I just tried to glean from extra EVC internet material what might have been his reason for introducing that into his CRITICISM of actual baraminological literature.There is reason to consider CHRISTIAN influence here, but I must say your question, this, of YOURS, has already been asked of me on the web especially at Rhain's pet MSN c/e site I once posted on BEFORE they opened up TOO many slots of any kind of opinion on the fact of religion whether biologically based or not. SO instead of such a broad cyber response I will start to narrow/winnow down to focus on SPLX's immediately preceeding since unlike HIM, I am not bored, only mortal with many pressing obligations and obediances.Here is why Christian fluency is not contraindicated,
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
where was

quote:

---

Although we have a certain amount of empathy with the anti-Big-Bang astronomers, they are not Biblical creationists. They do not believe in creation, or any kind of beginning at all.

​

Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. 6

​

They have to recognize the entropy law, of course, which would indicate the whole universeeven the very structure of matterto be decaying. Consequentlylike the Big Bang theoriststhey have to assume various kinds of "fudge factors" to keep the universe evolving.

​

Fred Hoyle, for example, postulated in his original Steady-State theory, that hydrogen atoms were being continually "created" out of nothing. Some of the plasma cosmologists think that Prigogine's "order-out-of-chaos" theory can provide the solution.

​

All such notions are devoid of experimental proof, of course. Yet the universe is definitely running down, and this fact surely points to some kind of beginning.

​

That is apparently why some Christians

---

This is INDISTINGUISHABLE as far as I can discern (help me in in case you see this otherwise appropo etc)from Gladyshev's
EvC Forum: GP Gladyshev's paper (s)or mine?
WHERE IS ITHINK that the failure of Boltzman as recovered by Georgi in this article between function and energy came from Ludwig NOT heeding Fourier's THEORY OF HEAT Section I. Statement of the Object of the Work
7. In the next place it is to be remarked, that during the cooling, a certain quantity of heat escapes, at each instant, through the external surface, and passes into the medium. The value...and of the time t which has elasped. It is required to determine these functions."It will take me some effort to enlarge on this but here is the preVIEW AS i BEGIN TO look at SPLx's bored response.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-19-2005 15:45 AM