Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8946 total)
29 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, Faith, jar, JoeT, PaulK, RAZD (7 members, 22 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,939 Year: 20,975/19,786 Month: 1,372/2,023 Week: 323/557 Day: 16/47 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Distinguishing Baramins
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8867
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 46 of 80 (69061)
11-24-2003 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Loudmouth
11-24-2003 6:55 PM


Well, I'm impressed with the amount of work you are willing to do Loudmouth!

To save everyone else haveing to reproduce that work (or missing out on the whole thread) could you explain the terms being introduced? Vicariance and panbiogeography for example.

Thanks


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Loudmouth, posted 11-24-2003 6:55 PM Loudmouth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Loudmouth, posted 11-24-2003 7:48 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 80 (69068)
11-24-2003 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by NosyNed
11-24-2003 7:05 PM


To save everyone else haveing to reproduce that work (or missing out on the whole thread) could you explain the terms being introduced? Vicariance and panbiogeography for example.

I'll try, but don't take my definitions as scripture, I could be slightly wrong on a few. Also, check out the site I mentioned in message 41.
-------
Vicariance:

From Merriam Webster:
fragmentation of the environment (as by splitting of a tectonic plate) in contrast to dispersal as a factor in promoting biological evolution by division of large populations into isolated subpopulations -- called also vicariance biogeography.

My own description: geologic disturbances or intrusions into the ecosystem separate subpopulations of a species and subsequent evolution changes those two populations into new species. For example only (and from dim memory so it may not be true), the Congo river seems to divide chimps, lowland gorillas, and bonobos from each other. The formation of the Congo river could have isolated a singles species in three areas and subsequently three new species formed, ie chimps, gorillas, and bonobos. In my example of scorpions, the break up of Pangea spliet the scorpion population with one subpopulation in S. Amer. and the other in Africa.

Panbiogeography (my own description): This is an area of study that stresses locality and vicariance as a major evolutionary process. It's not a separate theory of evolution, but rather a different mechanism than dispersal (which I will get to). Panbiogeography tries to tie the appearance of geological structures with the emmergence of new species. Also, a species affinity for a certain type of environment is thought vary little which keeps a species tied up in one general area. Dispersal theories argue something different, as will be discussed next.

Dispersal (my own description): This theory is different than vicariance in that a species physically transports itself to a new area instead of the area moving it. That is, mutations occur that allow a subpopulation to cross a geologic or physiologic boundary into a new ecosystem. Once this subpopulation establishes itself genetic drift causes the formation of a new species. Sometimes people call this a founding population, kind of like the Puritans coming to America at Plymouth Rock. Also, dispersal can happen by chance as well, such as iguanas floating on logs and landing in the Galapogos islands. However, movement of the species is stressed instead of geology cordoning off subpopulations.

In both mechanisms, isolation is the key to diversification but the cause of isolation is somewhat different.

For definitions of the different types of baramins try looking at this page. Here are the quick definitions from the website

holobaramin: The holobaramin is all and only those known living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship. It is an entire group believed to be related by common ancestry.

monobaramin: a group containing only organisms related by common descent, but not necessarily all of them. (A group comprising one entire holobaramin or a portion thereof).

apobaramin: A third baraminic term is apobaramin (Greek apo, away from), which “is a group consisting of the entirety of at least one holobaramin” (Wise, 1999–2000). It may contain a single holobaramin or more than one holobaramins. “But it must contain the entirety of each of the one or more holobaramins within it”. (note: this one is a little confusing to me, in common parlance it is all the apples and all the oranges, all of one complete set and all of a different set)

polybaramin: employed for another mixture of unrelated organisms. It has been defined as a group (two or more specimens) consisting of part of at least two holobaramins. It may be any of numerous hodgepodges which could contain holobaramins, monobaramins, apobaramins, and individual specimens.

The website has diagrams that clear things up a bit. And also, I don't ascribe to these species groupings, I just want people to be aware of their definitions. Hope this helps.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by NosyNed, posted 11-24-2003 7:05 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3354 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 48 of 80 (69073)
11-24-2003 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Loudmouth
11-24-2003 6:55 PM


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 – <http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-211.htm>

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 <http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/bsg97/>
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 “two”schools””.. 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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Loudmouth, posted 11-24-2003 6:55 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 80 (69131)
11-25-2003 1:27 AM


Looking at baraminology / "discontinuity systematics", it's clearly a ripoff of cladistics.

Consider a baramin to be a kind of taxon:

holobaramin (plain baramin) -- monophyletic taxon (only one legitimate in cladistics)

monobaramin -- monophyletic or paraphyletic taxon

apobaramin, polybaramin -- polyphyletic or paraphyletic taxon

The tough part is how creationists decide what groups of organisms descend from some specially-created ancestor; they have a variety of opinions -- and a curious lack of interest in resolving their differences. Wayne Frair seems to think that turtles are 4 or 5 baramins, while Hugh Ross seems to think that all of the ~260 present-day turtle species, and also the numerous extinct ones, are separate baramins.


Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Brad McFall, posted 11-25-2003 4:39 PM lpetrich has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Brad McFall, posted 12-25-2003 11:56 PM lpetrich has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3354 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 50 of 80 (69249)
11-25-2003 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by lpetrich
11-25-2003 1:27 AM


A simple question here.
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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by lpetrich, posted 11-25-2003 1:27 AM lpetrich has not yet responded

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 80 (69518)
11-27-2003 12:22 AM


Turtle Baramins?
Hugh Ross apparently believes that each species is a baramin. Which has the consequence that every turtle species is a baramin -- a view very different from Wayne Frair's.

One has to wonder what kind of "science" creationism is, when its advocates prefer to evade issues like this rather than confront them. By contrast, mainstream evolutionary biologists often compare different proposed phylogenies. This proposal for sequencing chloroplast genomes discusses a variety of different hypotheses for the relationships of various groups of plants, like:


  • Which bryophytes (mosses, liverworts, hornworts) are closest to the vascular plants?
  • Relationships of non-lycopsid pteridophytes (fern-like plants other than club mosses)
  • Relationships of the five major groups of present-day seed plants (cycads, Ginkgo, conifers, gnetophytes, angiosperms)
  • Clarification of the earliest branchings among the angiosperms

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Brad McFall, posted 11-29-2003 3:29 PM lpetrich has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3354 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 52 of 80 (69891)
11-29-2003 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by lpetrich
11-27-2003 12:22 AM


Re: Turtle Baramins?
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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by lpetrich, posted 11-27-2003 12:22 AM lpetrich has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3354 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 53 of 80 (75070)
12-24-2003 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Brad McFall
11-20-2003 6:03 PM


Re: someday I'll update this into a projective drawing
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 also <http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/003.pdf>

The 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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Brad McFall, posted 11-20-2003 6:03 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3354 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 54 of 80 (75159)
12-25-2003 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by lpetrich
11-25-2003 1:27 AM


why differences go less resolved by principal area
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 <http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/002.pdf> 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 <http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html> 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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by lpetrich, posted 11-25-2003 1:27 AM lpetrich has not yet responded

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 80 (75174)
12-26-2003 1:39 AM


Brad McFall vs. George Francis Gillette
Brad McFall continues to be unintelligible -- and without the fun of George Francis Gillette, whose "spiral universe" with its "backscrewing theory of gravity" "out-Newton's Newton". His book Orthodox Oxen ("there is no ox so dumb as the orthodox") is free of "hi-de-hi mathematics" and is "bristling with new axioms" -- and contains illustrations of "The all cosmos doughnut" and a "Laminated, solid, solid, solid, solid." More GFG:

Each ultimote is simultaneously an integral part of zillions of otherplane units and only thus is its infinite allplane velocity and energy subdivided into zillions of finite planar quotas of velocity and energy.

All motions ever strive to go straight--until they bump.

In all the cosmos there is naught but straight-flying bumping, caroming, and again straight flying. Phenomena are but lumps, jumps, and bumps. A mass unit's career is but lumping, jumping, bumping, rejumping, rebumping, and finally unlumping.

Gravitation is the kicked back nut of the screwing bolt of radiation.

Gravitation and backscrewing are synonymous. All mass units are solar systems...of interscrewed subunits.

Gravitation is naught but that reaction in the form of subplanar solar systems screwing through higher plane masses.


Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by NosyNed, posted 12-26-2003 1:55 AM lpetrich has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Brad McFall, posted 12-28-2003 9:15 PM lpetrich has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8867
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 56 of 80 (75175)
12-26-2003 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by lpetrich
12-26-2003 1:39 AM


baraminology
Well, Brad may be incomprehensible but that first site of his might be useful.

It's a bit tough for me to follow since I don't understand all their terms but there are some interesting bits in there.

It's a PDF so I can't seem to copy bits but there is talk of a 'trajectory' through 'biological character space' as evidence for a monobaramin.

They analyze horse ancestor skulls all the way back to Hyracotherium and get a trajectory that says they are monobaraminic. This is apparently not agreed to (up to now ) by all creationists.

Now this is interesting isn't it? It might be fun to have this trajectory analysis done on the homonid fossils might it not? LOL I think a hole is being dug we'll see if they figure out when to stop digging or start adding a lot of ad-hoc covers for this.

Does anyone else understand the article better than I?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by lpetrich, posted 12-26-2003 1:39 AM lpetrich has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3354 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 57 of 80 (75511)
12-28-2003 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by lpetrich
12-26-2003 1:39 AM


Re: Brad McFall vs. George Francis Gillette
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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by lpetrich, posted 12-26-2003 1:39 AM lpetrich has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8867
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 58 of 80 (76096)
12-31-2003 10:51 PM


Genetics and Baramins
These "baramin" things, what relationship does genetic evidence have for them?

What level of genetic difference is there within a "kind"? How much is enough to say that two species are no longer the same kind?

If two species are clearly one "kind" and they are farther genetically than two other species does that make the second pair within a "kind" too?

The use of genetics for determining relationships is getting to be a fair number of years old now. I would presume that this has entered into "baraminology". Has it?


Common sense isn't

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Brad McFall, posted 12-17-2004 4:37 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3354 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 59 of 80 (169507)
12-17-2004 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by NosyNed
12-31-2003 10:51 PM


Re: Genetics and Baramins
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by NosyNed, posted 12-31-2003 10:51 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 60 of 80 (169516)
12-17-2004 4:50 PM


baraminology is crap pseudoscience
I've written on this before:

When I was a graduate student working on molecular phylogenetics, I discovered a series of articles in the Creationist peer-reviewed literature * dealing with the same subject.

The authors of these articles were applying computer algorithms to molecular data to determine the relationships between creatures that descended form the ‘kinds’ that were Created and were later allowed to live on the ark.

These and other papers lay out the creationist version of systematics, called Baraminology (or Discontinuity Systematics), which utilize standard computer programs and reproducible analyses using molecular data. These ‘baraminologists’ have set up an entire field of study, complete with its own bible-based terminology and concepts.

The first paper, “A Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of the Testudine Apobaramin,” 1997, DA Robinson, CRSQ 33:4 p. 262-272, examines the relationships between turtles, and establishes or at least lays out some important criteria for establishing affinity of species (baramina) – patterns of mutation bias, gaps between ingroup and outgroups, topological congruence of cladograms using differing parameters and analyses, and strong bootstrap support for the arrangements. The author was able to determine using these methods – which are essentially the same as those used by systematists – that all turtles are related via descent form a created kind, but could not resolve lower-level relationships.

The third paper dealt with cat phylogeny, and just expande don earlier ‘proof of concept’ papers.

But the second paper was of great interest to me.

“A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates,” 1998, D. Ashley Robinson and David P. Cavanaugh, CRSQ 34:4 p. 196-208, was the very subject I was working on.

Much of the paper consists of quoting/referring to Scripture, which is odd for a scientific paper but not, I assume, for a scientific paper premised on the supernaturalistic metaphysic, and outlining their justification for their “baraminic distance” criterion. This takes up about the first 4 pages. The baraminic distance is essentially equivalent to the materialistic genetic distance measure, it is just called something else.

Those pages are, save for the references to Scripture, well written and exhibit a great deal of thought. The paper gets interesting, however, when we get to the Materials and Methods section on p. 201. The title of the paper and several sentences in the introductory portion indicate that the interest here is in the Old World monkeys, not the human-ape question. Indeed, they discount that question altogether:
“Since Scriptures clearly imply that humans were specially created (Genesis 1:26-272:7, 22), and thus phylogenetically distinct from other organisms, we utilize the human-nonhuman primate relationship as a control.”
This will be of interest later.
Their data consisted of 12s rRNA gene sequences, chromosomal characters, morphological characters, and ecological characters. The data were analyzed individually and as a total evidence dataset using standard phylogenetic analysis software.

It is the results and discussion in which the metaphysic of supernaturalism comes into play.

For those of you that do not know, when you set up a data matrix for analysis you utilize what is called an outgroup – a taxon that is not closely related to the group under study – for use as a ‘yardstick’ of sorts. For example, when analyzing primates you might use rabbit as an outgroup. Interestingly, as quoted above, the baraminologists use human as the outgroup in their analyses.
Outgroups must be designated prior to running the analysis, or the results will appear strange. If you designate the wrong taxon as the outgroup, your results will be strange indeed (you can, of course, run analyses without an outgroup, but these analyses were not utilized by the baraminologists).
So, when the baraminologists ran neighbor joining analyses on the data, they used human as the outgroup. NJ methods assume a constant rate of evolution, which is not indicated by either fossil or molecular evidence and so has fallen out of favor. Though they do not specifically state that they designated human as outgroup, this is what must have happened. This is because the order of the taxa in the dataset can influence the arrangement produced in NJ analyses. For example, I analyzed one of my datasets and I got an arrangement similar to the one seen in the CRSQ paper. Human is first in that dataset, so I cut and pasted it last, re-ran the analysis, and Human got stuck somewhere in the middle of the cluster (however, when I ran a bootstrap analysis, human grouped with chimp). However, when I designated a new world monkey as outgroup, I got the ‘accepted’ arrangement – human + chimp. Making human the outgroup produces an arrangement similar to the one in the CRSQ paper – NJ analyses by default use the first taxon as the outgroup unless designated otherwise.

And what follows from that is the production of weakly supported topologies, since they tried to force the data to conform to a ‘non-natural’ topology. The node linking chimps and gorillas was supported with only 53% bootstrap support. That is fairly low. In a paper not constrained by the antimaterialism metaphysic, in which human is not the outgroup, chimps join gorilla with 96-100% support, depending on the data used. Forcing the data to fit a preconceived notion based on a metaphysic produces statistically significant error.

They mention in the abstract “We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates.”

The description of the morphological analysis sounds impressive – 43 characters. The morphological characters, however, I believe, were specifically selected to produce the desired results. Why do I say this? Because this paper:
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1996 Feb; 5(1): 102-54. Primate phylogeny: morphological vs. molecular results. Shoshani J, Groves CP, Simons EL, Gunnell GF.
Was known to the authors**. It contained an analysis of not 43 characters, but 264, and this analysis grouped human with chimp.
The other data, ecological data, is the nmost subjective and should produce no surprise when it was this data that provided the baraminologists their ‘strongest evidence. For a separate human baramin. And what were some of these data? Things like percent foliage in diet, monogamy, population group size and density, home range size, etc. It looks to me like these data too were chosen to produce a desired outcome, for what exactly does “monogamy” have to do with descent?

Indeed, the authors state in their Discussion section:
“Character selection, not the method of analysis, is expected to be the primary factor affecting baraminic hypotheses. False conclusions can be reached unless baraminically informative data has been sampled. Since we have no a priori knowledge regarding which characters are more reliable for identifying holobaramins, it is important to evaluate the reliability of a wide variety of biological data for inferring baraminic relationships.”

And later:

“it is interesting to note that the ecological and morphological criteria were the most adept at distinguishing humans and the most highly correlated, indicating that the datasets in the strongest agreement were the most reliable.”

Yes, that is interesting – the most subjective and limited criteria are the most reliable for giving the creationist the arrangement they want…

That is, they have to pick data that give them the results they want – those that conform to Scripture.

Creationism’s metaphysic in action…

What I did not mention is this, from the section on selecting characters:

“With the exception of the Scriptural criterion no single data set is sufficient to define the holobaramin.”

Translation: Scripture gives us the answers, we need to find the data that will conform to these answers.

The ‘superior’ metaphysic in action.

* I had contacted the authors of this paper in 1999 asking for reprints and neither replied to my requests. I had to buy the issues form CRSQ. Later, after reading in the paper that the data sets were available from the authors on request, I sent an IM to DA Robinson while online one day. First he pretended not to know what I was talking about. After he acknowledged co-authoring the paper, he said something that astounded me – he said that he didn’t think the data sets even existed anymore!

Creationist metaphysic in action.

So, objective reader – is this metaphysic superior? Is this the best way to engage in scientific pursuits – to seek the TRUE answers in Scripture then try to shoe-horn data to fit those ‘answers’?

Sadly, many seem to insist that the answer is yes. No wonder these folks do not wish to discuss science…

** During my IM chat with one of the baraminologists, I was asked if I knew the lead author of that paper. Indeed I did - we had tossed around the idea of doing a project together and I had helped him with some of the analyses. This was before I had even mentioned the paper in question - the baraminologist was fishing to see if I would be able to know the jiug was up. that is my interpretation, anyway...


Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Brad McFall, posted 12-17-2004 4:58 PM derwood has not yet responded
 Message 62 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2005 3:38 AM derwood has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019