Abel and His Flock

Seems to me we CAN learn this curve#,If the issue of the Universal Cosmology and any "gaps" be given, givening only Man NAMING the creatures, only MAN,BEASTSand Creepy things perishing in the flood, the kinds of the ARK being different (at least to the Math Matchette could only find (when HE looked) metaphysically)more like human "kinds" THAN ANY MAN ALREADY NAMED and the unclean account of the genes of all the kinds which Jacob had been granted by GOD for heritbility what "the four" could be herding sheep for seems answerable Q:A:To seperate the monobaramins from the holobaramins. I would suggest that the terms "Creeping" have to do with differences of locomotion and migration as to cell deaths which the min kept by dint of BLOOD being material which lacks genetically in plants for a double voltage-pressure system for any mutation of any rank (1,2,3...)so fileing for me the notion that unclean kinds may be polybaramins.The criticism would first be about the 'creepers" of Levitucus as to different speciation in turtles (tortosie) vs lizard for any warm blooded CREEPING creature difference IN THE SAME NOTION THAT plants arose from the earth that was given cosmologically PRIOR to the dispute that subsequently arose for cain and abel.That's what I said, please dont think that you can take this apart without trying to understand that Gould's notion of Paley vs Agassiz can be in HARMONY and not by two colored sands abuting a jagged edge. I did not say that one MUST ALSO deal with the virign birth but only that such SCIENCE as biologically closed electric cirucits SPACE between metals in blood circulation may be being missed in this time of reading natural theology for a simple geological phenomenology that Creationists since Price have always put in question. I was trying to show how creationism ASKS scientific questions that can only be asnwered so far by access (which is generally denied to creationists) to biometric genotype vs phenotype databases OR BY some such source I have suggested eithe from a hertiage of Church or else by a knowledge of the TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF KINDS REMAINING Spaced ouT by DEATHS that NO ARRAGEMENT OF ALREADY COMEPETED FORMS can be biologically retained though trainsently physically constructed they may. The insight comes from putting IT in place of Chemistry in the EVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT EXPT while rejecting the TIMES so far that this is horizontally dimensioned. It is not that Darwin added an extra dimension and elimitated an explanation but only we have not brought the metaphysical step into the mathematics that is already available. There is no reason that evolutionary databases can not be updated in this confluence but the objects would also have methods that are not divided a priori into genetypes and phentopes even if some researchers may still want this division for hypothesis testing but rather reflect how 7 is not 2 FROM WHAT counts the NAMES already gave.There are two issues- One non fuduciary access to bioinformatic databases
and
- database structure able to deal with word disambiguation(of the type contemplated here that does not prima facie remand adpative fitness = diversity as Darwin indiviudally attempted to promote for any connection with said datum).
There SHOULD NOT predominate issues that WIll Provine brought to Stanford. Those were simply chicken eggs.

To 2- so far I can only say that it WOULD NOT be what Gould called "good" as to the trying of many things and figureing the good to be by rejecting a certain enurmerable quantity of trys. I have said how COUNTING the clean vs unclean had destroyed by scietific creationism any BIBLICAL Creationism that mIGHT support Gould ethics and I have suggested this might reason back to Cain an Abel as you asked, but I could be wrong since I used unknowns but these were all taken from science and not religion excpet for what the Hebrew names actualy signify or less divergently connote when not properly denoted.

well for one, I am tired of everthing BRAD having to do so in another place- SO I find even in the context of BIBLICAL CREATIONISM I can not find the "correct" place. I had thought the "off topic" issue was only an issue of Creationist's insisting on "religous" things when scientifc evolutionists held a myth in the writing of some such looming doom. Oh well- That's fine If you think a BIOLOGICAL EXCURUS has NO relation to the filial difference of Cain AND Able I now bow down (I mean OUT) to you interest in understanding what the genetics of sheep herding has NOT to do with that part of GENESIS you are interested in. I was making it quite clear by just sticking with the NAMING OF THE KINDS with two kinds one on the ark and one in the first names (NO MATTER THE POSSIBLE ACTUAL misreading of different Hebrew interpretors) that if ONE ACCOUNT FOR The difference of clean and unclean numerically than this could be GOD GIVEN REASON for the non-parents HERDING THE CREEPY SHEEP or beast of the field to stick with the terms in the book. I was able to understand an genetic difference in terms of the LAND which would not have to be water or void and simply wanted to have this availble to the evonaysayers who I am on speaking terms with here to show some MORE REASONS to have this topic or subject discussed at all. I had not said yet how the "psyhe" of this genetics understanding would influence the non-phsyshic appearence of carnivory etc which WOULD BE a follow up that you dont want to consider.I rest- I cant go forward with either side due to what I consider an illusion only. ERGO- there never were two sides of the argument only two sides of the sheep counting to fall asleep...

Depends on many things.I was backing out of the dicussion because db wasnt interested in my ideas on C&A as the FIRST hybrid generation. That conversation can be conducted in Gentile or Jewish mode.Sheep are not creeping things likely but I am not Hebrew Scholar nor much of a BIBLIOPHILE but the biology I was to address had to do with THINKING of any kind of ground dwellers (on the belly)between cells either dead or alive(due to NS or not)as part of the neutral theory or no...formed for locomotion vs means of dispersal vs migration for any kind of global observation. There has to be first some kind of delimiation of how the environment and the organsism change in sync for the general biological application which I backed down from continuing but if one presumes some knowledge of C&A's family life it would be possible.The different kinds were !min! and !nepesch!. I am not sure I recall how to spell this last one. ANYwho, I was just trying to use the difference of these two words in reply suggesting there is a number cognized in this difference as well. That may be objectionable if a vere by verse analysis is the version preferred in the thread and specifically excludes the order I was trying to uphold. I also can work from a different angle on this back at the void and water AS PART of an arithemetic that is seperate from the clear geometry the BIBLE reads on as so since I got a poor reply to my answer in 2- to where I addressed one on the flipped negativity since I did not want a "most negative" thought I anteriorized my notion instead. Sorry for being so elliptic but it is not negative. Thanks. Maybe I'll see some more to edit but I was supposed to write on plants than humans.

They are being raised to calculate the HAUPZHAL for later selective purposes.

quote:

---

Background:

​

There are, at this time, only four (4) people on earth: Adam, Eve, Cain & Abel.
Cain - #1 son, first murderer, subsequently runs away and gets married.
Abel - #2 son, is murdered before having children.
These four are supposedly vegetarians. In fact, number one son is growing vegetables. Strangely, number two son is raising sheep. Fortunately, for number two son, the LORD likes sheep. Unfortunately for number one son, the LORD doesn't like vegetables.

​

Questions:

​

1).To what purpose is Abel herding sheep?
2).What does the LORD want with the best of Abel's herd?

---

I was trying to point out that my understanding in biology raised a "red flag" for me about the perception (in Genesis at the issue of interpreting the words haveing to do with "creeping" (close to the ground(could be herps vs sheep vs plants in this case etc)) kinds)of the psychology of the geological horizon and my, now I can say, suggestion new about how to figure the time molecular clocks give (mind you I thought this up after I got the negative response. I fully expect that if I am saying something one hasnt heard or even I havent thought up yet or just thought up is not to get the cold shoulder among friends...I was reading Morris on 'flesh' at the time) which would have had to appear between the the first ADAM and the first child of god's children hence not using but BLOOD when discussing these humans' hybrid full of molecules we understand or could understand today. We were not "dealing" with populations at this generation and I was not trying to say much about that then but now I could if you were interested but perhaps I still need some space while I dont need time as work out my latest brainstorm less on line than at home alone..) I have in my own way found a very small possiblity of reading that Gould is correct but instead I think that a molecular clock is composed of d-numbers that are Hauptzahlen both additive and multiplicative (which being part of a defintion of exponention I dont doubt that it could be reframed to fit Fisher's guessing on the relation among cousins) WHERE not while (that is the psychology of the plant landscape vs the failure of biologists to keep up to Croizat's rigor the difference of zoogeography and phytogeotraphy)polybarmins ARE (if they are-that is something for baraminologists as a whole and not one crying wolf to decide)constructable e-numberings of Pascal's use of mathematical induction of (in the Arithemetical Triangle) onto any Galton 0-give( as a NEW, i said nEw biometric practice I could start to appened onto the baraminiology thread).I could be wrong by scientific creationism as to if the baramins are to be concived this way between the kinds NAMED (say if box turtles are the same named ones as sea turtles) and those HUSBANDED (on the Ark OR BY CAIN AND ABEL, Regardles I could still address THE 4 individuals only I found that first I would be figureing the clean vs unclean in my idea that polybaramins are also unlcean. That is not but creation science as of yet. db may have wanted only the NUMBER 4 to begin with his idea of any dissemniation if past...Now with this idea on the molecular clock I thinking past GOULD can probably get ANY population (Family) number as my starting value so..back to baraminiology thread for me.I do not know the time but however much it represents it would have to occur in ADAM&EtoC&A and this is just the prelimiary to continue or discuss with db.Yet this IS NOT Something you will find in NATURAL HISTORY or Science News. Yet it answers many questions for me. And incidentally now that I have thought up the clock as well, there is time for the last Adam as well. Just so that you do not think I am making this all up as I go along in 1992 I entered a legal"trade name" of what I trade in as spelled AEXION CLOCKS in Providence RI CITY HALL and this may rather than the technical mumbo jumbo be rather in answer. DOnT know for sure. BYE--

Right, but I am saying THERE IS NO 'retro' fit here at all. All there was so far was a pattern or systematic of DENIAL. See Bertrand Russel Principles of Mathematics chapter 1 "definition of pure mathematics" p4- "- an answer which, however, consists in reducing the above problems to problems in pure logic, which last will not be found satifactorily solved in what follows." Look I am not saying I am a "genius", I simply can read some things. It will get quite complicated to maintain this no matter what we define as "pure" at Flood time but bear with me here.. where I will reject Dauben's scholarship of Frege on Cantor p220 "More than anything else, Frege believed that the principles upon which arithemetic msut be founded were essentially logical in character. Thus his analysis of arithmetic stressed the need to base all theorems and deductions upon purely logical definitions. In his view, no sharp line could be drawn between logic and arithemetic." but one must not forget Boole OF INTERPRETATION p 84 "Now all these several denials ((immediately preceeding)These equations express a denial of the existence of certain classes of objects viz,: 1st Of beasts which are clean,...2nd. Of beasts where are clean....3rd Of beasts where are clean...4th Of beasts which divde the hoof...)involved in the original proposition. And conversely, if these denials be granted, the original proposition will follow as a necessary consequence. They are, in fact, the seperate elements of that proposition. Every primary proposition can thus be resolved into a series of denials of the existence of certain defined classes of things, and may, from that system of denials, be itself reconstructed. It might here be asked, how it is possible to make an assertive proposition out of a series of denials or negations."What I HAD NOT considered before was what Dauben noticed in Cantor that Cantor had seperated himself from Reimann & Helmholtz. This is very very very significant.I will not grant the denial.The HISTORY of THEORETICAL BIOLOGY DID/DOes(even if when you try to look it up you only may find Woodger's "bauplan" here. There is more if you can read this stuff.) How can I do this you ask? Because I will be finding that clean and well orderings may be one in/and the same should Fisher's THOUGHT of exponential population growth MAP to DNA sequences fit to sequences of transfinite coeffients of e numbers for any given use of the central dogma of molecular biology. We may thus with a little more grammer find that Mendel already had the lexos that enables the pair to be retained after a numberical increase in individuals no matter used for what purpose. It is all so exicitng. Gould thinks that this MEANS species selection exists. I think that is Marxist economics at work only and I only FOUND the molecular clock conceptually here so should the SIMULATION OF TIME continue to read against the PRESUMED FACT of EVOLUTION in the large the small may simply be means of not using the popular notion of biological change when investigating the use case of nanotechonology that will COMPETE with chemical balances as to functioning the kind of morphospace that we presently have available for manipulation. I am guessing that if even a glimmer of light continues to shine in this direction that drug discovery if it continues to fail to provide the "grail" will by force of necessity recover the lost time of construction that I find continualy interrupting my own clear cognizance of the possiblity I have been trying to find other simply reading. I do. The key will be a formal pure math cirucit among cardinals ordinals and ordertypes provided baraminically such that any recovered metrics will speak to the issue of clean and unclean- time will tell what time that is... The interesting notion here will be that if indeed as I will be following, that the neutral changes can only tick the indivdual clock by means of INFINITE SEQUENCES we will find that lexicall we can "cash out" the grammetological past of molecular biology IN FAVOR of an organicists dream but without heeding to any old imagined level only those that aposteriori will apprear for the assertion without hypothesis that only denies the denial when biology is substituted with techonology (not chemsitry) inappropriately. Wolfram's claim which are new enough will bear in the test. I think his idea will fail but some of his programming will remain. This gets a little hard to work on as the construction involves doing a different CANTOR in the variable of Russel for any Mendel variation of hybrids while still keeping the parents as they were for any new ideas in biology. The last time I tried some of these thoughts I found that the logical constants could be used in Minimal Spanning Tree Panbiogeography but that was before I was able to conceptually seperate geometry and arithemetic. The escape goat will be the division of the body into data divisions but not programmetically -genotype and phenotype. An robust literary criticism can handle all of this but those able to do that have really not enough science foreground so far as I have seen.C/E can now be seen to have a legit focus and means to its own end.

The "problem" is with this word. But the issue is with non-directed variation as to a variable logically. Creeping things cover anything I can think hepetologically. Gould noticed the "compartment" style of Genesis but insisted on bricks vs columns rather than toxin-antidote bacterial modules' ancestral of cell death. Mendel noticed that only a line seperates the arithmetics involved no matter the names. The names still will cover the herpetologist's interest in hoxology. Therefore as to why lizards and salamdenders sometimes creep without four legs may be asked in the same "superannuated" way that organacism is rejected by many molecularbiologists. The first kids had all this mole bio channeled in any way on this inside that was given by God in the part ment. There is a numerical issue that I asserted Gould's God mishandled that IS still in the words having to do with clean and unclean. You could look in the Hebrew if there is any reason to make an analogy between creppy things and unclean. I dont know. I think this may have to do with outpouching and blood comparmetalizing rank mutation refilings such that gill slits are like leaves (the garden of eden covering)not that toad thumbs are like sea monkey mating strategies. But that is only a guess and I have not supported THAT with science. In other words change by direct imposition may yet, despite the current science, exist and even be by GOD. Special creation is another issue that DOES depend on the acutal names.

No need-the frog is not that ambiguous. I know how to respond to Gould chapter 11 from my very own LEGAL record but the academy is not all that. Best.