Distinguishing Baramins

Mark, Brad can't do anything else. At some point your only choice is to ignore him.

Mark, there is no good in getting annoyed with Brad. He is, IMHO, not doing this deliberately. You are seeing inside his mind, he is being more direct from thought to word posted than any of the rest of us.I also don't think that you will have much luck in getting him to construct a couple of simple sentences that stay on a topic. Good luck it you want to try.

It is very understandable. But look at the last little post! They are quite wonderful taken by themselves. You have to appreciate them for what they are but don't try to understand them. Though I've noticed some people can. Could it be just you and I? Is it us that are "out of it"??

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

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?

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