"Kind"ly Creationism

I'm glad you reached the same conclusion than me.
On a simple question, answers are technoligicaly disproportionate.
I don't think this is really helpful and reflect a bad (false) idea of what scientists are (and prefer not show).Denesha

Thank you Danesha.This thread seems almost pointless as there seems to be no literalists here to defend their concept of "kind". In this void I might use this time to commend the users of this group for using the term "literalist" instead of "fundementalist". I am very guilty of this myself. I got my undergraduate degree at a Christian college and had the fortune of taking a class on Bible history from an absolute gem of a man, Dr. Neuman. In a discussion after class I used the term fundementalist and he took exception. He claimed that fundementalist movement of Christianity started in the 1920's and was a second reformation where Christians were to look at the message of Christ, not the dogma of the church. It was basically Presbyterians and Unitarians who called themselves fundementalists at this time. Then literalists started using the term to describe themselves, and including original fundementalists in their number as supporters.The point is, I need to make myself use the term "literalists" instead of "fundies" or "fundementalists".

Thank you. I will try to remember myself.

Thank you NosyNed. BTW I love your picture, it looks so intense that one is able to pretend you are responding to THE message sent.I guess this issue is one that doesn't warrant comment. I am surprised, a lack of taxonomic background in YEC's? Don't they all have advanced degrees in science?Actually to be fair the issue has analog in science. The determination of species, let alone higher taxa, is definately wide open. The characterization of genetic information has helped but also confounded the issue. One example that comes to mind (this is anectdotal) is that the species complex of Plethodon salamanders in the eastern US have a greater genetic difference than to all of the extant orders of birds. This is not saying that members of the genus Plethodon need to be split into orders, just that we cannot use the same degree of differentiation between taxa. Or at least the same portions of the genome.I guess the main point is that science is also wrestling this concept of "kind." I think we are at the point of Chief Justice Potter Stewart with obscenity, I don't know how to define a species, but I know when I see it. What is important is that science is addressing these issues and redefine based on evidence.

There may be no such thing as "survival of the fittest". Is it not possible that there is only one way(did I say ONE?) to spread TIME over space biologically? We generally accept that Darwin did not understand FORM in so far as he missed the idea of Mendel proportionately. Croizat has fairly voluminously pointed out in life that Darwin did not understand SPACE but did he also not understand time?The idea that there is only one way to spread time over space biologically IS NOT reductionistic as the first criticisms of this idea are likely to capitulate for it is spread over the space form-making occurs in (both translation in space AND formed cell populations). I can rather not accept before trying out this idea Gould's nonpopable stacking orders which implicate as to epistemic frequencies required accounting of incidences no matter the coincidence but the Dawkins alterntive WILL reduce to the metric available should only ONE way to spread time be found particularly as nanotech technically proceeds. If such is the case Gould's slight against the time in anageness will evaporate with a more instruemental apporach to any potential two way velocities tha+ I represent so far here. The symbol or sign for this time would not be Fourier's nor Einstein's suffiently for it will still be unresolved how far mankind can get the nervous system into different levels of organizations frequently per incidence geometries but it might be that there is a linguistic conflict between the concept of tensors and adaptation. I just have not thought Bridgman's words "dynamics and electrodynamics" far enough yet but logically if Darwin was off with regard to space, time AND form I think it high time to stop bringing his name first and foremost to the biologist's school of lower learning.I have never had the idea that time may be different for form-making over biological change time and yet in the face of Kelvin Darwin thought this explicitly. Gould's citing Goethe as a test case for his own structure unfortunately continues this kind of past time. There is nothing I can see so far logically (but I have not applied the Russel Cantor difference in the Poincare vs Einstein individual population as of yet) that Gould is theoretically on the functional path of good future operations with a claim for PE as to frequency but I begin to narrate the science one step earlier with the notion of incidental contanct. If the particular as well as the one wayof spreading time across the space and translation in space occurs inter alia then...and the idea of different 'ages' could go by this way side (Mesozoic, Cenozoic, Gouldazoic) because time no matter the origin would be SPREAD the same way for all 1st law of thermo. It would be quite an error to establish that Darwin and Gould got the cycle wrong because they relied on time changes rather than a wrong probablism of covariance between a cow and cat but let me not question without results. Provine admitted that every one, not only Wright, wanted to know how much the hand vs head contributed to overall size and perhaps by eliminating Darwin's connectivity of past generations adaptively (with newer technology) we can turn Wright's balance into a fulcrum not only twisting but actually transforming the interpretation of equations asscociated with the names of Poincare and Lornez when I should have been talking about Faraday so far instead. It may even be that this newer concept of time, a creationist idea of existence with the appearence of age, not only will build newer techonology than that which approved of its own existence but that the logical consults of Bridgman will have achieved an instrumental and pracitical truth denied explictly by the evolutionists individual concept of surivial of the fittest. It might be found that biology was more in cohoots with the corportate genotype economically than could be rationally supported as to the numerical insults as well as the grammetical. Darwin had said in the power of motion in plants that the movements of various organs to the light, which are so general throughout the vegtable kingdom, and occasionally from the light or transversly with respect to it, are all modified forms of circumnutation; as again are the equally prevalent movements of stems,&c., towards the center of the earth. In accordance with these conclusions, a considerable difficulty in the way of evolution is in part removed, for it might have been asked, how did all their diversified movements for the most different purposes first arise? As the case stands, we know that there is always movement in progress, and its amplitude, or direction, or both, have only to be modified for the good of the plant in relation to internal or external stimuli.The idea of idea I have in mind is that the details of mole bio accumulate information not merely about density relations but about information (not programs) of the stochiometric eventuality of coincidences (1-D) thermal currents ionically match to time of heat transfer by Brownian motion during the survial (without cell death) of DNA,RNA,Protein chemistry. There would be NO survival of the fittest individual under sexual reproduction but merely cellular existence with the apperence of age (perhaps meaning adaptation"" but I can not say that yet) namely state of NOT undergoing programmed cell death by incidence without coincidence!! This is a falsifiable possiblity but requries a level of scholarship above that being proffered by elite institutions today. The details I suggest even might explain historical conflicts of the topic as due to failure to find that negative time and negative entropy dont go together homogenously. That is my own opinion and subject to modification.The first thing that this notion does is to discount Gould's idea that the stair step is the answer by showing under what population thinking indiviudality CAN be associated. If I am correct then the ++ 1-D symmetry with >> 1-D symmetry BUILD neontological coincidneces irrespective to Mayr's thought or even Gould's constraint because there is a restraint on constraints invariantly but this is NOT due to time but rather to the physical spreading of time under photon existence vs electron existence. It may be possible to build electrokinematic clocks that one simply attaches to a plant (or animal) and it keeps time but it would not recall any old invasive science fiction machine-man implntation technique. This, however, remands that I be able to convert a SPLIT adaptive landscape into a force-free constant velocity presenttion across some actual space. I'll try that next.

Brad,
I am sorry, but your ramblings contribute nothing to this thread. The point I was trying to make was that "kind" as roughly defined by YEC's was vague and didn't agree with modern taxonomy.
I ask to please desist with your techno-bable, it is annoying and detracts from the topic (this is under the opinion that for some reason you actually believe your posts to be relevant, and not that you are posting meaningless crap in order to confuse and disorient).

It is not,modern taxonomy is out of its league compared with barminology. There is more precision in the baramin than in how precisely taxonomy is to be reorganized should the heirarchical view of levels of selection succeed. Please consult the thread on Baraminology where I was quite explict about the kinds. I am sorry you feel this way but your perception of me is ONLY apparent. If you take the time like Abby to get to post with me you WILL come to know me differently.http://EvC Forum: Distinguishing Baramins -->EvC Forum: Distinguishing Baramins[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-05-2004][This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-05-2004]

Dear Dr. Brad,Currently, modern taxonomy illness is the result of too many peoples erect new taxa AND different other peoples arrange them in the Classification. The result is near to a pity in some special cases (polyphyletic famillies). This doesn't not mean that all is good for the wastebasket. We have a snapshot of an edification.
To be honest, I can't believe your Barmin concept could be really helpful for the moment and in this context. We have nothing at the rank "kind", only genus. The best to do is to let taxonomist more time to cleanup these little mess.Denesha

I am no "DR" though I did get two post cards from Down Under and South America asking for reprints of an article I wrote as a teenager.Frankly, I am quite surprised that you ventured to judge MY OWN idea for it clearly witnesses that there is very little learning despite my saying the same thing here day in and day out. You "think" or 'cant believe' that i am wrong yet I KNOW you are wrong to think that I am thusly. I am sorry for such strong language but I will explain this one. Esentially you and others are saying NOW, that rather than having another, or in your case, a first, go-, with me y'll perfer the kind of "science" of CarlZimmer in AT THE WATERS EDGE than my own ideas. I begrudge no one for having opinions and can acknolwdge that socially but I warn you this is not the way. Dont walk in it. While Carl was thinking up that it might be oK to figure a woman with a frog I was under the water of Africa getting my nose filled with black dirt just to find just one more DIFFERNT electric fish. Just yesterday I chanced instead to see an illustration in MECHANISMS OF BEHAVIOR by Peter Marhler and WD Hamilton (no light weights mind you) from 1966 which in my own understanding (which includes the baramins' logic I inverted from what you will find in other cist lit.) trumps any firing of Carl's synapses that caused ALL his colummns divide in e-fish two collumm picture of 1966 which Carl got don in 1998. Zimmer columnizes tetrapodsP99,ottersP185,and whalesP203 quite EXPLICITY(his word)what was explained in 66 as "convergent". Marler and Hamilton called attention rather than sexually to the SNOUTS of these fishes which they noted might indeed indicate similar paths of evolution differently locomoted in SA vs Africa. Again, let me remind you that I did not see this figure until yesterday. I make no bones about it. I found out in 1986 that this idea is wrong but Veblen already knew in 1898 when he wrote, "The great deserts of the evolutionist leaders-if they have any deserts as leaders-lie, on the one hand, in their refusal to go back of the colorless sequence of phenomena and seek higher ground for their ultimate syntheses, and , on the other hand, in their having shown how this colorless impersonal sequence of cause and effect can be made use of for theory proper, by virtue of its cumulative character."Such a sequence DOES STILL exist. I for one KNOW that I was NOT!! looking at "porn" when finding this combination I have already seen in nature by interactivity but there were messages that I had porn on my computer. I did not. But this only helps the people morally I would choose not to support.Zimmer to some extent attempted to understand the colorlessness to Gould's conceptual degree undoubtly but if one rejects the left hand 1966 colorlessity it is not a problem to reject any distorted such sequence as well. I have not the time to explain again what I have done repeatedly here. Sometime someone will have to realize that they need to believe me as well. I may not be able to remember this moment exactly as I am writing out the negativity as well.The snout will not work and nor will the fins as if they were either or handed but this information was lost and so while i was able to find a way to simply read nature using baramins that I CAN NOT within modern taxonmy for issues of current application of algorthims AND proabilities (which DONT address outstanding neoontological genetic issues)there is LESS lexical chance but perhaps a different grammetical chance that current classifications can survive my reading. I may die but the objectivity in the language or in this case the colorlessness of form will remain.I had thought that this particular knowledge ONLY applied to validation of Croizat but now I percieve a broader need for the mess will remain no matter how much time you or i grant. I spent 4mothns after 8yrs of experience creating the data that was lost to THAT mess and I find that baramins already cLEANed it up. The issue of descent being conceptually seperated from mechanisms only made this matter worse so the elite lost its light to Veblen. The smart marxists will understand. Using crabs only gives 2-D, the fish get three. I can explain that in terms of current taxonomy not baraminology however.I really do know what I am talking about. some day some one will relearn it.

Dear Brad McFall,Accept my apologies for misspelling your name.I have a problem with your generous reply. I can't understand more than 10% of it and when reed the whole reply, I forgot for a short moment, the thread of my initial post.Denesha

Did you mean to think or say that one can not DO good work with polyphlyetics? There was some confusion in the 70s in central Europe especially as to if Croizat was "working" with such but he wrote a paper on induction and deduction that cleared that up for me. You see, polyphyla becomes very erroneous if one had already seperated metnally descent with mechnisms of change which is apparently part of the "free will" of some currently praticing evos but with THAT division AND the assumption of any Croizat or Croizatist for that same connectivity I could have found how you might have been ambivalent about the circular file. Best. Brad-formality is not necessary.

Yes. It's not the right place to debate of this but I'm firmly convinced that a polyphyletic resolution underscores a wobbly general consideration in my field (fishes). I'll stay on the thread subject.
The main error is the blindness and tenacious desire of systematical gathering based on erroneous or inconsistent taxonomic features.
IOW, organisms are still related wrongly. I agree that it is not simple and quite subjective to decide which feature have a "high" taxonomic value or conversely a "low" value within a evolutionary trend. There is an obvious integrity lack from certain authors in the scientific community.Denesha

Ok, you may be at a truth here. I went to Zaiire in 1986 and spent 4moths collecting electric fish every day to be subsequently used in disscetions of the electric organs in order to determine the MAXIMUM amount of variablity this trait has diverged in the lineages in Africa (which could then be compared with fish in South America as to any supposed convergence etc after the fact). I had already spent over 8 years in Hunterdon County NJ collecting over 700 specimens that I had kept for two weeks or longer and was very adept at LOOKING for combinations of vertebrate morph differences and seperating the collections geographically. All of this was going fine for about 3moths but then I became somewhat unable to find anything new to seperate when ONLY looking at the fish (this was BEFORE any electrical measurements of signals were done)so, contrarily to what I had done with reptiles and amphibians in NJ I decided to try to see if morphological divisions could be maintained by including environemental information (local vegatation, depth of water, surrounding landscape etc) and amazingly I was able to CONTINUE to seperate the speciems I bought from fisherman every morning. I kept all of the divisions seperate but there was no journalizing of the differences so they remained subjective with me. This however was what I WAS PAID TO DO. And the the grad student I went with was quite happy to have someone like me who was able to make prelimiary data divisions from which he took the fish (LIVE) and attempted to duplicate my icthlogical distinctions with electric signal differences. This information was however discarded by the lab back in ITHACA when it SENT the specimens to FRANCE for some "political" reason as not apparently to "embarss" the high european scientists with a punky NJ snakeguys seperation. Thus I see very easily how you can be concerned with polyphyla being a problem with fish but the problem in general IS with language as I have been able to understand the different approaches JUST IN LOOKING at the shapes of tube apodians are UNDERSTOOD DIFFERENTLY by FRENCH AND ANN ARBOR biologists simply becuase of some very scant data on development which in my opnion IS MUCH LESS INFORMATION rich than that I used to seperate the fish in the field. If one NOW then attempts to add the LOGIC of baraminology and kinds discontinuous to this DATA( including simply preferences for different words like annuli as we might discuss fish polyphylaaaa) then a resolution of this current high systmatics IS CLEANED up from without creationsit influence possibly but for me WAS BY MEANS of critical creationsim.So with fish I found that one can supplement the form with the translation in space and one gets beyond the problem. I have not tried this subsequently with herps as I was pervented from doing what I knew probably better than all but a handful of people how to do for marxist influence reaches into higher education in US biology. I think lizards are ripe for this use case but I may not have any money even to retire with so I can not actually do what I want to do not for reasons of choice but becuase I presently have not this choice. Croizat had indeed made advances irrespective of creationism in this regard but contradictorily current biology wrongly attempts to have it cake (anti-Croizat) and eat it too (ant-Creationism). Out of eaten is not out of eden.

Dear Brad,I can't add more without completely escaping from this thread.
However, why not open a new thread like:
Scientific dogmatism: how can some "gurus" ruin a student perspective?Have a nice day,Denesha

I have established so far in this thread sans negativity that the logic of Baramins added to the current state of paraphlyeeee might get a beter and thusly more kindly kinder classification than current taxonomy and be a kind of larger application than is current in evolutionary biology today. Now I seal the deal with a predication. ALL of the toads in North America are due to DeVresian step down saltations such that multiple origins of species (not kinds) of this kind result from purely mechanical differences of sound transmssion in the transverse vs longitudianl state. Gould had noted that this is "archaic" (progressive vs regressive) but I show that instead it is not being but the application of two KINDS of non-euclidean geometry (hyperbolic vs elliptic) within the current database of known genetic correlations. The error was not thinking like Croizat in terms of colineations in science. I will be detailing this reading in the more moleuclar threads where issues of 2-D (affects in perspectivities vs projectivites (bearing on interpretations of D'Arcy Thompson transforms) due to difference of even or odd nature of the dimension phenomenologically in self-similar kinematics) is focus of any changes.In this kind of larger thread, you can note that it beginging to appear that the mathematical update of Wright's shifting balance theory is not only cognizable(last paragraph) but CONSTRUCTABLE especially by using the ever increasing data of molecular biology. Gould did not take this course. In order to achieve the guess I predicted I will show under what "laws of thought" it is necessary in order to rewrite the linear nature ofWright's rules by rotations of elliptic spaces (representing chromosomes or maximal DNA sequences natrually existable) relative to hyperbolic ones(where either photons are on both sides or thermal currents contact the symmetry(I have not decided on this as of yet although they need not be mutually exclusive)). No known concept in evolutionary biology is large enough to contain this thought should I show that any PE divisions remain within the 2-D presentation as it is clear that organisms and populations are IN "3-D". Bertrand Russel apparently thought that simply denial of Euclids postulate V was enough to extricate any philosophy of Kantwhile I take it to indicate only problems with categories of science in Kant's time which the Galvani-Volta dispute was Faradayed away. Final dismissal of Gould's "structure" will only occur should the transforms be expressed in the correlation data as hyperbolic metrics onto elliptic morphometric tangent refernce forms but I have not worked on the affine deatils of the suposed mechanism of thermal contact via quarternions but I HAVE mentally REMOVED (it did not need to be moved in the first place but current evolutionary biology could not get beyond Kaufmann) the faculty of thought that HAD decent and mecanisms seperate. There will also be open the ability to find the nonlinear nature that Provine asked Wright of btu the photon issue vs electron tissue must be solved materially before that advance commences.If you have not the math maturity to work on this on your own simply start trying to understand the issues surrounding panbiogeography for Croizat rightly presents biology in terms of colineations (relations of points to points and lines to lines , tracks to tracks, nodes to nodes, baselines to baselines AND DOES NOT TRY TO TEACH biological change on the basis of correlations (point to line) that is standard and source of c/e conflict despite its easy statement. It would not have matter that Croizat used "polyphla" if he was stringently THINKING NOT of correlations even if he was more free with what colineations he had footnoted. DeVries had NOT discovered an "odd ball" but instead provides more conceptual acces of baramins to the notion of apo baramin. I might even find the celluar notions to be matching as subdiploid elliptics might be actually physcially plyed in certain dual ways that the colineations can find stronger statistical regressions but I have not a department at my faculty only one mind and you here I correspond with.