I had said "when Croizat is no longer remembered" so that I did not have to say " when Brad McFall is no longer remembered". If it is a maze then it is one that I contend no amount post-Gouldian narrative will extricate by any account of the efficacy, agency of natural selection. Do you mean the "anthropic principle?" I merely realised ( if you talk to Brad long enough he will figure out what you mean = phone trace) that you MUST be referring to the effect of MAN on distribution and not nature if we get rid of the Affect of the amount of water being discussed. You will have to explain how this is "anthropic". Men eat brains. The effect OF THE FALL iS anti- as you said but the EFFECT of this falls in part on mankinds responsiblity and dominion as well as his sufficency of naming. You will find that I have never used this adjective in any post on any web site nor if you had my written correspondence, in there as well. If Gould can take a long brush at Noah to NASA I can not see any more how you can deny my use of topography that simply hangs the world from a single point. I am not a turtle but a picture from the AMNH looked to like Australia to me but was tutles on turtles like fleas ad infinitum. I did not say if this was COTTON OR POPCORN please note that that is what you needed to not refer the "others" to for the question of WHICH WAY I need answered for Kanga too. You are allowing me less by assuming the direction COMES FROM NOAHS ARK. You seemed to have missed my deflection of reference from myself. Croizat left that open until one understood rather the difference of (let me put a pin point in (Java vs Florida for Corn on the Coast or in the Mnts of South Carolina)(this is not a maze but the proper field of denotation of biogeography) and dispersal from what dispersal IS the question being asked (after one thinks of a first way dispersal may have gone (you and I are discussing firts distribution from what distribution you see... we can not hangle the MEANS (of dispersal (or vicariance for that matter)) until after we know exactly what part of the world we are NOT talking about- So far all I know is that we have a point in the Mid East and some kind of area Down Under. I had said that we need monetary means to ascertain this means of collection localties BEFORE we can even worry about whether we were talking of a local or global flood. That is something you already had passed judgement (on me) on. But on re-reading the Principia on Corn I found you missed the little bit that obviously still squirts between the cellulose so I went further to suggest and remand that you are actually asking about Man and not even the appearence of the age of GIS areallycoextensive set Maxwell plainmeter redesigned OOP (which I would admit IS likely incomprehensible (to you or others)) BUT I HAD NOT SAID THIS before you suggested this topology is a knot. It is not. I am not suggesting you are deaf. For some God send, you seem to be the only netaware person willing to engage my strain of biogeography work still permit me to entrain when not training my own thought. Sorry I confused you with Croizat over the issue of track width. You seem to have confused a comptuer subnetmask or logical AND with a Maize which for me is the older problem of not realizing that Mendel may have made a reference to Kant by using the German word "kantig" in describing seeds which instead of being translated 'angular' is wrinkled instead. Darwin discussed the angle in the seed but Mendel used the seed to discuss angles. There is a space when not a world of difference here. So for the cotton vs corn issue Croizat admitted some vacillation from any kind of broom corn heritage by using a black node where others want the cob to be the pipe dream Gould admitted to having avoided as consequential from his scholarship in writing "Ontogeny and Phylogeny". Please understand that you have "inherited" a concept of vicariance which I guess IS NOT in filiation to Croizat's but by means of weak historiography. Nelson simply discounted the MATHMATICAL developements of the NZ crowned advances and I guess hopes that the size of the world from which this information is generated would be enough to keep the Museums on both sides of the North Atlantic free of any global cooling knoweldge of the positions enjoins.
I suppose I deserve this response because I posted elsewhere but this should not be an issue you just are not understanding me and even this (line by line did not change what I would have said elsewhere had you not replyed). Unfortuantely there is no other way to ply this thread. It has become a he said she said (Randy-Brad - hear here say) So I will say something positive even if you do not think it is. I know it is not necessarily about man that you were speaking but if follow may help you to appreciate, understand and change your tune. The tone is ok. We are talking about time heterogenity (if you followed my conclusion) but can be "visualized" spatially as to the difference of 1-D temporalizations 1001001001001 vs 101010101010101010101. The unique method of Croizat permits temporary exhange of age of species for the age of a process of species change SHOULD THE READING continue and the changes verifed exist validatable and dated.
In Chapter 9 Morris' wrote "Sometimes these similarities, which are always easily explained by creation, become very difficult to explain by the evolutionist. He often then falls back on a sematic device called "convergent evolution." For example, consider the wing. Insects have wings, birds have wings, some reptiles had wings ( e.g. , the extinct pterosaur), and some mammals (i.e. bats) have wings. All these animals were designed to fly, but evolutionists have to assume that a strucutre intended for flight evolved along FOUR COMPLETELY SEPERATE PATHWAYS, finally "converging" on structures that look homologous, but are not!" So if it was not Man that made this carriage then I eject the CONCEPT of the niche OR reject ecology BEfore natural history but this IS how Gould has it. The marxist's started this which sans Croizat only remands ecology and NOT natural history. Marx knew that Darwin gave natural history cuturally not ecology embryologically. Gould however has proposed in time to offer a different take on convergence which aside from the immediate issue relative to a point of diffence between you and I, Randy, I differ should you simply accept my definitions of collinear, concurrent, and parallel. The cladistic rule propositions you need not accept but I would need to use (them) to get from the subtraction, no matter how logically accomplished, to the mammal taxogeny whether divided othrogonally or simply parallel projected from the current map (we would not necessarily have to go to the firmament and back but we would need to try all this first). The error which should have warned Gould was the look-and-feell similarity of Lamarkianism and Slow and Gradual Anagenesis but that depends more on the level of organization whether human or creature and not on the priciple topic here of how much water must be selected in the distribution prior to the end of dispersal reaching a barrier, a bifurcation, or cirlced bottleneck from that dispersal in question.
On of the crucial things that YOU Randy need to understand about my understanding is that I was NOT taught in the context of approving of evolution by the information biochemcially more than an immune fracture but instead by the colony of smallness an ORGANSIM compares BY NOT EVEN ATTEMPTING TO DESCRIBE the single cells as organic. The difference of organic and inorganic chemisty is synthetic but in disscussing biogeograpy and the amount of water that the distribution spans ANALYSIS is the object. That I have an unusual method does not mean that you can not come to knowledge of it. That was said in good faith and not to "blow you off" as if the chaff of cotton was swept by a broom of corn. Here is another poem interlude on fleas- I hope you realize that it is time for me to duck out. You however, since you started this one can remain should you choose.
This is my own original work:
collinear - (points) form part of a generalized track
concurrent -(points) are directly associated through a main massing
parallel(l)- Lines having a node between them in a higher order taxon pin points space.
Proposition 2.1 - If l and m are any two distinct generalized tracks that are not parallel, then l and m have a unique point in common. If this point is a node then there is a derivative at the node. If the point is not a node then the continuousness in the area is a plane boundary cutting collinear points.
Proposition 2.2 - For every individual track or geographic variation there is at least one node outside this area.
Proposition 2.3 - For every collection there is at least one individual track or geographic variation not passing through its area ( the principle of terminal taxon).
Proposition 2.4 - For every collection locality there exist two distinct track oriented from some baseline that pass through the geographic coordinates of the locality.
Proposition 2.5 - There exist three distinct lines such that form SPACE + TIME + FORM either the two distinct lines of Prop2.4 are not time or time is correctly inferred (due the unresolved nature of cladograms).
You claim amounts to an empirical statement that Prop2.3 can not be multiply utilized when rounding the barrier inter alia.
Benton's "A Siphonapterous Sonnet"
Xenopsylia, fiar fleahood's finest flower!
Long has thou cowered midst the fecal waste.
Now, at long last, arrives that glorious hour
When, bursting from the bonds that have encased
Thy fragile body, though dost cast about
For some delicious blood-filled thin-skin rat.
Then, having drunk thy fill, thou dost set out
To find some lovely female creature that
Will share thy life. There in thy hairy world
With sternites close adpressed, thou two art one,
And with aedeagal apodemes unfurled
Thou dost the act for which thou wast begun.
Oh simply flea! Uncomplicated beast!
Thou livest best of all who thnkest least.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-29-2003]
Shame, really, that only Brad wants to discuss it.
™ Version 4.2
