Brad McFall states his ideas on a science education curricula based on the idea of baramins (created kinds):
quote: It can not be this as this is where I was at when you called for not tabling the point. I didnt know that Nosy an Me really do want the same thing. The work is in progress but is a bit too bslogical so if I could have the mammy razor please... Well something out of this raw short hand WILL be available to be taught onse I get my nose out of its way and work out the remaining techinical issues AND THEN FIGURE OUT the best language to introduce the teaching on an easier to comprehend basis but meanwhile it would be something like this-
Creation Biology: Towards a Unification of Baraminology and Mendelism Google took off a paper by Dr.Kurt P.Wise from DOTankerbergDOTcom which contained a couple of sentences: "Baraminology is a new field of science. It is the science of baramins- the study of created kinds. Baraminology will ultimately include the identifying, the classifying, and the naming of baramins. At this ponit it is concentrating on how to identify baramins. Classification and naming will come in the course of time."
The following terms (adjectives/nounds) have been proposed for baraminic "identification".
In the following course of terms "Creationary Systematics" "Discontinuity Systematics" "Baraminology" -----------------
Instead of accepting provisionally archeabaramin and polybaramin I present a polar procedure that does all the identification, classification and naming via one recursive algorithmic comparative thought process by yoking the comparative creation biology making/modeling to source of error detection in dispersal vs vicaraince (tests from cladisitc data sets) so USING baraminic grammer to expose biogeographic prejudice for vicariism that is not wholly taxonomic but is assumed so in the simulation wrong used Mendel's Olby developmental bionomial in the plenum that transversality applies to D'Arcy Thompsonian misrepresentation(s) by Gould in morphometric visualization. Gilmore p 16 "1. Change of variables In order to describe physical problems in R^n, it is useful to set up a coordinate system (x1x2,...xn). Any coordinate system will do." This book sends the reader a view of a baraminic "coordinate system" of baraminology as a part of Discontinuity Systemataitcs applied Panbiogeographically as part of Creationary Systematics in the orbit of a Copernican Sea Change to a possible issue of age and area relative to selection levels being under the control of the solution of equations Lewontin has elsewhere expressed as Coupled Differential Equations of involution. Gilmore p 16 "If another coordinate system x`1, x`2,...x`n) isestablished" (D`Arcy Thompson Morphomometric all Affine Geometry Objects)" it si possible to transform back and forth between them. So BOTH creation discipline and the disciplinary stricuture of evolutionary theory are used to further this science passing the Lemon Test of the Supreme Court USA. The legal battles between creationists and evolutionists reduces to finding any point p element of R^n at which the Jacobian determinant XXXXX is nonzero.
This happens both by the current stage of baraminology transitioning from identificationj to naming and classification and because different cardinalites of infinity divides in subjective use of the morphometric tangent referecence space of any clumped or unclumped morphospace the descriptive (value (without time judgements)) of the catastrophe set, elementally useful used using, infinite induction across the binomail difference of hybrid OR parent PER topography ON EARTH and a change in the Number Class to seperate a zero PLANE grammer of the surface (layer) in real space and time under form-making adjustibility by the kind of biogeography, that is, is different for each taxogeny (by telic means but not necessarily end ontologically) identifiable baramincally with limit point qualification lexicology.
This allows a means to determine if statistical tests of Vicariism may have wrongly been done by an all taxonomic vicarrism (transversality across ANY metric) and should instead (not done because of c/e transcendental illusion not being made empirical) have rejected chance dispersal if... The search fo rthe seperatrix however is confined to interfinger if you will any energy of the topological not topographic space of not metaphysical Matchette 'force' of two limit point baraminic element derived SETS (the qualification can lead to quatities should the impression be pressed and not rubbed) even if tranfinite pure math may go another way. These measures"" beyond mrophometrics are presented instantiated by two different number class ordinations from the same database warehouse so crossing only in their geometry (by ordertypes?) the obuject of Rene Thom's BIOPHILOSOPHY not bifurcation math nor physics of complexity.
The limit point sets of the differently manifested kinds of baramins in terms of Mendel difference of the country vs garden in hybrids vs parents categories statistically biometric are "read" from number class "pointer' in the electronic version written first and foremost by the baraminologist not the hierarhcihc philosopher of biology without influence directly of statistical testing in the dispersal vs vicariance expermental math unless for instance the tropism involved be actually seperated from the actual gradients so correlated int he same path analysis of cause.
Topograpy is generated when the relation of all the baramins (to the polybaramin) is combined witht he interfingered catastrophe set representation of ALL the cricisims of birfucatable applications and IS modeleable assesing Cantor's A,B,C,D,...L real Numbers when the math of a limit of real number sequences is dependent with the limit point of a set instead biologically is linked by cause or correlationof Lebseque "collections". This still permits a "smoothing " of the Galton 'polygon" metaphor and permits indeed by turn Sewall Wright's shifiging balanace theory out of the same data evetiaarily but might suggest reasons to disbelieve species selection while also suggest in a progressive research campagain that compostes panbiogeography and the phsycis and engineering of catatrophe set theory that may be revealing a source of varation left undetected in the datat due to the international resolution of the Mendelic - Biometric difficutlty of isolation from a lingeage continuum. The continual seperation of baraminc lexic grammetology however may not show that some change to tcurrent use of "mutation" is biology is called for. That will depend of on the fits of the data to and in thetwo model approach not a debate about the physical naturalism that is matterially equivalent in the form that remains despite biological change.
This result is achieved by having the neobaramin concept contain both signs and symbols for sets but only the symbols are used to demarcate what is presently but choice of "delay vs maxwell" conventions THE CATASTROPHE THOERY SEPERATRIX (presently for any future Mendelism) via rejection of archeabaramin in the algorithmic coding of the loop from polybaramin ( the polybaraminc 3-Space(shortcutted in Gilmore instance p588 "In spite of this, the idea of mapping functions into Euclidean spaces R^n in order to generate a topology is useful and appealing. We use this approach as a hueristic tool. )) to topology via the topography of all baramins. There is no presumption that possibly more than one orbit of life is involved in this program as baraminological lexos seperates (via phylogenetic discontinuties) the database collectivity rather than attempts to unify all the data into one heirarchical anscetralizing directory tree-lineage.
The grammer for classifiying, identifying and and naming baraminology comes about by inverting the topology of Wise aned Remine as per Friar's understanding.
through a catastrophe set instantiation of the topography which creates the signs and symbols of the terms' lexix writing space making a difference of limit point set signs and catastrophe set symbols
and providing a program to find the seperatrix only on the lexic boundary in the terms' grammetology.
I have not got it to the point of developing the texts to be cited.
1. What evidenciary justification do you have for assuming created kinds (baramins) when constructing taxonomy?
2. How will you deal with the progressive movement into separate baramins (as they are understood from YEC lit today) as seen in the fossil record? Example: Reptile to mammal series with jawbones becoming middle ear ossicles, Archeopteryx.
3. Does your curriculum rely heavily on extant species in current ecosystems? If so, why is the fossil record and extinct species ignored or played down?
4. Is catastrophism, most notably the Noah's Flood, important to your model and curriculum, or is punctuated catastrophism (meteor strikes eg) with intervening periods of uniformity to be used?
5. Why should we use baramins when they have yet to be defined?
I think you posted something similar on another thread, but I may have misunderstood your overall direction (evo or creation). Personally, I think that using a baramin lens to look at current speciation may lead to local baramins but may miss the boat when genetics and the fossil record are brought into play. Vestiges and atavisms would further blur the lines between current baramins as seen through the lens of uniform evolutionary lines with common ancestery going further back than baramins may want to allow.
quote:Re: subtext ------------------------------------------------------------------------ One additional question: What age group are you looking to teach? For instance, I'm assuming Brad's lesson plan above is not intended for our nation's public schools.
and so as to provide a "buffer" back to this issue I will answer that post here else the rest-aside from that which Loudmouth provided will be continued back there (BSM).
I hope to continue to show in response to Loudmouth, Zephyr feel FREE to come on over even though I already answered you before...
Yes DAN this is simple stuff and will be re-wrtten for the Public Schools if I have a way. It will be EASIER to use it as an example for the K-12 then to get just one more creationist idea accepted AND taught on the university level. That can only come with more time. My suspicion would be that when baraminology has moved OUT of the phase of identifying it will start to become part of standard teaching in classification when not taxonomy. In the mean time as baraminologists do their work it can be introduced UNIFIED with a particular part of hypothesis testing in evolutionary theory without dealing with ALL the broader issues I will start to hopefully do more than address in this thread. If one is only interested in teaching baraminology wihout my take then the new textbook available this year may proove helpful. I dont know as I have not read it.
Zephr was using baraminology to argue against creation science itself but the topic was to present a curriculum and so He was rather more than me not on point of the topic as but a response but I am PASSING baraminology as an argument to the parameters in the discussion of vicariance and dispersal. Loudmouth questions this. However my work on this subject today may be limited to Z's valid response in so far as the man "Pritchard" still substitues in my psyche for the current difference (if any) between Friar and Wise on *thinking* of turtle baramins. We all know turtles are not primates I hope. So, today I may not address the question of what kind of a kind mankind and apes are or might be but Zephyr could likely figure out what I will or may write on the topic if he tries his head on baraminology. He may only want to use it against creationism himself, I dont know.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-18-2003]
quote:I think you posted something similar on another thread, but I may have misunderstood your overall direction (evo or creation). Personally, I think that using a baramin lens to look at current speciation may lead to local baramins but may miss the boat when genetics and the fossil record are brought into play.
Thank you Loudmouth and I hope that the admins are above board with all this...You even provided me a target for the entire thread GOOD JOB! I Know I can deal and discuss your issue of local baramins vs LONGER TIMES than creationists generally want to appear in fact, in fact as you mention in the next sentence I did not yet quote here. First some answers and feel free to modify your questions however you would like,
1.- I will not be using or even suggesting using barminological data in exclusion of any kind of systematic procedure by any kind of taxonmist but I will use the taxa created in creationary systematics as an outsource test of error bias in the question of dispersal vs vicariance that by the very tests done could more finely discrimiate geographic vicariism and taxonomic vicariism which such an "outside" database warehousing warehousing THE SAME SOMA. The "objects" in the data base will be electronically maintained by different database structures however with my preference for the evolutionists's stuff (I am going to simply this representation into creation and evolution while if anyone has learned anything from my posts it is that there is no such bipolar reality - it is only an idealization to get the point across, or an illusion if you will) is to use affine geometry but the baramin database will flesh out a difference of limit point sets and sets of real number sequences that have limits. The ability to actualy graph in the baramins before the morphometric equivalent will occurr because baraminology is a rather limited field and has only discussed so far a small amount of nature's diversity. So I DO NOT presume or suppose that the classifications that come out of baraminology "justify" rejection of any other "scheme". Lord knows current taxonomy not only has procedural differences of absolute opnion but also national differences in implementation. The reason I will be be potentiall promoting discontinuity systematics is to further panbiogeography and NOT to merely simply the current state of the art of vicaraince vs dispersal BECUASE THIS STATE exists at the expense of a part of evoutionary thinking IN CROIZAT and a SUBSET of the GEOGRAPHY that post-Remine patterns of baramin DIFFERENCES metricis if the empirics be afforded statistically.
2-I will deal with the fossil record in the Croizat truism that fossil and living distribution are not contradictory. In particular I will be using the attempt in the Principia to view DISPERSAL shfited westward from distributions in any collection localities of fossils and living records alike. In order to move in this direction Croizat had provided (an unused) TERTIARIZATION that I will test Wise's position on Pre-Flood biogeography with where either the Permian is the actual geology or Ogliocene/Miocene is the conservative effort unless I have knoweldge of a better geological seriation. This method of this particular part of Croizat's stuff in particular has to do when hybrization (bottom up baramin creation in current lexos of speciation by bararminologists) and reproductive isolation is BOTH stopped aand let pass (in form making)(not necessarily space and time)Therefore there is still an issue with time to resolve. If the fossils help out. All the better. Currently there is more talk of steve's punc eq than deciding which taxa may or may not (if a baramin is more a family or a species or top down from the BIBLE etc) being isolated continue to change in SYMPATRY or what Croizat named "overlap". Nelson refused to pay homage to Croizat's baselines and MAIN MASSINGS which in this little work up is only a point in the Middle of Africa for any two masses relevant to for instance allopatry vs sympatry neontological to any Gould large time claim, Yes you need to do and understand BOTH creation and evolution to do this biological extension beyond the NZ instantiation of panbiogeography. There is a lot of work here. Only the simplest will be extracted in the teaching of both creation and evolution after we know what part does the best to raise science as a whole.
3. I am getting tired so I wil be cutting my explantions a little short for the rest of today. This will depend in part on how the baraminological community accepts my work. I have already posted snail wisesome things to ICR on my understanding of baramins. I will be pressing for the particular use of the carabid bettles in the Alps when it comes to using my model of an inverted topology of the current set theory of the relation of mono, apo and holo baramins. I am not certain Friar analyzed the turtles correctly but I need to think more about it all. But as for what kinds to use with the kids...well I havent thought of that yet.
4-Wise isnt scheduled to speak on preflood postflood biogeography until this summer and I am not deep enough into the acutal thought processes of baraminolgists to get my own answer which may be possible by a little more research on my part. The Croizat exemplar brings the ICE AGE into focus but I dont know how this will interface with that climetological aspect of creationism as of yet. I am going to be doing all I can with the topology and topography and hopefully staying within the bounds evolutionarily of topobiology to remand all the patternable answers as to the model parameters but it is possible that the facts may "force" discussion into this area. That will not influence the using of a combined evolution and creation for the students but only how tight the interaction between creationism and evolutionism can become. We already know it is loose to non-existent. I hope to change all of that.
5-I am not sure what you mean here- really- just like Nosy didnt understand me. You are aware I take it of defintions of monobaramins, holobaramins, apobaramins, polybaramins? I will be suggesting a Catastrophe Theory panbiogeographic limitpoint infinity grammer to get defintions that does not rely on the current view of Wise's, I think, of top down and bottom up by getting a little more topologically clinematic than is presently logically used. It may even be possible to use this view of baraminology to mend the difference of Poincare and Croizat. That in and of it self would be enough to capitulate teaching Baraminology in college as well. Some of this depends a bit on how the age of information becomes the age of biology and is out of both the creationists and the evolutionists control.
I'll have to do take a break and do a little more work before I can answer your final question about vestiges and atavisms but by then at least I will know whether I am talking to you about a plant of an animal I hope at least. Best Brad. God Bless. Oh, I almost forgot- what makes this all possible, the most important thought, is that panbbiogeographers havent been able to decide how a width of a track is to be understood or determined. Baraminology will continue to exist in the distance this measure provides for sure. It will exist on Creationist bases as well. Please learn. Evolutionists in general ignore Croizat on first pass and Creationists even more. I even think I recall now someone prominent evolutionist making this observation? I dont feel like searching for it. It seems like it is only politics that prevents this simple reading from becoming required writing in the schools. It takes a lot of social effor to get a simple educational result. We are not here yet.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-18-2003]
This jargon parallels the jargon of cladistics, which is not surprising; a baramin is essentially a kind of clade. As to identifying baramins, many creationists use the Bible; they find out which "kinds" are mentioned in it. But there are numerous species that the Bible says little or nothing about, and many creationists also borrow techniques from mainstream taxonomy -- and also use some rather subjective criteria.
However, creationists have had great differences in opinion as to what baramins there are, and they often describe baramins in very imprecise terms. This may be related to whom their intended audience is, which is mostly people unfamiliar with Linnaean nomenclature, but it is not very helpful to a serious biologist.
Cladistics never was jargon to me personally. I simply didnt buy either the particular computer instantiations or the Croizat dispute on Hennig. Barmaminology is only "jargon" as long as one is not in possesion of the process one used to DO it. Cladistics even on this view would be LESS jargon not more as it really was only a matter of being in possession of the computer programs that output clades. You do have to do some thinking that I will probably be able to show was already done by Croizat by 61 that Remine picked up on from Marsh earlier or contemporary with Croizat. I will not be demanding on use Wise top down to get this perspective that is shared. It will be important to DO TAXONOMY, the benefit of baraminology is to provide soma DISCONTINUTITES which is not what phenetics, cladistics or phylogentiecs NECESSARILY remands and retains. The point is that there is a lexical seperation beyond what is used by evolutionists. This provides a "sister" group test of GEOGRAPHIC vicariism once applied exclusions of all taxonomic variisms are id'd and kept out of the data. The statistical signifance needs to be established but this does not mean that BIBLICAL CReationism is counter indicated as JIM indicates. These terms ARE NOT IMPRECISE but the USE of them are not in total agreement , By yoking them directly to tests of dispersal goals means that in the continued naming etc of baramins not only will the evolutionary intereaction with creationism get stronger but by common discovery creationism will itself improve. I am not going to respond to any and every negative a post and I am certainly nt going to try to respond to every one who wants a piece of Croizat's balacony that I can afford nowadays for this known "never a serious biologist" that was an Italian joke perhaps you missed it. Croizat was more serious than Mayr. I know this by experience. Cummings notions of typology may not be correct but I have not given the Aristotlian relation much Galelian thought on the SAME LINE as of yet. And Admin it is not me that creates "ramblings" it is trying to deal with posts like this that fills in that color law.
Yes, "significant holistic similarity or difference" as in a refined baraminology at present (2003)is mere jargon without the set being transfinite.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-18-2003]
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-25-2003]
This would be a good time to add my post from the thread that spun off this one.
quote:It is telling that baraminology is stuck on how to identify a baramin. Especially when its devotees are already fully convinced they exist. They don't even know what it looks like, yet they are willing to squander their days developing terminology which will (hopefully) describe it once they figure it out! And to what end? From previous discussion, it is fairly obvious that any consistent definition based on morphology would either: a)place mankind in the same kind as all the apes; or b)result in the identification of far more kinds than could ever successfully live on the ark for a year. Thus, baraminology remains stuck where it is until it is willing to bite the bullet and introduce one of these problems into the equation. I'll be interested to see if that ever happens.
I am reading up on Croizat right now and will formulate a response after that (may take a couple days, who knows). In the meantime, I found an article on biogeography that you might be interested in (here). I have a feeling you have probably read it, but who knows. Only read the first couple of paragraphs but it seems cogent to the discussion. Anyway, if you don't hear back right away, don't fret.
It looks familiar but it has been a while. This may have been the text that tipped me off to Stoddart whom I can not disagree with more about on Croizat (but Stoddart's writing helped me work out my own difference of opinion with Simon Levin's view of ecosystem math). Take your time. I am not ready to answer Z yet he provided a nice hook for me to keep my hat on until I am ready to fish for some green peas. I think that may be the suymposium issue that displayed the breath of what NZders were doing with panbiogeography. If that is the correct memory this is a "light weight" discussion of the topic.
On panbiogeography relevant in this thread I take it indeed as Croizat wrote "It is likely that I have handled as many records of the distribution of plants and animals as most of my peers ever have.The result of my experience is that records are to biogeography what lenses are to optical instruments." Principia Botanica (recognizing Atlantic European Distributions) p. 1420. I hope this finishes off the breadth of Lizard breath's forked tongue should He/sHe not reply?
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-19-2003]
Mark I am "suggesting" using phylogenetic discontinuity via cladistics vs panbiogeography to purport to seperate taxonomic vicariism and geographic vicariism. The scope may not be as broad as your suggestion but it is comphrenendable and not the same apprehension. If you do not support a rejection of Neslon failure to use baselines and main massings you could legitimate MISS this logic. But this notion worked up to a particular example I bet could get published in Systematic Biology.
someday I'll update this into a projective drawing
Mark I am done with new stuff for today. I pick it up later. This is how I view the baramin to "look" short of topological neighborhood changes of the restrained "biological character space" to be integrated with the "incomprehnsible"Provine views of Wright's "adaptive landscape". ######################################################## ###############################################polybaramin ########################################## ##################################### (M)#########*@A@*######(M) (O)######*###@P@###*###(O) (N)####*#####@O@#####*#(N) (O)#*H#######@B@#####H*(O) (B)#*O#######@A@#####O*(B) (A)#*L#######@R@#####L*(A) (R)#*O#######@A@#####O*(R) (A)##*#######@M@####*##(A) (M)###*######@I@##*####(M) (I)########*#@N@*######(I) (N)############################### Nested group features hierarchically may not exist but that is an empirical issue which is not going to change the topological presentation of my representation in Baraminic thought. The APOBARAMIN has two degrees of freedom in one neighborhood. The HOLOBARAMIN has two independent one degree of freedom neighborhoods. The MONOBARAMIN has two independent two degree of freedom neighborhoods. The polybaramin is a possibly discontinuous neighborhood (Cantor showed continuous motion is nonetheless possible in discontinuous spaces) of unknown degrees of freedom IN Eucledian 3-SPACE. This view inverts the set understanding of Frair on the terms; but I have yet to work this into the panbiogeography of turtles having only a chamelon eye with it for any Euphorb. The boundaries of the terms as Frair intended them can be seen at <http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm>
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-24-2003]