Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
41 online now:
Diomedes, DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, jar, PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric, vimesey, WookieeB (10 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,488 Year: 20,524/19,786 Month: 921/2,023 Week: 429/392 Day: 45/74 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Distinguishing Baramins
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 80 (67770)
11-19-2003 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Brad McFall
11-18-2003 8:17 PM


Re: someday I'll update this into a projective drawing
Brad,

I'm still a little foggy on how you are going to differentiate between baramins and standard (evo) taxonomy. I get the idea that you are going to study the morphological differences between species/groups and use biometry to try and sort these groups out into an ordered taxonmy.

Maybe you could list short hypotheses or predictions for each case (baramins and std taxonomy). Or perhaps a simple plot using characteristics A, B, C, etc and show how you will use biometry to study these characteristics among the groups. I just need something a tad more concrete, some sort of practice problem you might say. I tend to be much more of a visual/kinesthetic person. The first diagram was great, but maybe a little more detail within a hypothetical data set.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Brad McFall, posted 11-18-2003 8:17 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Brad McFall, posted 11-20-2003 6:03 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3347 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 17 of 80 (68077)
11-20-2003 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by mark24
11-18-2003 7:40 PM


let me know when it makes sense
Dear Mark24,
There are FIVE steps involved in my thought process that I admit sometimes short cutting when I cant keep up with the posting cycle on the board. The ladder I use in this thread is not something that is so general that it excludes other(s)’ topics but when as in the case of the somewhat recent exchange with Randy my knowledge of these steps is substituted for YEC bashing I get/got somewhat hot.

Step1- Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion
#######Step 2- Biogeography before a bottom up baraminology ( see Wise on baraminology) in a topographic topological and or topobiological evaluation of ecology for instance. Creationism does not necessarily survive in this colony.
#################Step3 Vicariance vs. dispersal
#if vacariance is supported#########Step 4- Can a conclusion about geographic vacariism be made.

The RESULT was./would be/is Taxonomic vicariism MUST be excluded.

The LOGIC absolutely has been- @If not @-chance dispersal could still be misapplied or mismodelled no matter the assumption of a relation of distribution and dispersal.

After these four or five steps in the process there comes this result that Baraminology (even if a few taxonomic errors come with it into the data base (those will be dealt with latter on ecological, collection locality bases etc)) contributes to but if the logic rules against the indication of cause from the correlation so achieved (SO FAR I HAVE TO FIND ANY ONE HERE ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND, FOLLOW, AND FOLLOW UP on what this achievement CAN BE- When Keith spoke in general it went nowhere), there is still an option to reject the creationist influence in the experimental philosophy (some what but fully indicated by a response (but as we shall see is not really directed to the context I am operating the content of this thread number wise in, the numbers use comes BEFORE the logical question).

Now in writing up the simpler version of this for school children all of this gearing needs to be kept out of the presentation until the student grasps the route or path the work goes in and then IMMEDIATELY this background needs to come forward. In FACT – if vicariance is supported then there could be a causation of phenetic distance and intra baraminc distance (see BSG). The time of minimal Spanning trees vertex polymorphisms my map to baraminic volume (I gave a 2-D white wash of this inter alia) geometries (next I will show how to construct this geometry rigorously) no matter the local topology the vicariance spanned topographically. But it is wide open how to divide the cause of rotation and revolution provided certain possibilities in the polybaramin not the holobarmin?? remain unresolved. So green guys complaint is founded only after all the English expressions are exhausted. I will actually USE Croizat word “inconsistent” if you all are going to nit pick. This is not meant to discourage you from climbing Mt Baramin it is only a peneplain high in my topography.

Using this as a plausible means of hypothesis testing in the relation of ancestral areas and ages of vicariance biogeography (Yes Loudmouth I know I have more to address from you) THE TRUTH of statements that depend on Croizat et. Al. SYS ZOO 74(classical introduction of no-centers-of-origin biogeography) depend on the THOUGHT process in Creationary Systematics. This may make the creators of project-Steve cringe but any else short of a law suit seems to me to be simply READ by students of my generation writing from what another generation passed on. How long the dinos will remain in Zimmer’s and not my adapation is any ones’ fall.

My understanding so far of Discontinutiy Systematics had me emphasize the polybaramin over the holobaramin but if Frair’s turtle view holds (more on this in response to Zephyr) up metrically no matter the singularites for the panbiogeographic primate then I could be proven wrong in my simulation of time about which kind of baramin is used in the process of changing vicaraince biogeography to a protocol more in line with what the Nzlanders have induced than the current electronics of the mapping THAT DOES NOT SIGN OFF ON A PARTICULAR DIGITAL SIG OF CROIZATS VICARiiSM but indeed DOES coopt or expat the TERM for something that is physical and not biological.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mark24, posted 11-18-2003 7:40 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mark24, posted 11-20-2003 7:39 PM Brad McFall has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3347 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 18 of 80 (68080)
11-20-2003 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Loudmouth
11-19-2003 3:55 PM


Re: someday I'll update this into a projective drawing
I had said,
quote:
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
but I am still setting up what this AREA is that comes next in this wording- you are concerned about this AGE and I will get to it. If I am not mistaken there is only a techinal computer programming issue about to work this this different use of soma systems. There is NO doubt that it will be this working model, once it is done, will be what comes into the hottest line of fire just as each better cladistic creating alogrithm is but that is the actual doing of the acutal science. The point that I have yet to get over here is that real science can be done by embracing both creation and evolution. I know you are receptive to hear to it but seeing how the logic itself of the possibliyt fell on deaf ears I can do nothing but "hard code" the whole thing. and unlike evolution or creation takes more hours in a week than society has for even sleeping. The citation from Gilmore was to represent how someone else established an transform between two different systems of ordinations. The book is "Catastrophe Theory For Scientists and Engineers" by Robert Gilmore 1981 Dover Publications- I have not done a lot of research on how to idealize a general morphomometric represenation of any "phenotype" (I am on Rohlf's e-mail list) but I am fairly certain about how I am going to depict the Baramin realtionships. There will only be two phenomenolgical objects (there may be a modification of this as Mendelism gets worked into the picture with acutal information from bottom up baraminology of hybrids etc). These are limit point-sets and sets of solution of the problem this Gilmore book presents. I have an unique Idea how to do the solution within the GEOGRAPHIC boundary that my picture of the barmamins brought to mind and I am trying to work out all the implications of that for it would be more likely to actually be a part of catastrophe theory if it works than just a sophisticated soma graphing software. I cant say I feel like Einstein with the last step before using Remanns math but it is much like that here. In any event the boundaries of the different kinds of baramins will "interfinger" their limit points where the set theory representaton is topologically congruent and depending on the way the interfingering occurrs different elementary catastrophes would be found to underlie the projection to the polybaramin if I am correct. That is the idea. Even if this idea can not work. It does not mean that the logic of USING creationism to DO vicariance vs dispersal does not exist it only means that the particular way I am going about it may not.

I am almost finished with Zephyrs post and then I will come back to yours before I go on over to the logic thread that rasied an issue not irrelevant that I must at least address.

I sort of "rambled" this response because I put off finishing the Zepyr post as I want to look into the internet stuff on baraminology a little bit farther than I have gone so far and I have only a certain amount of memory to make up for all the millions of points that must be still in dispute. Who knows maybe I can become even wiser than the fool I already am.

In the Zephyr post I will start to discuss turtles and I could more than happily work them into a particular "hypothetical" but my target is TIME K. Wise used or is going to use to discuss archea baramins neo wise with biomic information collection. As will also come out in that post the missing information that could be used to attempt to "Crash" my whole system of thought may be available with Marmorops of SA so that perhaps is the evolutionists taxa of hypothetical choice. What genome I will be able to come up with to use if that continues to seem to me to be the fleshy difference will likely NOT be a catus needle but I really dont have a better scope on what kinds are involved yet this is a better narrowing of the choice of diversity influential in the discipline than I had when I first moved with you over to this post thread head.

I will be using Croizat Principia Botanica p 1483 "Working here toward a preliminary clarification of the terms of question, let us assume that the taxonomic fornula, so to speak, of form A is expressed by a sum of characters a + b +c +d + e; that of form B by a sum of characters a + b' +c + d + e'. The two forms, A and B, are accordingly the same in regard of characters a, c,d, and come apart by characters b/d', e/e'." One may think that the letter "d" in "d'" is a typo for another - B but let us think about this first. This has to be worked into Gilmore's notion of R^n coordinate systems. That is not a trivial programming exercise but need not answer Mark24 for Mayr on cladistic analysis vs cladistic classification.

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-22-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Loudmouth, posted 11-19-2003 3:55 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Brad McFall, posted 12-24-2003 11:40 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3510 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 19 of 80 (68113)
11-20-2003 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Brad McFall
11-20-2003 5:42 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Brad,

Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion

Sorry, I stopped there.

For fucks sake, Brad, this is such hard work. Do you run your writing through an incomprehensibility checker before posting? Why can't you make sense? For once in your life, just M-A-K-E S-E-N-S-E, is it too much to ask?

If you can't tell me simply, & in English, why baraminology isn't being hypocritical in including cladistics, when cladistics works against baraminology using exactly the same assumptions, then I'm not interested. We occasionally get posters on evc who's first language isn't English, & frankly I have a much easier time understanding them.

It works like this. Foxes, wolves, etc. are supposed to be one kind, this can be shown cladistically. Creationists are happy with this for some reason, but not with cladistics showing that canines are related to felines & bears. The same assumptions are in play. Why aren't they being hypocritical?

A simple one paragraph response, without reference to Croizat, or anyone else for that matter, will be sufficient.

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Brad McFall, posted 11-20-2003 5:42 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 11-20-2003 7:48 PM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Brad McFall, posted 11-20-2003 7:57 PM mark24 has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8866
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 20 of 80 (68115)
11-20-2003 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by mark24
11-20-2003 7:39 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Mark, Brad can't do anything else. At some point your only choice is to ignore him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mark24, posted 11-20-2003 7:39 PM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Brad McFall, posted 11-20-2003 8:00 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3347 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 21 of 80 (68122)
11-20-2003 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by mark24
11-20-2003 7:39 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
You do not accept that cladistics exists at the expense of dissemination of Croizat's method working then? If that is how you feel just ditch the witch's f and let the feather fall. I can not address you directly then (here on EvC (but we could talk about the history of biology for instance in ways that others do not have the experience to address) because the aspect of evolution thinking that I am crictical of for c/e debates, $relies$ on a minority view of cladistics I would suppose then describes how you thought of it. You can reject my starting point IN THE WORK as will likely be the kind of criticism I will get as soon as this stuff gets out of EvC and I appreciate that. I am not saying who or how this stuff should actually be promoted in the social reality of c-e. I hope by then this site can find a middle ground.

And to give you a specific cladistic example means to USE an acutal cladistic program just as Loudmouth asked for an acutal demonstration of the phenotypic transformation. THAT IS ALL I was trying to do at Cornell. I have not the resources and the point I am making here is that evolutionists blocked me from contributing. Slowly, on my own time I am getting the work done, but no one pays me and only a few you "guys" out here, encourge me. The error in creating the TREE is the issue and you will find that I will be using Graph theory of minimal spanning tress INSTEAD of tree structures. Technical dissagrement will arise in addition to that which I was discussing with Loudmouth as to why the AREAS that the "trees" cross (process of "resolving" a clade) should be framed in the strucutre of a tree or not. My work will be done WITHOUT them so as to free the metric FROM THE MORPHOMETRIC tangent reference space not the topographic topology unless molecular biology of topobiology FORCES otherwise (You got frustrated before you found out the kind of evidence that defeat my system) but I have not figured out what is a mathmatical expression for this. I dont even see a incompelete or inconsistent error in this regard. If someone understands what I am saying and THEN shows I am wrong that is something else altogether critical and a welcome event should it also occurr. Please dont get frustrated. THIS IS SCIENCE. And I am doing it in as close to "real Time" as I can. Deny this if you will. I wont gripe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mark24, posted 11-20-2003 7:39 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by mark24, posted 11-20-2003 8:01 PM Brad McFall has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3347 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 22 of 80 (68124)
11-20-2003 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by NosyNed
11-20-2003 7:48 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Thanks NOSY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 11-20-2003 7:48 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3510 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 23 of 80 (68125)
11-20-2003 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Brad McFall
11-20-2003 7:57 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Brad,

Pay attention, Croizat boy.

It works like this. Foxes, wolves, etc. are supposed to be one kind, this can be shown cladistically. Creationists are happy with this for some reason, but not with cladistics showing that canines are related to felines & bears. The same assumptions are in play. Why aren't they being hypocritical?

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Brad McFall, posted 11-20-2003 7:57 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 11-20-2003 8:09 PM mark24 has responded
 Message 26 by Brad McFall, posted 11-20-2003 8:48 PM mark24 has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8866
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 24 of 80 (68132)
11-20-2003 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by mark24
11-20-2003 8:01 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by mark24, posted 11-20-2003 8:01 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by mark24, posted 11-20-2003 8:11 PM NosyNed has responded
 Message 27 by Brad McFall, posted 11-20-2003 8:56 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3510 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 25 of 80 (68133)
11-20-2003 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by NosyNed
11-20-2003 8:09 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Ned,

You're right, I confess to suffering from frustration, & fair play for not going "Admin" on me.

Mark

------------------
"The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one's mind a pleasant place in which to spend one's time" - Thomas Henry Huxley


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 11-20-2003 8:09 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 11-20-2003 9:24 PM mark24 has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3347 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 26 of 80 (68154)
11-20-2003 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by mark24
11-20-2003 8:01 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
One- track width is not defined - if it was I could respond IN THE POSITIVE

Barring Croizat BOY -O,

I answer in the negative which can even turn the logic around depending on the orinetation of the track ALONE as to Gould asserting "Structure of Evolutionary Theory" p 1175 "In a brilliant opening move, Dobshansky began the third (1951) edition of his founding document for the Synthesis, GENETICS AND THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, by recognizing the diversity of modern organisms, and the striking discontinuityies within this plethora of form, as the central problem of evolutionary biology - at a time when most collegues would surely have cited modes of continuous transformation, or mechanisms for changes in gene frequencies, within single populations instead. (Despite this unconventiality in subject and level of focus, Dobshanksy opted for a traditonal selectionsit explanation by tilting the first subsection of his book: "diversity and adaptiedness.")..."Furthermore"p1177"the adaptive peaks and valleys are not interspesed at random. "Adjacent" adaptive peaks are arranged in groups, which may be likened to mountain ranges in which the separate pinnacles are divided by relatively shallow notches. Thus, the ecological niche occupied by the species "lion" is relatively much closer to hose occupied by tiger, puma, and leopard than to those occupied by wolf, coyote, and jackal. The feline adaptive peaks form a group different from the group of the canine "peaks". But the feline, canine, ursine, mustiline, and certain other groups of peaks form together the adaptive "range" of carnivores, which is seperated by deep adaptive valleys from the "ranges" of rodents, bats, ungulates, priamtes,and others. In turn, these "ranges" are again memebers of the adaptive system of mammals, which are ecologically and biologically segregated, as a group, from the adaptive systems of birds, reptiles,etc....But the striking discontinuties in morphospace and their ordering into taxonomic heirachies surely dont at least "reflect the objectively acerainable discontinuty of adaptive niches" - and Dobshansky certainly understood the
%
%
*
unstated
*
major reason for such inhomogenity,..."

So please no four letter words nontheless.

I dont believe that niches exist nor does species selection but that is my "professional" biological perogative of this twist or turn. This assumes some common sense of biological and ecological notion in common to herps and mammals. This does not exist else that famous Kansas herpetologist himself in Malysia would not have thought a cacilian was a snake he would have first seen it as a worm. But you do not have to have had that experience to disagree with me. I am sorry you see it differently. Gould saw it differently than me as well as Zimmer probably does too even though we were friends when I gains the experience. Perhaps that and not creationism got in the way. Hutchinson's beetles in a niche ARE for me but the hidden gonad of kind of beetle by the humor of a seeable Croizat map. This will be introduced in the thread later. I got paid by University of Florida Gainsville to watch and learn how Puscillus (eaters of white fly larvae) "do it". I did. The issue is that Croizat may have found a way around this as well. It is hard to say as I need to get to some time issue which is in my present iteration of reading Croizat. Gould seems only to have read Croizat two times through any section of his print but I am holding up on a third reading. I am not sure if any NZders have read this far but they may only instead like you, they have a different "back yard" to look in than I.

I use diversity and adaptation but do not hope to end with the same edge of choas as Gould as I think that could have confused topography anbd topology. I am using creationism to show this! My notes on this aspect of population phenotypics I highlighted Dobshansky words Darwin was quick to see the problem, but not so successful in" (Chapter 16 Mechanism and Teleology) p339"He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing...ought not to hesitate to go further and to admit that structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination...to such startling lengths."

You didnt get passed STEP UNO because I will, have and continue to hope to include teleology aka Kants proof of God by left and right in chiarlity and bilateral symmetry developments which you are not in error to have a differnt opninion about. It is just different but it will apply equally in MY terms , which you need not buy, to non-mammals as well. If I have to talk about mammals I am back on the issue of temperature, genetics, non-adataptive traits, ICR book 2 Trilogy Chapter 9 birds and marsupials and a correct spelling of out the title "Phylogeography and Systematics of the Slender Mouse Opossum MARMOSOPS (Marsupialia, Dedelphidae), mitochondira, non- naturl selection death from without....Yes you have a better understanding of biology here than many. Congrats.

But you have opened up an additional evo dead thread with this and right now I am sticking to the discussion of the geo nature of baramins rather than the inertial effects that will undoubted bear as well. And if you must know, in 5th grade we studied HERPETOLOGY in science class and because I knew more of the kinds I, BSM, taught all the 5th grade classes ( and continued to teach them through 8th grade) NoT the Older teachers. In 6th grade we studied MAMMALS. I could not and still have not been able to focus on ONE SINGLE MAMMALS Family in kind (to herps). No one said a thing ever about my teaching even though I would NOT have been able to teach the 6th grade class. Barminology will show if I am correct there is no, can i say it AgaIn know NO "tilting". Fell free to power the wind mill if the chance to dispersal from Matthew's dispersal moves you. I have been able to "flatten" a peneplain a Mercantor projection of the North Pole in the process of moving into Atlantic Europe what was before 1961 not illustrated IN THE SAME WAY by Croizat boy-man he never the serious scientist Italian was.

I have worked this thought over and over its time to get it over to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by mark24, posted 11-20-2003 8:01 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by mark24, posted 11-21-2003 5:47 AM Brad McFall has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3347 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 27 of 80 (68155)
11-20-2003 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by NosyNed
11-20-2003 8:09 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Yeah- if my "mind" still confuses a potato from the observation of an amphibian vs a worm or snake- NOT! I hope it is not my mind. My current reading of Croizat thrashes out the skin of egg-eating snake and the needle of a Cactus button. That is not psychological but biological. Oh well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 11-20-2003 8:09 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8866
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 28 of 80 (68178)
11-20-2003 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mark24
11-20-2003 8:11 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
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"??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mark24, posted 11-20-2003 8:11 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by grace2u, posted 11-20-2003 9:58 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 31 by wj, posted 11-20-2003 10:33 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 35 by mark24, posted 11-21-2003 5:53 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 80 (68207)
11-20-2003 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by NosyNed
11-20-2003 9:24 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
As an observer on this thread and newcomer to evc, I would just like to say that I appreciate Brad's comments, perhaps more than anyone else's on this site. They are somewhat poetic in nature and I would say that this forum would not be the same without him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 11-20-2003 9:24 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by mark24, posted 11-21-2003 5:45 AM grace2u has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3347 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 30 of 80 (68211)
11-20-2003 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by zephyr
11-18-2003 5:31 PM


someone is messing with my network connection I am trying to make my presentation better here- Here is all I could recover without rewriting

Apeand Human vs Turtle Holo-Baramins<http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm>

Frair's presentation:

quote:
nother holobaramin could consist of the sea turtles (see Wise, 1992; Robinson, 1997). A diagram showing general forms of living and fossil sea turtles may be found in Lutz and Musick, 1997, p. 8. This diagram is called a “cladogram” and is based upon studies by specialists Gaffney and Meylan, but not all authorities agree with their assessment of available data. See also Hirayama, 1998. Figure 4 is a very generalized representation for all living and extinct marine turtles. In all of these types of studies the actual goal of discontinuity systematics is by means of empirical evidence to determine the boundaries of common descent and thus to converge on the holobaramins.
I was able to read a “clade” out of Croizat using my own data on the locations of the snapping turtle in and around the Raritan River NJ. The most important take home lesson is that creationism permits one to understand to the fullest that conventional (biogeographic) symbols and graph (or map) can be the same in a sense.

I am interpreting the 1400s pages of Croizat’s Principia Botanica to span any Wise notion on pre and post flood biogeography. This may be a mistake of mine but at best it biases in the direction of evolution not creation timings (as the the two issues that Randy and I never got to discuss (orientation vs track width empirics)(but I will not need to support Berkely marsupial work (Phylogeography and Sytematics of the Slender Mouse Opossum Marmosops (Marsupalia, Didelphisae) by Mustrangi and Patton) with the word (“phylogeography” instead I will pronounce “near artic” or “ borel- alpine”)) so if objectionable will simply be droped my creationists in the dicussion at least for me in like kind that Frair saw Box Turtles as APOBARAMINC. There may be other and different readings of Croizat, especially in Zephyr issue of the ape and human baramin but I am using it(Croizat's) as a Method which is not something that vicariance biogeography (Hedges criticism of vicaraince in Lizards of the Caribbeans for instance do.

For instance p 1424 ”The map attached (Fig 176) is after Holdhaus, op cit., PlXLVI, and gives the distribution of a coleopterous insect, Barynotus squamosus. This distribution rather closely agrees with that of another insect of the kind, Otiorrhynchus arcticus (see op. Cit., Pl.XLV) in Scandinavia, Iceland, the British Isles, the Central Massif of France and Pyrenees. However, O.articus adds to the range of B.squamosus a few outliers along the axis Upper Elbe-Eastern Sudeten also reported in Fig. 176.”Principia Botanica p. 1424. Here is a paragraph that if B&O are taken AFTER the kind and not resented as being a kind of baramin, I for one, can use the map attached as a symbol and data as one. A lens so to speak. (So for instance in the “phylogeography" paper on the Oppossum (op cit) I see how THAT data if furthered up with ecology etc could? Answer my issue with Randy on track width and possibly be used against my YEC support( the NZs use grid analysis wit y o n e s f a l l . Some one obviously has an anti Brad or anti YEC illegal program that corrupted my attempt to present a balanced presentation here. All c-ers take note.
( the NZs use grid analysis with main massings but get to look at the Brazil before I do, here I am looking at the relation of the Atlantic Ocean and European Atlantic distributions) given there but in this thread we are discussing phylogentic discontinuity not any only “phylogeography” as Mark24 was frustrated enough with me to pronounce. I am not use this map in the same way as Craw or Grehan as doing panbiogeography will or do but I would understand the adjective “boreo-alpine” in the same univocal sense. It is even possible that Croizat intened as regarding a Difference in massings that kind not be taken ill but instead as the Bibilical notion itself but the NZds would be in a better position to judge of this as they have Croizat’s raw notes. But for me instead or in its stead with respect to Wise’s notions I need but refer to p 1431 "Proper biogeographic thinking must strive at all times and on every question to follow time, space and form jointly in an orderly progreesion of movement…. In this viewpoint I do not concur. Either we are right or wrong by main principles and methods nd, if the latter no amount of carefully worked out detail can save us. The old biblical dictum that nobody is priviledged at the same time to serve two masters is here proved correct once more. See further fns. to p 878, 950, 1364 , and p. 1376.” when walking in my back yard.

I guess however that we arelikely to remain longer with p 1422 "It is certain that many readers of these Principia will feel highly outraged by my whole attitude...in regard of Charles Darwin...In sum, what Charles Darwin did bungle ...is not easy to de-bungle even today."footnote which I would say put evolution ahead wrongly.

The scientific creationist issue is for instance if the question of the subsetting of humans vs turtle holobaramins be by MEDIATED design- I see no hindrance in mediating one such <http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-363.htm> that the issue of the # of kinds of kinds is not the problem of Ark husbandry as Zephyr reasons but rather is one onto to one to one or onto transforms within discontinuity systematics.

The only scientifically outstanding issue is not a top down one as Zephr’s understanding seems to belie (to me) a Wise prejudice for but only Gould’s reading of D’Arcy Thompson which in various posts I have targeted (but unsuccessfully based on the ability of posters to follow my posts) as but the bag lunch I had with Gould in the 80s

I have not in this thread started to show how the signs of Mendelism that all about in molecular biology are linked in my topological inversion (but I will take this up in the thread with :upside down ee if it does not occur here) of the boundary terms of Remines systematics ( it is my hope that someone else understands what I am doing first) but I have attempted in other posts to interest people to no avail and while we seemed to be stuck as Keith nicely posted on the Lousinana issue of rasining the general level of understanding that though not come out a wash is a wash. Litteraly.

So it would appear that my use of turtles in evolutionary theory depends quite crucially on what Wood said by “some species in the baramin access the trait that is only accessed at some point in history after creation.” Take this as MY creation of the limit point boundary in the crude graphic I supplied if you need a HUMAN messenger for now if one must. This would be a good time to discuss an advance of Baraminiology OVER Linnean Classificaion history SYSTEMATICALLY but others will likely prefer to see all the guts of my view on this soma so as to try to find a flaw theortically to bring down the its pragmatic operation as whole. If only they did the same to the Sewall Wright- Fisher tension absolutely…..alas..

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-24-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by zephyr, posted 11-18-2003 5:31 PM zephyr has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019