Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
42 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,940 Year: 21,976/19,786 Month: 539/1,834 Week: 39/500 Day: 39/96 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 31 of 80 (68214)
11-20-2003 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by NosyNed
11-20-2003 9:24 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
No Nosy, it is not just the twoof you who are out of it. Brad frequents many evc fora, and perhaps other fora on more general topics. At first I thought he was just a spammer using a postmodernist generator. However it appears to b me now that he is an individual suffering from a psycological disorder. Whilst he is almost always incomprehensible and incoherent, he has seldom been abusive. However I think he can be insulting about Cornell where he apparently had some bad experience.

Make up your own mind about Brad. He even became the subject of a discussion thread at
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=14&t=58&p=11

[This message has been edited by wj, 11-20-2003]


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 32 by Brad McFall, posted 11-20-2003 10:45 PM wj has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3371 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 32 of 80 (68216)
11-20-2003 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by wj
11-20-2003 10:33 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Wj, this is a thead about distinguishing baramins not distiguishing if brad's mind has a baramin in it or not. Please take up any other Big red comments in the Coffee House or Welcome Vistors thread where you cango to my school if you like. They do not study Croizat enough at Cornell to use this method of relating barmins to biogeography but you may get it too. Keep hop hopeing. I wouldnt mind if the admins deleted EVERY refenece to the difference of mental and physical, Betran Russel wrote "I have made it clear, then, in what sense I should say that the word 'red' can only be understood through aquaintence..." I am smarter than even the profs at CU. Later we may distinguish what Russeell said about mental vs phsical over on the :ae: thread headed heading but again if you want to talk about me and not baramins or the particular idea I have about them please do not jump up here again. THEY WILL NOT DOUBT DO the content of this thread once it gets finished here or elsewhere. Fax is Facts. Ok I see your edit still- I have a right to say this about this place. I wouldnt still be here in Ithaca if I did not like the locale. And Cornell is the only thing that makes the local global here.
Gould wrote only DUM spiro, spero. in this regard but that is not enough for you average Cornellian to embrace his (gould's) more fuzzy 'aptation' as a policy before any adaptation that these baramins may suggest. I certianly rembering reading Gould's work at Cornell and being impressed enough to fall in line but Cornell did not and would not. CU is really about Beviorism as Tinbergan said about psychology and animal behvior but I have lost the quote back in Fredonia. It was somthing about the Cornelllian attitude was to only ASK a question. They still really only want to ask and answer to more elite authorities than themselves. Somehow you have confused this schools ability to DO EVOLUTION and my MIND. wrong content for this thread.

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-20-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by wj, posted 11-20-2003 10:33 PM wj has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3533 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 33 of 80 (68255)
11-21-2003 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by grace2u
11-20-2003 9:58 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
grace2u,

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.

In that case, please can you translate them into a format that any other English speaker can understand.

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by grace2u, posted 11-20-2003 9:58 PM grace2u has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3533 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 34 of 80 (68256)
11-21-2003 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Brad McFall
11-20-2003 8:48 PM


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

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

LOL! Well, I agree, it's a shame you spent so many column inches being utterly incomprehensible.

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Brad McFall, posted 11-20-2003 8:48 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Brad McFall, posted 11-22-2003 1:00 AM mark24 has responded
 Message 80 by Brad McFall, posted 10-28-2005 7:05 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3533 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 35 of 80 (68257)
11-21-2003 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by NosyNed
11-20-2003 9:24 PM


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

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"??

We are legion.

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


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

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3371 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 36 of 80 (68513)
11-22-2003 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by mark24
11-21-2003 5:47 AM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Mark24, If I understand YOU-youself correctly I would be saying that the mammal differences that Gould pointed to and you wanted a comment cladistic or evolutionary classification wise on ARE NOT MATERIAL. Gould would say I am out of my mind but I know I am not "out" of my herpetology. Whether this is a physical or biological difference I would not know at this point IF TRUE. Part of the issue IS that the relation of levels of organization of discplines physics, chemistry, biology is what mankind HAS to investigate any differences in levels of selection and yet the hierarchy that *may* be formed by workers in these fields could be OTHER than that which the levels of organization are in nature. But we wouldnt know this from the scienes as they are presently configured but rather by supernatural indications or in my case I also contend for different physical dynamics but that is not a part of the subject of this thread directly unless I could turn some such SPECULATIVE Causation into a relation within the traditional disciplines by a garnered correlation. The issue relative to Baramins would then, in my mind, be about if a singularity instead of a metric difference maps across an onto plane that can (in this "theory") bound or binds the descriptieve lexos of the newer grammer. But this is beyond the presentation AND simple statment of the procedure so I simply revert to step one until more of the work "comes in" which you kindly underlined. Thanks for the comments.

In this sense my position, once you can grasp it, need not be troublesome , as it can be falsified.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by mark24, posted 11-21-2003 5:47 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by mark24, posted 11-22-2003 3:10 AM Brad McFall has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3533 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 37 of 80 (68520)
11-22-2003 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Brad McFall
11-22-2003 1:00 AM


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

Mark24, If I understand YOU-youself correctly

You don't.

My complaint is as follows, baraminology based cladistics uses exactly the same assumptions as mainstream cladistics. It is therefore happy to infer "lower" taxa cladograms because it fits in with the biblical account. It denies high taxa cladograms despite exactly the same assumptions being in evidence, because it contradicts the biblical account.

The selective acceptance of cladistics as a method for inferring relationships is therefore hypocritical. Basically baraminologists accept what fits the biblical account, & reject what doesn't, on that criteria alone, making the argument that baraminology supports the bible circular: You have to accept the conclusion before the premise, evidence is culled based on whether it supports the bible, or not, ie, an a priori acceptance of the biblical account is required in order to accept or reject evidence.

Not a good place to be for any scientist, even pro-bible pseudoscientists.

Mark

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Brad McFall, posted 11-22-2003 1:00 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Brad McFall, posted 11-22-2003 12:28 PM mark24 has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3371 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 38 of 80 (68532)
11-22-2003 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by mark24
11-22-2003 3:10 AM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Ok, maybe I didnt understand you correctly.

you wrote

quote:
y complaint is as follows, baraminology based cladistics uses exactly the same assumptions as mainstream cladistics. It is therefore happy to infer "lower" taxa cladograms because it fits in with the biblical account. It denies high taxa cladograms despite exactly the same assumptions being in evidence, because it contradicts the biblical account.
The selective acceptance of cladistics as a method for inferring relationships is therefore hypocritical. Basically baraminologists accept what fits the biblical account, & reject what doesn't, on that criteria alone, making the argument that baraminology supports the bible circular: You have to accept the conclusion before the premise, evidence is culled based on whether it supports the bible, or not, ie, an a priori acceptance of the biblical account is required in order to accept or reject evidence.
Not a good place to be for any scientist, even pro-bible pseudoscientists.

In the END I am (LIKELY- but this depends on the facutal evidence) going to reject cladistics for a future fusion of Principia Botanica AND Panbiogeography in Space Plus Time Plus Form but in the process it will NOT be necessarily/necessary to ONLY motivate baraminology scripturally. I am not all cozy with Wise's use of the top down approach IF he sees all DNA relevance within that phenomenology that holds hybridization as "bottom up". My concept is more involuted but I have not found evidence that it is convoulted. Perhaps if you understand what I am saying you will be able to find such a flaw. I have not so far.

I am hoping that what I am creating here will allow a more objective basis for acceptance and rejection of clade-graphs but I may really be here objecting NOT to cladistics but to certain concepts so far produced in baraminiology. I am tempted without anymore thoughgt to think that Sea Turtles are a polybaramin not a holobaramin but I have not read Wise's paper on turtles yet. This is a rejection of species or traits not clades but as I said in a earlier post I was able to FIND"" a clade IN THE WORK of Croizat by doing "panbiog" with herps and focusing on snapping turtles' location so I can see that it may be that the very programs that generate the clade will either be superseeded or shown to be false. This would depend on as you say "sam assumptions being in evidence". You started to show this to me as Croizat-boy. The advance that I am proposing is that outsourcing the difference of geographic vicariism which DOES seperate "branches" in any clade graph by baraminic subjetivity may through the relation of taxonomic vicariism to barriers in vicariance biogeography give a biological reasoning supporting some one acceptance of certain metrics of the "tree geometry" over others AND NOT BE AS assumptive as you did indicate. You may be correct that there is already enough data to do this without using baramins and so if that is the case then it will be a matter of efficency or effectiveness as to using baraminic thought in resolving issues of the point set density of the reproductive continuum in ANY (GIVEN) Lineage no matter the application of Mendelism. My suspicion is that baraminilogy will change top down with this catastrophe theory implementaions as to parents traits being bottom up and hybrids being top down not the current other way around but this is a creationist development unless like minded evolutionsts figure out how to use it for themselves as well (Mitchonidrial DNA change in the relation of birds and marsupials?). In general we really are not at cross purposes here. I see your position quite a bit better now. I simply reject Mayr's scholarship that saw the writing the slots in terms of nominalism, essentialsim, evolutionary classification,cladistics and whatever the other category was that Mayr used escaping me at the moment.

It took years for the NZders to come out with their understanding of panbiogeogrphy full-fledged to which Nelson still did not find of enough value and there you are probably talking about dozens when nameing 12 people is at least possible. I am only one person. I find it some what telling that the Texas Board on school books for biology took out the position that Darwin is 'essential'. That says NOTHING. The current understanding never found it thus any way. NATURE then had it printed that "both" sides were "happy" - Bull - I am not.

It seems then that this will only make sense to you in terms of consequences not in terms of goals. That's OK. You position seems clear. My work may change it however.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by mark24, posted 11-22-2003 3:10 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by mark24, posted 11-22-2003 12:35 PM Brad McFall has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3533 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 39 of 80 (68534)
11-22-2003 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Brad McFall
11-22-2003 12:28 PM


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

In the END I am (LIKELY- but this depends on the facutal evidence) going to reject cladistics for a future fusion of Principia Botanica AND Panbiogeography in Space Plus Time Plus Form but in the process it will NOT be necessarily/necessary to ONLY motivate baraminology scripturally. I am not all cozy with Wise's use of the top down approach IF he sees all DNA relevance within that phenomenology that holds hybridization as "bottom up". My concept is more involuted but I have not found evidence that it is convoulted. Perhaps if you understand what I am saying you will be able to find such a flaw. I have not so far.

Tell you what, I won't respond to you if you won't to me. Deal?

Mark

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Brad McFall, posted 11-22-2003 12:28 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Brad McFall, posted 11-22-2003 12:37 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3371 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 40 of 80 (68535)
11-22-2003 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by mark24
11-22-2003 12:35 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by mark24, posted 11-22-2003 12:35 PM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Loudmouth, posted 11-24-2003 1:48 PM Brad McFall has responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 80 (68985)
11-24-2003 1:43 PM


Brad,

I am getting the following information from this site.

I am not that familiar with panbiogeography, but the site I listed above seems like a great introductory site. Anyway, just to get definitions and the such out of the way (and for the benefit of lurkers):
--------------
From Merriam-Webster Online
Vicariance: fragmentation of the environment (as by splitting of a tectonic plate) in contrast to dispersal as a factor in promoting biological evolution by division of large populations into isolated subpopulations -- called also vicariance biogeography.

My own Def.
Dispersal: Movement of a small subpopulation into a new geographic area and in which subsequent evolution causes the formation of a new species.
----------------

I think you are arguing that baramins can be defined through the lens of panbiogeography, or vicariance. One example I found that might be helpful are 6 species of scorpions from the genus Opisthacanthus found in Africa and South America. The track and baseline are as follows with the different colors representing different species: image from this page

This example would seem to indicate separation due to tectonic movement of the two continents with subsequent dispersal (I think). I would also guess that these six species would be a holobaramin (a complete group of species within a kind) in your theory.

From this view I can understand where you are coming from, but just to make sure see if I get the rest of your argument right. First, the holobaramin (staying with scorpions for now) microevolved into the six species found on the two continents. It doesn't matter if the speciation occurred before or after separation due to tectonic plate shifts. What is important is that species dispersal is limited compared to separation due to tectonics. You can look at the holobaramin as a whole even though they are on two different continents and describe the species dispersal in light of isolated subpopulations (some local, some intercontinental).

The second problem with the evo argument is the lack of strong transitional fossils to link obvious clades together. In other words, a discontinuous tree where the ends of the branches are well defined but the earliear branching is vague. If we were to assume that this discontinuity is real and not lack of potentially observable evidence, then we could look at the above example as a holobaramin that was separated by tectonics. Your problem with Wise, who I think argued for continent separation during the catastrophism of the flood, is that it argues against the subscribed baselines in that an ongoing population needs to be present during the tectonic activity.

I know that specific examples lack overall explanatory power, but maybe you could comment on my reading of your overall theses in respect to the track and baseline I listed. I'm pretty sure I haven't understood the finer points yet (biometry calculations especially), but I am getting closer. Like I said in a previous post, I need to see and feel the small ideas before I can tie them together into the big Idea.


Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Brad McFall, posted 11-24-2003 3:16 PM Loudmouth has responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 80 (68987)
11-24-2003 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Brad McFall
11-22-2003 12:37 PM


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

I meant to link the above post to one of your posts so it would show up on your message replies list. Hope to hear back.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Brad McFall, posted 11-22-2003 12:37 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Brad McFall, posted 11-24-2003 2:28 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3371 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 43 of 80 (68995)
11-24-2003 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Loudmouth
11-24-2003 1:48 PM


Re: let me know when it makes sense..... Not even close....
Pretty much you are on node when not also track! No pun intended. Congrats for trying to work with the same stuff I am!! I will comment in a bit more detail but just to let you know that prety much you even got my idea of holobarmin correct. I am using a map from the Alps rather than an amphiatlantic association in criticizing the Age overall in line if not truth with that which is supported with ICR.

There is a further evo wrinkle that by using scorpians rather than beetles may spell an contradiction to my general "trajectory" that indeed you narrated quie well. I think thta Croizat was using the scorps on issues of Permian age which IS relevant to my ideas on turtle taxonomy but still may be a bit removed in time from what the actual protocol I am working up will be able to address with confidence. Much like carbon dating is used for less years than is sometimes popularly supposed etc. This is also being a map of South America likely to be at issue if some one DOES NOT PANBIOGEOGRAPHCALLY follow my subordination of nodes to tracks and instead insists for the longer time frame than the ONE AGE I am trying to distinguish the dispersal from the static distribution in. But I will try to give my own understanding of this larger picture that creates a vision of the Pacific shoreline later in detail. For now here is a panbiogeographic link that could be interpreted AGAISNT what I have said so far IN TERMS OF AGE. My guess is that the form-making differences will trump the current corrleations of geology and biology that Grehan prefers. I have spoken on the phone with John and had some correspondence with him over the width of "tracks" but he has broken off corresponding with me. My guess is that I support too much creationism for his taste. He certainly is not yet in any way trying to use the orientation of tracks relative to "Gondwanaland" to put the geologic colummn into question. I am. I am doing this from a trasition to translation in space perspective by clearly seperating taxonomic vicariism from geographic splits but there nonetheless DOES remain the "transitional" issue in the soma of phenotype vs genotype no matter how the genetics is qualified. I have found a big idea possibility but it is still speculative pending specific mutant information in that it may be possible to see a change in form of Day Lilys by the simple difference of a "+" or "-" sign attached to a equation should mutants be found in the simple catatstrophes quantitatively and not simply descriptively as I now have it in that which I may be using to SEPERATE Croizat's USE of conceptual and formal taxonomy WITHIN BARAMINOLOGY. Baraminologists may object to my use of tacking the set theory logic of the kinds to a map but then some one of them may be simply seeing a monobaramin here-where there-where I may indeed find with you a Scorpian holobaramin. Only time will tell. It is also possible that the "transitional" may be addressed simply in the gaps which is common to any kind of vacariism if the physical possiblity Gould calls "direct moldoding by physical laws and forces acting upon the developing organism"p1180 exists in the steady continuance of like kind. God Bless You and Thanks so Very much for your effort.th ICR.
"direct moldoding by physical laws and forces acting upon the developing organism"p1180 exists in the steady continuance of like kind. God Bless You and Thanks so Very much for your effort. In order to iron up this wrinkle the panbiogeographer able to follow my reading across the globe MUST Deal with <http://www.rhipsalis.com/maxwell2.htm> To iron out the real time wrinkle this ------------
SJGOULD - "This "maverick" theme has played only a small role in the history of evolutionary thought (a fact that should elicit no judgment about acutal importance, for as well all recognize that today's ignored or ridiculed theme can become the centerpiece of tomorrow's revolutionary theory.)" TSOETp1180-

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Loudmouth, posted 11-24-2003 1:48 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3371 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 44 of 80 (69002)
11-24-2003 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Loudmouth
11-24-2003 1:43 PM


I have given this a good look and aside from nit picking it DOES look like you have fairly presented my view and understanding. There may need to be some changes from a creationist consensus as IT itself changes but this looks pretty much corrent. The other thing for clarity may be to say that DISPERSAL = translation in space & form-making. But you explained this in your text. Very Good Job. Now lets see who says I need meds. This is all I was every saying. Great! The only baraminc difficulty could be if one insisted that the the likely tectonic barrier is WIHTIN a scorpian apobarmin of the current static distributions on two continents. But then ONE WOULD BE DOING THE SCIENCE of creationism and this is what evos here claim can not be done, does not exist, and is a muth. They would be wrong based on your single post. Thanks again. I am still going to go back and edit one of my earlier posts before I get into this discerpency in the particular age. Some how the "evos" think that this can mean that the whole thing is wrong (without even knowing the rationalization itself) and some third party to me that I was "crazy". I am glad time has finally caught up with these particular nay sayers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Loudmouth, posted 11-24-2003 1:43 PM Loudmouth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Loudmouth, posted 11-24-2003 6:55 PM Brad McFall has responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 80 (69058)
11-24-2003 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Brad McFall
11-24-2003 3:16 PM


Good, I am happy that we are on the same page, except for the small details no doubt. I find it interesting to contrast the two ideas of geology vs dispersal, although I don't believe that they are mutually exclusive ideas or theories. A nice mixture of the two could explain quite a bit about current species diversity in relation to locality.

The only problem I see with your current hypothesis or philosophy is the reliance on baramins. You could counter and point to my reliance on current evolutionary taxonomy as well, but for baramins to succeed they would have to use current taxonomy as a null hypothesis. It would be different if current tax was just blooming instead of well supported; if there was a lack of evidence then it would be useless as a competing theory. This is probably what you were talking about with "sister groups" and a two-front educational curriculum. I think we can both see the necessity for a dual approach if baramins are going to have meaning. However, the inspiration for using baramins seems to me to be contrived and reliant on religious dogma (comparable to Newton describing gravity before the apple hit his noggin). If we had never read Genesis, would we even be talking about baramins or created kinds? Would we be talking about catastrophism vs uniformism? At least you are trying to make an attempt at justifying pre-conceptions in a way that starts from scratch as opposed to ICR's tactic of trashing data before it hits the computer.

Anyway, I know you are aware of my possible refutations of atavisms and jawbones. My overall argument (which you might have labelled AGE) is even though cladistics and taxonomy may be discontinuous under the microscope, it is not as discontinuous when looked at through binoculars. That is, transitionals are lacking but the ones we do have fill in enough gaps to link the major groups of species together. This linking is consistent with backwards extrapolated timespans and with the overall theory of evolution as it stands today.

And to all those that don't understand Brad's posts, read more scientific primary literature. I'm not judging, but Brad's style of writing is very reminiscent of some of the microbiology papers I have read. They're more organized, yes, but the condensation of ideas and the dependence on knowing the scientific background in the area of interest is quite similar. In my earlier post I have a link to a panbiogeography site that helped me quite a bit (I had very little understanding of vicariance before hand) and will hopefully clear up some of the terms that Brad uses. Beyond that, we all have the long task of reading everything that Brad has read, a task even I will probably avoid. I'm not trying to defend Brad, he does that well enough himself, just trying to help those that want to understand what Brad is getting at.

PS- I didn't mean to refute your Alps with my scorps. If anything I was trying to support your theory, if at least for one post. I wish more creationists (not you) would at least learn about evolution before trying to knock it down. This might cut down on the number of posts around here, but at least the conversations would be a lot more interesting (as this thread is to me).

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Brad McFall, posted 11-24-2003 3:16 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by NosyNed, posted 11-24-2003 7:05 PM Loudmouth has responded
 Message 48 by Brad McFall, posted 11-24-2003 8:42 PM Loudmouth 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