Distinguishing Baramins

It might appear that way but in trying to think up multiple reasons Syamsu was haveing difficulty not with me but Georgi I realized the how hard this must be if one has not accepted already what I do personally.In this case, it appeared as if it was cosmology because it is starting to look like what I DREW had already been thought by Einstein when he attached tensors to the difference of Newton and Maxwell's infinity but my use of physics history is only in its infancy so I can not assure you that my explanation of my opnion is necessarily historically sufficent.The picture is meant to describe how Gould misconceptualized post synthesis biology and asserted a "hardening" of adaptation and how he SUBSEQUENtly USED cREATIONism to agure contra BOTH Paley and Agassiz whic I DO deplore scientifically from a herpetologically standpoint which I ONLY retain in the DISTINGUISING of Baramins. It ispossible that clade logic could convince me otherwise but baraminology nor herpetology has any analayses equal to the following:The thought (and part of the reason that Syamsu might have had some difficulties) is that where "volume" occurrs in this next of Einstein one must THINK shape WHILE the entire truth value of the quote remains constant. This was a hard thing. I reached the result by nothing but other long and sustained mental activity about how to extract energy from biological form. My guesses might be incorrect and I guess I need to explain how one can have this SAME thought in physics if light was replaced by spaces of heat sources and sinks but that involves TIME as well and could be shown further, should the quantity not be greater than Einstein's, to be organizationally mistaken. Nonetheless I NO LONGER THINK IN ANY WAY that macrothermodyanamics and electrontonics are at any theortetical odds. It only matters if thermal currents can do the work against"" ithe tensor vaule of gravity. If not one simply has Georgi's writing and not mine. That there might be a deduction of thermal current adaptations existant I dont think is any less conceputally difficult than Gould's "Spandrel". That however involves the symmetry or lack of it in the genetic code and might come up against IT challenges. The first part about thermal current adaptibility however is completely biophysical and does not depend in any economic way on the individuality of Darwinism. It is for this reason perhaps that Georgi still questions in the question of Darwin and Lamark. I simply added Croizat's and brought in polybaramins where Einstein thought EITHER parralell math or 5-dimensional space.From Abraham Pias' 'Subtle is the Lord...' THE SCIENCE AND THE THE LIFE OF ALBERT EINSTEIN p 377 The Light-Quantum

quote:

---

"So far there is still no revolution. The physicist of 1905 could take or leave the light-quantum hypothesis as nothing more than a curious property of pure radiation in thermal equilibrium, without any physical consequence. Einstein's extraordinary boldness lies in the step he took next, a step which, incidentally, gained him the Nobel prize in 1922.

​

The hueristic principle: If, in regard to the volume dependence of the entropy, monochromatic raditation (of sufficently low density) behaves as a discrete medium consisting of energy quanta of magnitude RBV/N(ed:not correct symbols), then this suggests an inquiry as to whether the laws of the generation and conversion of light are also constituted as if light were to consist of energy quanta of this kind."

---

My whole equivocation in words, if you found any, is over whether the volume of biolgy must be univocal with this one or not. First one must think the shape in place of volume. The culture distance of creationism permits enough critcism for this to occur but secular thought CAN, and often here at EVC, is counterindicated, by prethought about how the kinematics are kinetically dynamic in the same topography or the geogrpahy involved in the collection points as representative of the baramin data catalogable.I have no pretension to speak of cosmological matters, except in so far as life is dicovered not on Earth or man's exploration outstrips our present technical communications. The solar system, as to singularity in the math etc, IS STILL THE DOMAIN of our biogeography or panbiogegraphy. I need to see if WISE had anything interesting to say this past summner on preflood biogeography or not.Feel free to ask again if this does not supply you with any clarification. The personal reason arose out of family necessity. Sure I admited in Jersey that if I was born in Hindi land I would be likey Hindu rather than a WASP,but it was in a family where my grandfather was an evolutionist of temperature relations in flys and mother who joined Church to get away from that that faith became somthing of intellectual query and subsequnet spirt BUT IT WAS not till AFTER herpetologists could not even follow lines drawn on snakes between the scale and the muscle and the bone as possibly delineating taxa that the BROADER discontinuous nature of baraminology began to attract me. Finding what Aggasiz wrote I now understand HOW herps could ditched but for me I CAME PERSONALLY to this science by contrasting FISH AND BIRDS in my GRANDFATHER's "view" that was likewise the place of society of my Mother's christianity. It wasnt hard. There just has to be no tension, and argument at the end of the week and at the end of every day. Thanks for the question.I am not a high school teacher but working instead for my Brother's computer company adding the biological content and taking courses in Java etc at a local commuinty college near by Cornell.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-24-2005 07:30 AM

That last post answered most of my questions.I understand the traditional & emotional imperatives of being raised in a religious household.What I don't understand are your comments on herpetology.What did you mean by your comment:Brad: BUT IT WAS not till AFTER herpetologists could not even follow lines drawn on snakes between the scale and the muscle and the bone as possibly delineating taxa...I'm unsure of your meaning here.Working as I do, in an institution so involved in taxonomy, I know what morphological minutiae is examined in order to determine the taxonomic & evolutionary relationships between organisms.I find it puzzling that you seem to imply that standard scientific taxonomical practices have failed in regards to herpetology and would like you to explain exactly and in what context (citing the taxons involved would help illustrate what you mean) it has so failed.In addition I would love to see how you think baraminology can help resolve said problem.Cheers & God bless Brad

http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/bsg97/
first talked on by me with
EvC Forum: Information
Here is an outline below. Check back here as I get all this information in. I have really too much to chose from. We started to discuss this in this thread but no one was really so far this interested to hear this much from me on the specifics.The criticism of the baramin focuses primarily on the lack of an operational application of the nebulous baramin that would allow for example a complete enumeration of ‘created kinds?(Cracraft 1984).?Loading...
Marsh believed repetition of the phrase ‘after his kind?in the creation account indicated the importance of reproduction after its kind.?Whereas Clark interpreted this repetition
as a moral rule.?Gould on Darwin and blending inhereitance - Subjects and Series | Harvard University Press
causal relation to environment genic vs organismic selection- pluifaction and macrothermodyanmics- the fruit fly thermophene- nonadaptive traits in snakes, temperature and geographic variation, developmental and genetic exp. results, new species named from scanning electron micrographs of scales,herpetology minutae...Algebra induced to Geometry (only really questionable step,involved discounting Dawkins use of blueprint?in Devilchap)Hilbert Program and incidence geometry without natural kinds.Actual collection history of Carphophis in US.Dispute at the Missisippi River (Helen's worm snake)
Application of trajectory to within morphospace of Xenodontidae or not .(herpetological dispute of vicariance in the Carribean.Futher statistical tests and comparison with other clade algorithms, minimal spanning trees, and cases of full differentialsThe whole dispute occurred because Cornell faculty did not want to consider the whole discussion or refused to parts beginning without a specific decision IN THE FIRST SEMESTER OF STUDY AS AN UNDERGRADUATE on the last line. The result was impractical and not reflective of life-reality and so when I complained ONLY ABOUT ABSOLUTELY answering the last line, first, I was committed to a mental institution:: go figure.Reading Neibuhr lately explains how Marxism was the likely culprit
(Gould on Hull for or against Dawkins WITH restriction on Wilson via Kripke ( if that was what was being imposed on my education then even the non-Christian science would have suffered in the imagined history here)
but it difficult to label things if I want not to be slandered the same. This causality from the late 80s was actually put into the legal record as evidence of insanity. It was simple to write after learning about deconstruction. I could not believe that the attorney for the state of Florida considered it evidence. In fact this state was so impressed with my thought on how to take a snake apart and possibly put it back together, that they forgot to proove I was a danger to myself or others. And thus I "won". HARDLY- I have had to live with this slander, that can be drawn up in any high school geometry class. Perhaps some one can suggest an internet Audio hosting service and I will upload the whole gory "trial" and you can hear how Croizat, Derrida, topology and affine transforms swung the Chad before there was any talk about my trip to Africa. A snake that% was not! A member? Is there a point or is there not between the frontal and the nose??? I still dont understand how thinking up this question remands involutary psychiatric placement. One can see similiar kinds of discussuions in nature and science just about every week.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-25-2005 16:03 AM

Sorry I was so incomprehensible.You can certainly choose to ignore this post but it might be of interest to others.It seems like I DID locate a major issue in quoting Dobshanksy as Will Provine divulged
EvC Forum: Prof Denies Human Free Will
(he even asked Dobshanky about (it) in the last legs of his life and TD only said paraphrasing Will "some things are paradoxes"). I will NOW state uncategorically (unlike this post you referred to) that the reason I could not say Positively (as there was not track width defined) is the SAME reason Will calls it something "bizzare" that
http://www.gaiamind.com/Teilhard.html
would quote Dobshansky for support when/while in the edition I quoted Dobshansky from, (it)does not, reveal any "purpose" in NATURAL SELECTION according to Will's detailed study that I only curiously quoted. Will now wants to go so far as to uncredit the ups and downs I made out of the this false negative on his part he NOW attempts to associate with Johnson's exemplar as to if he brought any "religion" into his notion of the "evolutionary process". I told Ken Ham that Johnson had gotten lost in library at Cornell and WIll could have found that too if he wasnt so set on his view against universal determinism. He used "Einstein" to avoid the harder issue that track length remands (if it was good enough for Einstein it was good enough for me..) Even if natural selection does not yield a purposive element in mother earth artifical selection along track width vs length lines might. I have had a clear sense of Croizat vs Gould and I almost have one against Will as well. Time will tell.Hopefully it can be made positive in the future rather than ad hom. I will try. At least I understand why I could not have said more then in 03.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-28-2005 07:06 PM