Duvenoy

" Baraminologists believe that they are at the forefront of modern progressive thinking."

No doubt they are. The only question is, what are they progressivly thinking about? A better way to bring out and/or spend the donations, mayhaps?

This baramin business sounds like desperation wrapped in a pseudo-scientific cloak to me. It might be pseudo-interesting to see where they go with it.

I'll pass on the razor wire. The ex in coming to visit the grand kids next month, and that's torture enough.

d

lpetrich

I've read the page that had caused Coragyps so much misery, and it was very difficult to find any proposed method of finding baramin boundaries. The only baramin they listed with a method for finding it is our species, and their method was, of course, to quote the Bible.

The site listed several criteria for use in working out which species are members of the same subgroup of a baramin, including structure, function, embryonic development, the fossil record, and so forth.

Implying the use of the same methods that evolutionary biologists use. However, there is no evidence for the taxonomic brick walls that one would expect from the baramin hypothesis. Without such clear boundary lines, the baraminologists are likely to argue forever about what species each baramin contains.

[ June 09, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Ergaster

Baraminology is fun! One of my favourite articles is this one:

<a href="http://creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html" target="_blank">http://creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html</a>

Note in the abstract where it says that molecular data could *not* distinguish between humans and non-human primates, but "ecological and morphological" data can. However, when you read the article, it turns out that a paltry 11 (or something--I'd have to double-check) "ecological and morphological" characters have been used. Not only that, but no less than *9 times* throughout the article they point out that molecular phylogenies do not distinguish humans from primates.

Molecular data are considered to be rather more reliable than morphology and behaviour, of course, and the authors seemed fairly satisfied to use it in a similar study of cats. But in this case, it didn't work.

So what do the authors do? Do they discard or modify the hypothesis that humans are a "holobaramin" distinct from primates? Why, no--they do not. They discard THE DATA!! There is no better illustration of the bankruptcy of creation "science" than this.

Coragyps

They had to! It was post-Fall data!