lpetrich

A new "science" that creationists have invented, the study of "created kinds" or "baramins" (approximately Hebrew for "created kind").

Each baramin is a set of all species that share a common specially-created ancestor. But creationists are somewhat vague on how to recognize a baramin; the only criterion I've seen is whether some species can interbreed. They claim that they'll have to do a lot more research, but they don't tell us what research directions might be worth pursuing.

My guess is that they'll be looking for some recognizable and reasonably regular discontinuities in features that will help them recognize baramin boundaries. As an example of the problems they face, let us consider the question of which taxonomic group is the domestic dog's baramin:

• The dog's subspecies: Canis lupus familiaris
• Including the gray wolf: Canis lupus
• Including the coyote and jackals: genus Canis
• Including various fox species and the like: family Canidae
• Including weasels, badgers, skunks, raccoons, bears, seals and sea lions, etc.: suborder Caniformia
• Including cat-like carnivores (felines, hyenas, mongooses, civets, ...): order Carnivora
• Including odd-toed ungulates, even-toed ungulates and cetaceans, and pangolins: taxon Ferungulata
• Including other placentals: taxon Eutheria
• Including marsupials and monotremes: class Mammalia
• Including mammal-like reptiles: taxon Synapsida
• Including other reptiles, dinosaurs, birds: taxon Amniota
• Including amphibians (frogs, toads, extinct ones): class Amphibia
• Including lobe-finned fish (lungfish, coelacanth, etc.): taxon Sarcopterygii
• Including other bony fish: class Osteichthyes
• Including sharks and other jawed fish: taxon Gnathostomata
• Including lampreys: subphylum Vertebrata
• Including hagfish: taxon Craniata
• Including amphioxus: phylum Chordata
• Including tunicates, hemichordates, echinoderms: subkingdom Deuterostomia
• Including protostomes: taxon Bilateria
• Including cnidarians and ctenophores: subkingdom Metazoa
• Including sea sponges: kingdom Animalia
• Including choanoflagellates and fungi: taxon Opisthokonta
• Including other eukaryotic organisms: domain Eukaryota
• Including prokaryotes and viruses: all of Earth's known biota

From evolutionary biology has come from the inference that all of Earth's known biota is effectively one baramin, or more precisely, a spotaneous-generation version of a baramin.

So it would be surprising if creationists come up with more than hand-waving.

MaxMainspring

The logical extension of your observations would be that unless the creationists can come up with a generalized method of differentiating their "barimin(s?" or "kinds" it must be remain at best an arbitrary distinction.

But if it is arbitrary, then my arbitrary delineation is guite as valid as anyone else's including that of the creationist (unless they want to claim some sort of special received knowledge).

So lets take their claim that macro-evolution is necessarily untrue because the members of one baramin cannot have common ancestors with the members of another. Now lets further suppose that we are willing, as evolutionists who subscribe to macro-evolution, to grant this assertion. Then, even if we do grant the limitation, we would not be obliged to change anything about our understanding of how evolution has proceeded. This is true because we can rely on our own definition of a baramin and simply claim that all (or virtually all) organisms that exist or have ever existed belong to the same barimin or kind and were therefore not prevented by the "baramin boundary" from having a common ancestor.

If any creationist claims that our definition of a baramin is too broad and arbitrary then it is up to them to demonstrate why. But in order to do so they have to present us with a general method for making the determination. Otherwise their deliniation of barimin(s?) or kinds is no less arbitraty than ours.

So if they are awaiting reseach before outlining the general method of determination they are in no position to make any assertion about a baramin boundary, because they have no way to exclude any taxon from this meta-baramin. So even granted this general principles claimed by creationists, the theory of evolution in general, including macro, evolution remains untouched by any supposed "baramin boundary".

This will remain the case until we are provided a rigorous definition and methodology for the tenents of bariminology.

Daydreamer

This is why the current taxonomic system is on my shit list.

Yes its useful for comparing degrees of relation.
Yes its useful for naming and listing species.
Yes its useful for approximating our natural history.
But why do we have to give these idiots the ammo they need by trying to neatly cut things into species, families, genuses, etc?

Duvenoy

"This is why the current taxonomic system is on my shit list."

It's on everybody's shit list. Unfortunatly, it's still the best system thus far.

And it's gonna get worse. There are a lot of DNA studies going on as we speak. Species complexs will soon be broken up, many subspecies becoming their own species, concievably with their own subspecies. Crotalus viridis (9 ssp.) for example, and I'm eagerly waiting to see where that one goes.

There's really nothing to be done with the Creationists except to remember that they are not doing science, the barimin (did I spell that right?) project included. They are trying to fit known phenomena into a pre-concieved conclusion. It ain't gonna work.

Let 'em shout.

d

scigirl

The fact that nature's species are not easily categorized in the first place, and that species is a difficult to define term, speaks volumes, I think. YEC would seem to me to predict static, unchanging species (the bible does not say, "And God created each animal according to their own kind, but giving them just enough variation so that the kinds are blurred) it says according to their own kind period. Evolutionary theory predicts this annoyance of course.

scigirl

NeilUnreal

If all organisms are traceable to a common ancestor, then all taxonomies are in some sense artificial. The only objective measure of an organism's place in the "family tree" is the actual set of genetic events which caused its existence at that place in the tree. For example, my relationship to my mother and father is part of that set of events, but my relationship to my sister isn't.

In this context, the best system of taxonomy is probably one which defines taxa in terms of parentage and degree of divergence between branches after a sibling event. But because we can't usefully take into account the history of each and every organism, by definition even a genetic taxonomy is a more-or-less arbitrary statistical description of an actual organism's place in the actual tree.

Fortunately, a genetic taxonomy coincides reasonably well with the descriptive taxonomies already in place, so there is enough work to keep taxonomists busy in the forseeable future with causing utter despair.

I think all biolgists should have to do some study in the pure science of taxonomy, and not just how it applies to biology. Of course, much of the important theoretical work in taxonomy was done by biological taxonomists, but it is enlightening to look at the purely mathematical and epistemological aspects of taxonomy.

Taxonomy is near and dear to my heart. It's one of the main places where my own field (artificial intelligence) overlaps with my original academic love (bioclimatolgy and ecology).

-Neil

p.s. And I think "baraminologists" should study taxonomy too!

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

lpetrich

Much of the time, there is good justification for such groups, because they are defined by various shared features. One thing that helps is extinct intermediates; many of the ancestor species have only some of the features.

For example, present-day horses and rhinos are easy to distinguish, thus making Equidae and Rhinocerotidae very reasonable-looking taxa. However, their Eocene ancestors looked much alike (Hyracotherium, etc.).

Likewise for birds and crocodilians, though their common ancestor was late-Permian archosaurs. Present-day crocodilians are much like their Triassic ancestors, so I'll focus on changes in the birds' ancestors.

Long limbs:
Crocodilians: no
Early dinosaurs: yes
Theropods: yes
Archaeopteryx: yes
Birds: yes

Two-legged walking:
Crocodilians: no
Early dinosaurs: yes
Theropods: yes
Archaeopteryx: yes
Birds: yes

Feathers:
Crocodilians: no
Early dinosaurs: ?
Theropods: ?
Archaeopteryx: yes
Birds: yes

Feet have three long, splayed toes:
Crocodilians: no
Early dinosaurs: no
Theropods: yes
Archaeopteryx: yes
Birds: yes

Short tail:
Crocodilians: no
Early dinosaurs: no
Theropods: no
Archaeopteryx: no
Birds: yes

Beak instead of teeth:
Crocodilians: no
Early dinosaurs: no
Theropods: no
Archaeopteryx: no
Birds: yes

But even in such cases, one can define groups with the help of shared features -- one has to be more careful.

lpetrich

And, in fact, that was the common pre-Darwinian view, that each species was a separate creation. As Darwin himself had noted, that view had serious difficulties when one considers the numerous cases of ambiguous species.

However, the baramin advocates would say that such ambiguous species are members of the same baramin -- in other words, that they were the result of evolution from some set of specially-created ancestors.

Coragyps

If you are really, really, really bored, and don't feel like relieving your boredom by whipping yourself with razor wire stolen from a nearby penitentary, a marginally less painful form of self-abuse can be found <a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html" target="_blank">here</a>. You can learn how a "holobaramin" differs from an "apobaramin," and, if you scroll clear to the bottom of the page, can be solicited for a donation as well.
I scanned it, and I'm going out to the prison for some wire.

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

Coragyps

Oh crap!!! I didn't scan closely enough! Right above the references and request for donations appears the statement: