Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Coragyps · 04-07-2003, 06:41 PM

Quote:

(Hey Coragyps, is this where you get your name?)

It is. I actually prefer turkey vultures, but Cathartes sounded so much like a giant dose of Ex-Lax that I had to pass on it as a nick. (Pun intentional.)

Ergaster · 04-08-2003, 07:00 AM

erp.

That's a parody site.....

And their Baraminology section is particularly good parody, too...

Quote:

Originally posted by LadyShea
Anybody gutsy enough and with good writing skills willing to approach these guys http://crossspot.net/objective/baraminology.html about a debate?

Ergaster · 04-08-2003, 07:20 AM

Fun with Baraminology.

Here's an excerpt from the article most cited by creationists in attempting to "explain" baraminology:

Here:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...raminology.htm

Quote:

"It is believed that the horses (horses, donkeys, and zebras) all are related because they can hybridize, and therefore they belong to a holobaramin. Additionally there is a �dog� holobaramin with monobaraminic branches for the wolves, another for the hyenas, another for the coyotes, for jackals, and more for the hundreds of pet-dog breeds. �Cats� constitute another holobaramin with monobaraminic branches for the lion and the tiger, for the pumas, another for the lynx, domestic cats, etc. (see O�Brien, 1997). A group of all the horses (equids), all the dogs (canids), and all the cats (felids) would be apobaraminic because no horse or dog or cat shares a genetic relationship with any organism which is not a horse, a dog, or a cat."

Can anyone spot the "oopsy!"?

And they wonder why we don't take them seriously....

KC · 04-08-2003, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ergaster
Fun with Baraminology.

Here's an excerpt from the article most cited by creationists in attempting to "explain" baraminology:

Here:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...raminology.htm

Can anyone spot the "oopsy!"?

And they wonder why we don't take them seriously....

Hyenas aren't that closely related to dogs, as I remember.

KC

Mageth · 04-08-2003, 07:39 AM

Well, there's the hyenas, but there's also the statement "no horse or dog or cat shares a genetic relationship with any organism which is not a horse, a dog, or a cat."

Hyenas have their own family (Hyaenidae), which "split" from other carnivores at least 18 million years ago, and of which there are four current species, including this one:

KC · 04-08-2003, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Well, there's the hyenas, but there's also the statement "no horse or dog or cat shares a genetic relationship with any organism which is not a horse, a dog, or a cat."

Yeah, but that is standard creationist claptrap. I think Ergaster was going for the internally-inconsistent application of 'baraminology'.

KC

Doubting Didymus · 04-08-2003, 03:17 PM

Here's another installment in the "what the bloody hell is that thing?" series.

From: Tolweb

What kind? Would you say 'worm kind?' You'd be justified in thinking that, but its actually very close to the vertebrates. It has its little gill slits and a dorsal nerve cord, but no notochord. Instead, it has something called a stomochord. These things are basically half a chordate, and are fittingly named hemichordates. So what baramin are we looking at? Its very own? The more organisms creationists are forced to place in their own baramin, the less and less room there is on the ark, and things as hard to classify as this little feller and worse are just going to keep on coming.

Edit: I forgot to mention, these little beauties are thought to look something like the common ancestor of all chordates, so show some respect, that's your great great great etc. grandfather you're looking at!

Minnesota · 04-08-2003, 05:34 PM

Okay, here is a true one of its "kind."

It's an animal, and by itself, alone, it make up the entire animal phylum of Placoza.

Trichoplax adhaerens

RevDahlia · 04-09-2003, 01:51 AM

i gotta crawl out of the lurk cave and say that this thread is my favorite ever. i am learning all KINDS of freaky stuff!

i mean... that fossa? what the HELL?! i had no idea such a thing existed! and platypuses are POISONOUS?! just gets weirder and weirder and...

there are more things in heaven and earth, horatio...

keep up the good work, guys!

</delurk>

Ergaster · 04-09-2003, 06:04 AM

Yep. Note how Frair uses all the "big" words and fancy definitions and yet seems unaware that hyenas are more closely related to cats than to dogs:

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Carnivo...group=Eutheria

Which demonstrates that the people who are supposed to be able to explain "kinds" don't know what they are, either.

(Like that's a surprise....)

Quote:

Originally posted by KC
Yeah, but that is standard creationist claptrap. I think Ergaster was going for the internally-inconsistent application of 'baraminology'.

KC

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-08-2003, 07:39 AM	#125
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Well, there's the hyenas, but there's also the statement "no horse or dog or cat shares a genetic relationship with any organism which is not a horse, a dog, or a cat." Hyenas have their own family (Hyaenidae), which "split" from other carnivores at least 18 million years ago, and of which there are four current species, including this one:

04-08-2003, 03:17 PM	#127
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Here's another installment in the "what the bloody hell is that thing?" series. From: Tolweb What kind? Would you say 'worm kind?' You'd be justified in thinking that, but its actually very close to the vertebrates. It has its little gill slits and a dorsal nerve cord, but no notochord. Instead, it has something called a stomochord. These things are basically half a chordate, and are fittingly named hemichordates. So what baramin are we looking at? Its very own? The more organisms creationists are forced to place in their own baramin, the less and less room there is on the ark, and things as hard to classify as this little feller and worse are just going to keep on coming. Edit: I forgot to mention, these little beauties are thought to look something like the common ancestor of all chordates, so show some respect, that's your great great great etc. grandfather you're looking at!

04-08-2003, 05:34 PM	#128
Minnesota Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Minnesota Posts: 172	Okay, here is a true one of its "kind." It's an animal, and by itself, alone, it make up the entire animal phylum of Placoza. Trichoplax adhaerens

04-09-2003, 01:51 AM	#129
RevDahlia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Austin, TX, USA Posts: 4,930	i gotta crawl out of the lurk cave and say that this thread is my favorite ever. i am learning all KINDS of freaky stuff! i mean... that fossa? what the HELL?! i had no idea such a thing existed! and platypuses are POISONOUS?! just gets weirder and weirder and... there are more things in heaven and earth, horatio... keep up the good work, guys! </delurk>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.