Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 04-02-2003, 08:31 PM

Back to the main subject, creationists are very vague about what constitutes a kind.

Let's consider "dog kind". Does it include the domestic dog, Canis (lupus) familiaris?

I'm not going to get into an argument over whether dogs ought to be considered a species separate from the gray wolf, Canis lupus. But note that some dog breeds have a very wolflike appearance, while others look less wolflike.

The domestic dog + gray wolf?

Other Canis species -- coyote, jackals?

Various other species in Canidae, like various fox species?

Various other species in Caniformia, like weasels, badgers, skunks, bears, and seals?

But some creationists believe that there is a "bear kind".

Feliformia also? (cats, mongooses, civets, hyenas, etc.)

But some creationists believe that there is a "cat kind".

Shpongle · 04-02-2003, 08:32 PM

Here are some more "what kind is that" animals:

The mudskipper:

The okapili:

The sawfish:

Minnesota · 04-02-2003, 09:00 PM

Here's a new word for you: "Baraminology."

Creation scientists cooked up the word just recently because real scientists, evolutionist in particular, were always poking fun at them for their embarrassing attempts to explain what the Bible meant by "kind," a reference to different types of animals. Failing to agree on a workable definition, they concocted a new field of study, baraminology, to which they could apply "kind" with some consistency. This is no doubt a first, yet somehow fitting the backassword approach to science these people take.

But rather than bother trying to boil the concept down, here is an explanation from one of the horse's mouth itself at http://crossspot.net/objective/baraminology.html

Quote:

Creation Scientists often talk about "kinds" when referring both to the original creations of the Lord and those that were preserved from the Flood on Noah's Ark. Evolutionists attack this discussion by claiming that "kinds" is an undefined and loose term. To an extent, the Evolutionists have a point; the word "kind", while understood perfectly by Creation Scientists when used in its Scriptural sense, can lead to confusion among the general audience due to its loose usage in non-technical speech. This confusion is what the Evolutionist unfairly takes advantage of when trying to disparage Creation Systematics, or the classifying of created organisms. Realizing this, Creation Scientists have developed a new terminological system whose goal is to aid both researchers in their research and the general population in its understanding of Creation Science findings. This new system is called Baraminology.

Baraminology is based on the concept of the baramin, a term that is synonymous with the Biblical "kind". The word "barmin" comes from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind). A baramin is a group of organisms - those both known and unknown to science and both extant and extinct - who share a genetic relationship through common descent from an organism originally created by the Lord during the Creation Week. For instance, humans are a baramin that includes all the known races (and any obscure or extinct races) which originated via genetic decent from the offspring of Adam and Eve.

Baraminology lets us discuss clearly the Creation model of the diversity and diversification of life. This model is termed Discontinuity Systematics. Unlike the incorrect Evolutionist model that supposes that life forms a continuous lineage from Mushroom to Monkey to Man, the Creation model - supported by science and the Bible - shows that the pattern of life is.

Viti · 04-02-2003, 09:32 PM

Thanks Minnesota...I wonder if a baraimnhooeyologist could be talked into debating this topic here? Hmmm...that would be interesting.

Minnesota · 04-02-2003, 09:32 PM

LONERANGER,

You might want to update your files. According to the NCBI taxonomic data base this is how the hyrax order hyracoidea breaks down.

Hyracoidea

FAMILY..Procaviidae (hyraxes)

GENUS......Dendrohydrax (tree hyraxes)
SPECIES........Dendrohydrax dorsalis

GENUS......Heterohyrax
SPECIES........Heterohyrax brucei (yellow-spotted hyrax)

GENUS......Procavia
SPECIES........Procavia capensis (cape rock hyrax)
..........Procavia capensis habessinica (Abyssinian hyrax) (SUbSPECIES)
SPECIES........Procavia johnstoni

WinAce · 04-02-2003, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Coragyps
Some poor YEC goon on one of the forums I visit claimed that dinosaurs were demoted to snakes after one of them tempted Eve with the apple...and he seemed serious about it.

Send the link you-know where.

The Lone Ranger · 04-02-2003, 10:12 PM

Minnesota:

Thanks. That's the problem with taxonomy; every time we gather more data, we have to revise our taxonomies somewhat.

If only the creationists were capable of changing their "theories" in light of new evidence.

Cheers,

Michael

Celsus · 04-02-2003, 10:25 PM

What kind is this:
A bear? A raccoon? A marsupial? A rodent?

It's Goodfellow's Tree Kangaroo, Dendrolagus goodfellowi.

Here's a picture of the joey:

Oolon Colluphid · 04-03-2003, 01:47 AM

Hot damn! I�m offline overnight, and the most interesting thread for ages has spring up, Athena-like! (From the head of Darwin, presumably

.)

Well, you folks have already mentioned amphisbaeneans. Wonderful things. One curiosity about them (among many): they have a greatly reduced lung, so one main one and one �vestigial�. Not only is this an odd design -- as I�ve mentioned before, more respiratory surface could be produced by having a single larger one -- but the lung that is reduced is the opposite one to the reduced lungs in snakes. (I can�t remember now whether it�s left or right, but in those snakes that have a second lung -- more primitive things like pythons -- it is the other one that�s reduced.) Convergent evolution, or fickle designer?

Ref the poison spur on the platypus, it�s worth noting that the echidna -- porcupine kind? duck kind? -- has a spur like that too, but it is reduced and non-functional.

And what kind is this then?

And what about this?

The platypus has been mentioned as one of two poisonous mammals; well that above is one of the others

. A number of shrew species are poisonous too, eg the short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda and the Eurasian water shrew Neomys fodiens. Technically I suppose they are venomous. I imagine several other mammals might be poisonous if you eat them!

But that above...? It's a solenodon. A what? Yep, a solenodon. I'd never heard of 'em either till I got my encyclopedia of mammals last year. Talk about obscure...!

Cheers, DT

PS Sorry for the size of the pic, the other three I tried wouldn't load for some reason.

Celsus · 04-03-2003, 02:04 AM

Oh, I'd like to add this one too:

Rufous rat kangaroo - Aepyprymnus rufescens.

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

04-02-2003, 08:31 PM	#21
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Back to the main subject, creationists are very vague about what constitutes a kind. Let's consider "dog kind". Does it include the domestic dog, Canis (lupus) familiaris? I'm not going to get into an argument over whether dogs ought to be considered a species separate from the gray wolf, Canis lupus. But note that some dog breeds have a very wolflike appearance, while others look less wolflike. The domestic dog + gray wolf? Other Canis species -- coyote, jackals? Various other species in Canidae, like various fox species? Various other species in Caniformia, like weasels, badgers, skunks, bears, and seals? But some creationists believe that there is a "bear kind". Feliformia also? (cats, mongooses, civets, hyenas, etc.) But some creationists believe that there is a "cat kind".

04-02-2003, 08:32 PM	#22
Shpongle Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Frozen North Posts: 9,920	Here are some more "what kind is that" animals: The mudskipper: The okapili: The sawfish:

04-02-2003, 09:32 PM	#24
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	Thanks Minnesota...I wonder if a baraimnhooeyologist could be talked into debating this topic here? Hmmm...that would be interesting.

04-02-2003, 09:32 PM	#25
Minnesota Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Minnesota Posts: 172	LONERANGER, You might want to update your files. According to the NCBI taxonomic data base this is how the hyrax order hyracoidea breaks down. Hyracoidea FAMILY..Procaviidae (hyraxes) GENUS......Dendrohydrax (tree hyraxes) SPECIES........Dendrohydrax dorsalis GENUS......Heterohyrax SPECIES........Heterohyrax brucei (yellow-spotted hyrax) GENUS......Procavia SPECIES........Procavia capensis (cape rock hyrax) ..........Procavia capensis habessinica (Abyssinian hyrax) (SUbSPECIES) SPECIES........Procavia johnstoni

04-02-2003, 10:12 PM	#27
The Lone Ranger Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Eastern U.S. Posts: 1,230	Minnesota: Thanks. That's the problem with taxonomy; every time we gather more data, we have to revise our taxonomies somewhat. If only the creationists were capable of changing their "theories" in light of new evidence. Cheers, Michael

04-02-2003, 10:25 PM	#28
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	What kind is this: A bear? A raccoon? A marsupial? A rodent? It's Goodfellow's Tree Kangaroo, Dendrolagus goodfellowi. Here's a picture of the joey:

04-03-2003, 01:47 AM	#29
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Hot damn! I�m offline overnight, and the most interesting thread for ages has spring up, Athena-like! (From the head of Darwin, presumably .) Well, you folks have already mentioned amphisbaeneans. Wonderful things. One curiosity about them (among many): they have a greatly reduced lung, so one main one and one �vestigial�. Not only is this an odd design -- as I�ve mentioned before, more respiratory surface could be produced by having a single larger one -- but the lung that is reduced is the opposite one to the reduced lungs in snakes. (I can�t remember now whether it�s left or right, but in those snakes that have a second lung -- more primitive things like pythons -- it is the other one that�s reduced.) Convergent evolution, or fickle designer? Ref the poison spur on the platypus, it�s worth noting that the echidna -- porcupine kind? duck kind? -- has a spur like that too, but it is reduced and non-functional. And what kind is this then? And what about this? The platypus has been mentioned as one of two poisonous mammals; well that above is one of the others . A number of shrew species are poisonous too, eg the short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda and the Eurasian water shrew Neomys fodiens. Technically I suppose they are venomous. I imagine several other mammals might be poisonous if you eat them! But that above...? It's a solenodon. A what? Yep, a solenodon. I'd never heard of 'em either till I got my encyclopedia of mammals last year. Talk about obscure...! Cheers, DT PS Sorry for the size of the pic, the other three I tried wouldn't load for some reason.

04-03-2003, 02:04 AM	#30
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	Oh, I'd like to add this one too: Rufous rat kangaroo - Aepyprymnus rufescens.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.