111
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 188:
Line 188: + + + + + + + + + + +
Baraminological musings (where are they now?)
::I found the same bit put back in the article. Either someone is very zealous or very confused. I removed it once more.--[[User:Fizz|Fizz]] 16:11, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::I found the same bit put back in the article. Either someone is very zealous or very confused. I removed it once more.--[[User:Fizz|Fizz]] 16:11, 5 December 2007 (EST)
== Baraminological musings (where are they now?) ==
Re: the following excerpt on Kangaroo origins:
According to the origins theory model used by young earth creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.
(quote ends)
I gather that the hocus-pocus below is a long-winded way of saying that these estimable baraminological “scientists” have not yet decided if the listed animals all came from one ancestor. I am wondering how long it will take these researchers to determine an answer to this question, and what research has been done to date. Are there any papers published on the baraminological status of such animals? Is there any field research being undertaken trying to interbreed them to see if they are hybrids?
I am also interested in why it is only kangaroos that have been described in baraminological terms in Conservapedia. Correct me if I am wrong, but is there any other animal at all, marsupial or otherwise, that has been given this bizarre treatment? And if not, why not? Surely, every article on an animal should have a similar note on the musings of these tireless researchers? [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:49, 7 March 2008 (EST)