Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Baraminology

2007-05-30T19:38:44Z

Cypam:

This article is excellent, but I would like to know what sources the author used before I go in and editing. After all, perhaps he has better sources than I do. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 10:40 27 February 2007 (EST)

:The best reference to date is the review article [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html "Baraminology -- Classification of Created Organisms"], by Wayne Frair, Ph.D, Originally published in ''CRS Quarterly'', Vol. 37, Num. 2, Sept. 2000. I have added this reference to the article. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 14:09, 27 February 2007 (EST)

As someone well-trained in biology, I would be interested in more support for this theory, for instance, physical/genetic evidence. Thanks.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Physical/genetic evidence for what exactly? The article is about a classification system. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Physical/genetic evidence that the categories are meaningful distinctions, presumably. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 17:41, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That doesn't really make sense. The categories are defined along the lines of interfertility; whether or not that is a meaningful basis for making a distinction is a matter of opinion, not something for which you produce evidence. It is, in fact, similar (but not the same) as the distinction for species. Do you want to offer evidence that the species definition is a "meaningful distinction"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Not exactly. Baraminology makes a claim that these various species are distinct in an important physical sense, that they were created separately. The claim is made that this is scientific. It should therefore be testable. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:06, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Hey, Joshua's back! The claim that they were created separately should be testable, or the claim that they are or are not interfertile? The latter is testable, and that is the bit that's claimed to be scientific. And how do you test whether two creatures are the same or different species if one or both are known only from the fossil record? Does that mean that classification of most extinct is not scientific? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Whether classifications schemes for species are in general scientific is a difficult philosophical question. However, Baraminology unlike standard classification systems claims to be more than a classification system but a reflection of how things were actually created. Thus the lack of falsifiability becomes relevant. In particular, how can one ever tell that two species are definitely not in the same baramin? Answer: One can't. (I think there are also serious Biblical problems with baraminology but thats a separate issue). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: That sounds more like an objection to Baraminology on the grounds that the supernatural is involved, rather than an objection of any substance. And I don't accept that you can't ever tell that two creatures are definitely not in the same baramin. You probably can't ''at present'', but an improved knowledge of the genetic code might allow us to determine that in the future. And I don't think that there are biblical problems with baraminology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: If my objections were involvement of the supernatural that would be a serious problem by itself not an objection lacking substance. Once the supernatural is involved, experiments are useless. However, the problem is more serious than that- even without supernatural intervention, one still cannot say that any two animals are not in the same baramin. (It isn't at all clear how genetics would help matters. And if anything, baraminologists have rejected using genetics as a determinant because it almost certainly would put humans and chimps into the same baramin (citation forthcoming, give me a day or so)). Furthermore, there are serious Biblical problems- Leviticus 19:19 doesn't make much sense if baraminology is correct and moreover might even imply that attempts to interbreed to determine baramins are sinful. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::It is rubbish to suggest that once the supernatural is involved, experiments are useless. Genetics would help if we can determine the designed mechanism of preventing two different creatures breeding. Given that, I fail to see how humans and chimps could possibly be put in the same baramin. As far as Leviticus 19:19 is concerned, see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3161 here] and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3419/86/ here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:08, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::: Once the supernatural is involved you have no idea whats going on. For all you know you could have complete omphalism or could have the universe created last thursday. As to the matter of determining "the designed mechanism of preventing two different creatures breeding" I have never seen any baraminologist assert that there is a specific mechanism that has been implemented to prevent them from interbreeding (this would raise its own issues. What if for example the mechanism became inoperative due to a mutation). Incidentally, here is one example where baraminologists have rejected using genetics as a test: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html . Continuing on to the matter of Leviticus 19:19, the argument being made by Ross is not quite the same the argument I am making-the issues are 1) The verses even under the intertrepation given by AIG and its splinter group still imply that doing crossbreeding tests of fertility is Biblicaly forbidden 2) The simple meaning of the verse implies that there are groups which are somehow distinct but are able to interbreed. If not, it isn't at all clear to me what under their interpretation the verse is meant to prohibit. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

"''Once the supernatural is involved you have no idea whats going on. For all you know you could have complete omphalism or could have the universe created last thursday.''". That's only true if you have no knowledge of what the supernatural being might do. It is not an inherent problem of there being a supernatural being.

Creationists don't propose that God steps in to stop two different baramin interbreeding every time they try; they propose that God designed the creatures in such a way that they could not interbreed. A genetic mechanism would seem the obvious way to do this.

The link you provided does not (as far as I can see) say that baraminologists reject using genetics. I can see where they've found a particular genetic test ineffective, but that's not the same thing.

I didn't link to AiG, and CMI is not a "splinter group". Your reply indicates that you haven't read the links properly, as they specifically raise the possibility of the verse referring to not interbreeding between different breeds within the same baramin. And what you think the verses "imply" may not be what is actually meant. To put it another way, do you think the verses were meant to prohibit crossbreeding tests for the purposes of scientific research, or for other reasons?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:55, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: First, regarding the issue of supernatural beings, you assert that you might somehow know what the being will do. The whole point of something being supernatural is that you don't know- it doesn't follow laws of reality. One might have faith or such about the nature of such an entity but any question involving it is outside the purview of science. Continuing onwards, I didn't assert that "God steps in to stop two different baramin interbreeding every time they try", however no one has detected any such "genetic mechanism" as you assert and I again wonder what happens if a mutation disables that mechanism. As to the issue of rejection of genetic tests, the tests that were ineffective are the most basic genetic tests possible- it would be likely more accurate to say that the genetics do not support the existence of a separate human baramin (assuming that has any meaning). I'm not sure what you mean when you assert that CMI is nto a splinter group from AIG (what term would you prefer? Breakaway group?). I did read the links, and there response about the verses is less than satisfactory. Among other issues, they state verse uses the word k'layim כִּלְאַיִם rather than (min) מִין and try to argue that the verse is somehow talking about a different category. In fact, k'layim means a mixture, it isn't a parallel word, and then attack Ross for his poor understanding of hebrew. (The whole thing really isn't that suprising when you consider the word "baraminology" anyways). I don't pretend to know why God would make such a commandment, although the Talmud seems to think that this law is to prohibit essentially messing with the natural order as God constructed it. Now, if the natural order as constructed didn't have problematic interbreeding, that doesn't make much sense. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:56, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

==Genetic degradation ==

If Adam lived for 930 years, and humans have been around for about 6000 years, and now because of genetic degradation, the average human lifespan is (in the developed world) only between 77 and 81, you could plot some scary lines on a graph! (Top-of-my-head approx calculations: 90% decrease in 6000yrs, in another 6000yrs the average life expectancy would be about 8yrs) I'm sure that this would be to oversimplify things though, because the average lifespan of an ancient Greek was reportedly only 28 and many factors affect the figure, but presuming we're dealing with the upper-boundary of possible ages in Adam's age and current developed-world life expectancy, what is the principle or theory at work here behind the claim of the link between genetic degradation and life expectancy? [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 09:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I am guessing you could not read the article being cited. That website is experiencing temporary tech difficulties. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:57, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Ill read up on it when the sites back up, i just wondered if it was a speculative hypothesis or if there had been research in to the link aswell. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I've replaced the link with a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/ link to the original], and it works currently. The drop in lifespans was not a constant thing, but a large drop immediately after [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Human evolution ==

I've removed from the article a comment that [[user:Elrond|Elrond]] put in. Although in principle similar to a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag, it is not the sort of thing that should be in the article, and would be better discussed here. Below is the sentence from the article with Elrond's insertion bolded:
{{QuoteBox|(This is in contrast to the conclusions of evolutionary theory, which holds that the same process that separated man from beast also separated the human races from one another '''(reference very much needed here...... it is highly doubtful that any mainstream evolutionary biologist believes this to be the case today''')}}

I could believe that Elrond's point ''could be'' correct, hypothetically, but is it in practice? I also quote here a proposed explanation of evolution that [[user:Kww|Kww]] put on the evolution talk page[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=156092&oldid=149042] (my emphasis):
{{QuoteBox|the prevailing scientific view is that all living organisms are descendants of a single common ancestor, and that '''all differences between these species are the result of evolution'''}}
This seems to be a direct contradiction of Elrond's claim.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cypam's edit ==

Cypam's last edit comprises three components:
# Insertion of a claim that not all creationist accept baraminology. His reference supports that not all creationists are Christian (which is not disputed), bot not that not all creationists accept baraminology. And that is a claim that is not explicitly made in the article anyway.
# Reinstatement of Aengus2's twice-previously-reverted claim of what some critics might claim plus a dogmatic statement that baraminologists are wrong. It has previously been reverted on the grounds of being an "uncited claim which fails to recognise the arguments". It is still uncited, and still misses the point (by being dogmatic), and any editor who reinserts it in this fashion (uncited and dogmatically) will earn themselves a block.
# An obtuse paragraph that is clearly designed to parody the alleged difficulty of baraminology by being difficult itself. It is making an uncited opinion about baraminology in a way that is deliberately obtuse, and has been reverted three times by two different sysops. Reinstatement of it without approval (which will not be forthcoming without a compelling case being made) will also be grounds for a block.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:: # Not sure what your talking about. For example, in Apache myth there is no concept or word for "Noah's arc", therefore the notion of baraminology is not even defined in their logos. This is what is known in logic as "proof by construction," and follows directly with even a rudimentary understanding of language. For example, if you said "creationists believe in purgatory," and I showed that, for example, the Yanomono tribes of South America are characterized as creationists and yet have no judeo-christian suppositions (in particular a word purgatory) in their mythos, then the consequence of that is that not necessarily all creationists believe in purgatory. To publish something saying this is pointless. It would be equivalent to to asking for a reference that states that "not all rocks are trees." Such a statement is a proof by construction, simply using standard definitions.

:: # What do you mean by dogmatic? It's possible your right, but based on your "techniques" then every sentence in the article needs to be cited. If you could possible clarify the point? It seems the point of knowledge is to resemble the truth by circumscribing the edges of the known (facts which are reproducible from the natural world) or hypothesized aspects of a problem. If however the only point is to re-assert a certain seemingly inviolable premise, then first off, it is a dictionary and not an encyclopedia, and second there is no need for any language whatsoever, you could just suffice with, "I am correct, you are wrong; because we say so."

:: # No, it is rewording a colloquial criticism of baraminology in a way meant to be suggestive of the tendency of baraminologists to conveninetly ignore reality by superimposing a transparent and simplistic collection of terms which are bijective onto already existing terms, but affectively create an illusion of depth. For example, if I rename cooking to lilkhast, and then proceed to define known cookware with words that end in "lilk", this has not effectively accomplished anything but perhaps a sort of re-invention of Babel. [[User:Cypam|Cypam]] 15:38, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Baraminology

2007-05-29T20:25:45Z

Cypam: It is needed. The reason complicated language is needed is the aguments are extremely complicated; hence suggestive. Further, the fact is there are nonchristian creationists

'''Baraminology''' is the study of '''baramins''', also known by the Biblical term '''[[Kind|kinds]]'''.

A baramin is a lineage of earthly [[life]] which is believed by Christian (but not all) creationists (see <ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html#nonchris NonChristian Creationism, Mark Isaak, Web, 2002]</ref> for example) to be created by [[God]] during the [[Creation Week]], and corresponds in some functional aspects to the secular concept of [[species]]. However, unlike species concepts that are based on Darwinian thinking, the baraminic barrier is inviolable, as other baramins do not [[Theory of evolution|evolve]] from earlier baramins. Critics point out difficulties in defending inviolable baraminic barriers given incontrovertible evidence for mutations and natural selection at the molecular level.

[[Jonathan Sarfati]] writes regarding the Biblical kinds of organisms:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can [[Hybrid|hybridize]] with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3855/#kinds</ref>
</blockquote>

Baraminology, as a model of origins, complements the [[Linnaean taxonomy | Linnaean taxonomic system]], which is also based on the Biblical view of origins. Baraminology is seen as an alternative to the evolutionistic system of [[cladistics]], which is not compatible with Linnaean taxonomy.

==History==

The term ''baramin'' was coined in 1941 by [[Frank Marsh]] from the [[Hebrew]] words ''bara'' (create) and ''min'' (kind).

It was resurrected in 1990 by [[Kurt Wise]] for use as the unit of creation in his discontinuous biosystematical system. From this came the term ''baraminology''. That same year at the Second International Conference on [[Creationism]] in [[Pittsburgh]], [[Walter ReMine]] introduced additional sub-terms to help clarify baraminological discourse: ''holobaramin'', ''monobaramin'', ''apobaramin'', and ''polybaramin''.<ref name="frair">[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html "Baraminology -- Classification of Created Organisms"], by Wayne Frair, Ph.D, Originally published in ''CRS Quarterly'', Vol. 37, Num. 2, Sept. 2000.</ref>

==Baraminological Terms==

* '''Holobaramin''': A Holobaramin is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, meaning all races are descended from a singular creation event (i.e. the creation of Adam and Eve) and will always be fully and completely human. (This is in contrast to the conclusions of evolutionary theory, which holds that the same process that separated man from beast also separated the human races from one another.) But a group containing only [[Caucasian | Caucasians]] and [[Negro | Negroes]] is not a holobaramin since it excludes [[Mongoloid | Mongoloids]] and other races. Another example would be [[dog]]s, which form a holobaramin since [[wolf | wolves]], [[coyote | coyotes]], domesticated dogs and other [[canid | canids]] are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the [[Noah's Ark | Ark]], and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of "baramin" above and is the primary term in baraminology.

* '''Monobaramin''': A monobaramin is an ''ad hoc'' group of organisms who share common descent. Caucasians and Negroes are a monobaramin, as are any group of specific members of a holobaramin such as wolves, poodles, and terriers or the humans Tom, Dick, and Harry. Holobaramins contain monobaramins; for instance, wolves are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.

* '''Apobaramin''': An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins. Humans and Dogs are an apobaramin since both members are holobaramins. A group containing Negroes and wolves is not an apobaramin since both members are monobaramins.

* '''Polybaramin''': A polybaramin is an ''ad hoc'' group of organisms where at least one of the members must not be a holobaramin and must be unrelated to any or all of the others. For example: Humans, wolves and a [[duck]] are a polybaraminic group. This term is useful for describing such hodgepodge mixtures of creatures.

Three additional terms introduced by Wise:<ref name="frair"/>

* '''Archaebaramin''': An archaebaramin is the originally-created individual(s) of a given holobaramin. For instance, Adam and Eve form the archaebaramin of the holobaramin of Humanity.

* '''Neobaramin & Paleobaramin''': A neobaramin is the living population of a given holobaramin, whereas a paleobaramin represents older forms of a given holobaramin. Neobaramins have undergone genetic degradation from their perfectly created forms (archaebaramin) and so may differ from their paleobaramins in notable ways. For example, the neobaramin of Humanity has a much shorter lifespan and greater prevalence of genetic diseases than the Human paleobaramin (e.g. Adam lived for 930 years<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/ "Living for 900 years"], ''Creation'' 20(4):10–13, September 1998.</ref> and his children could interbreed without fear of deformity<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp "Cain's wife -- who was she?"], Answers In Genesis</ref>).

==Baraminic Demarcation==

In order to determine the baraminicity of a given group of organisms, '''baraminic demarcation''' must be evaluated. This process involves four foundational concepts<ref>[http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/003.pdf "A Refined Baramin Concept"], Wood ''et al.'', 2003, Baraminology Study Group.</ref>:

* '''Biological Character Space''' (BCS): A theoretical multidimensional space in which each character (e.g. height or color) of an organism comprises a dimension, and particular states of that character occupy unique positions along the dimension. A single organism is therefore precisely defined by a single point in the multidimensional space.

* '''Potentiality Region''': A region of that biological character space within which organismal form is possible. Therefore, any point in the biological character space that is not within a potentiality region describes an organism that cannot exist.

* '''Continuity''': describes the relationship between two organisms which are either in the same potentiality region, or linked to each other by a third, such that transmutation between the two is theoretically possible.

* '''Discontinuity''': describes the relationship between two organisms which are in disconnected potentiality regions, such that transmutation between the two is impossible.

Thus, organisms that are found to be continuous in a BCS potentiality region form a holobaramin or monobaramin (depending on if all organisms within the potentiality region are considered), whereas those that are discontinuous form a polybaramin or apobaramin (again, depending on completeness of the organisms considered).

== Criticism ==

Baraminology has been criticised for its lack of rigorous testing, its lax use of data and its failure to produce any peer reviewed scientific research. It is regarded as pseudoscience by evolutionary scientists, but creation scientists view it as a young field still in development and believe that criticism can be resolved with further research<ref>[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm The Current Status of Baraminology, Todd Charles Wood, CRSQ Vol 43 No 3, December 2006]</ref>. Further, it is often claimed that the stultiloquence of baraminology is rapt in a cocoon of absonous sciomachy rendered as legitimate discourse to obfuscate the ceremonious corrigendum of a sciolistic corypheus.

==Further Information==
* [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html What are the Genesis “kinds”? Baraminology—classification of created organisms]
* [http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/ Baraminology Study Group]
* [http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/baraminology_ta.htm A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms]
* [http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm The Current Status of Baraminology, Todd Charles Wood, CRSQ Vol 43 No 3, December 2006]
* [http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Biology]] 
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Baraminology

2007-05-27T20:59:46Z

Cypam: i understand your position, but ENGLISH is meant to describe the world, and sometimes comlpicated arguments require complicated language ... it sucks, i know ....

'''Baraminology''' is the study of '''baramins''', also known by the Biblical term '''[[Kind|kinds]]'''.

A baramin is a lineage of earthly [[life]] which is believed by creationists to be created by [[God]] during the [[Creation Week]], and corresponds in some functional aspects to the secular concept of [[species]]. However, unlike species concepts that are based on Darwinian thinking, the baraminic barrier is inviolable, as other baramins do not [[Theory of evolution|evolve]] from earlier baramins.

[[Jonathan Sarfati]] writes regarding the Biblical kinds of organisms:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can [[Hybrid|hybridize]] with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3855/#kinds</ref>
</blockquote>

Baraminology, as a model of origins, complements the [[Linnaean taxonomy | Linnaean taxonomic system]], which is also based on the Biblical view of origins. Baraminology is seen as an alternative to the evolutionistic system of [[cladistics]], which is not compatible with Linnaean taxonomy.

==History==

The term ''baramin'' was coined in 1941 by [[Frank Marsh]] from the [[Hebrew]] words ''bara'' (create) and ''min'' (kind).

It was resurrected in 1990 by [[Kurt Wise]] for use as the unit of creation in his discontinuous biosystematical system. From this came the term ''baraminology''. That same year at the Second International Conference on [[Creationism]] in [[Pittsburgh]], [[Walter ReMine]] introduced additional sub-terms to help clarify baraminological discourse: ''holobaramin'', ''monobaramin'', ''apobaramin'', and ''polybaramin''.<ref name="frair">[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html "Baraminology -- Classification of Created Organisms"], by Wayne Frair, Ph.D, Originally published in ''CRS Quarterly'', Vol. 37, Num. 2, Sept. 2000.</ref>

==Baraminological Terms==

* '''Holobaramin''': A Holobaramin is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, meaning all races are descended from a singular creation event (i.e. the creation of Adam and Eve) and will always be fully and completely human. (This is in contrast to the conclusions of evolutionary theory, which holds that the same process that separated man from beast also separated the human races from one another.) But a group containing only [[Caucasian | Caucasians]] and [[Negro | Negroes]] is not a holobaramin since it excludes [[Mongoloid | Mongoloids]] and other races. Another example would be [[dog]]s, which form a holobaramin since [[wolf | wolves]], [[coyote | coyotes]], domesticated dogs and other [[canid | canids]] are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the [[Noah's Ark | Ark]], and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of "baramin" above and is the primary term in baraminology.

* '''Monobaramin''': A monobaramin is an ''ad hoc'' group of organisms who share common descent. Caucasians and Negroes are a monobaramin, as are any group of specific members of a holobaramin such as wolves, poodles, and terriers or the humans Tom, Dick, and Harry. Holobaramins contain monobaramins; for instance, wolves are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.

* '''Apobaramin''': An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins. Humans and Dogs are an apobaramin since both members are holobaramins. A group containing Negroes and wolves is not an apobaramin since both members are monobaramins.

* '''Polybaramin''': A polybaramin is an ''ad hoc'' group of organisms where at least one of the members must not be a holobaramin and must be unrelated to any or all of the others. For example: Humans, wolves and a [[duck]] are a polybaraminic group. This term is useful for describing such hodgepodge mixtures of creatures.

Three additional terms introduced by Wise:<ref name="frair"/>

* '''Archaebaramin''': An archaebaramin is the originally-created individual(s) of a given holobaramin. For instance, Adam and Eve form the archaebaramin of the holobaramin of Humanity.

* '''Neobaramin & Paleobaramin''': A neobaramin is the living population of a given holobaramin, whereas a paleobaramin represents older forms of a given holobaramin. Neobaramins have undergone genetic degradation from their perfectly created forms (archaebaramin) and so may differ from their paleobaramins in notable ways. For example, the neobaramin of Humanity has a much shorter lifespan and greater prevalence of genetic diseases than the Human paleobaramin (e.g. Adam lived for 930 years<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/ "Living for 900 years"], ''Creation'' 20(4):10–13, September 1998.</ref> and his children could interbreed without fear of deformity<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp "Cain's wife -- who was she?"], Answers In Genesis</ref>).

==Baraminic Demarcation==

In order to determine the baraminicity of a given group of organisms, '''baraminic demarcation''' must be evaluated. This process involves four foundational concepts<ref>[http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/003.pdf "A Refined Baramin Concept"], Wood ''et al.'', 2003, Baraminology Study Group.</ref>:

* '''Biological Character Space''' (BCS): A theoretical multidimensional space in which each character (e.g. height or color) of an organism comprises a dimension, and particular states of that character occupy unique positions along the dimension. A single organism is therefore precisely defined by a single point in the multidimensional space.

* '''Potentiality Region''': A region of that biological character space within which organismal form is possible. Therefore, any point in the biological character space that is not within a potentiality region describes an organism that cannot exist.

* '''Continuity''': describes the relationship between two organisms which are either in the same potentiality region, or linked to each other by a third, such that transmutation between the two is theoretically possible.

* '''Discontinuity''': describes the relationship between two organisms which are in disconnected potentiality regions, such that transmutation between the two is impossible.

Thus, organisms that are found to be continuous in a BCS potentiality region form a holobaramin or monobaramin (depending on if all organisms within the potentiality region are considered), whereas those that are discontinuous form a polybaramin or apobaramin (again, depending on completeness of the organisms considered).

== Criticism ==

Baraminology has been criticised for its lack of rigorous testing, its lax use of data and its failure to produce any peer reviewed scientific research. It is regarded as pseudoscience by evolutionary scientists, but creation scientists view it as a young field still in development and believe that criticism can be resolved with further research<ref>[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm The Current Status of Baraminology, Todd Charles Wood, CRSQ Vol 43 No 3, December 2006]</ref>. Further, it is often claimed that the stultiloquence of baraminology is rapt in a cocoon of absonous sciomachy rendered as legitimate discourse to obfuscate the ceremonious corrigendum of a sciolistic corypheus.

==Further Information==
* [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html What are the Genesis “kinds”? Baraminology—classification of created organisms]
* [http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/ Baraminology Study Group]
* [http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/baraminology_ta.htm A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms]
* [http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm The Current Status of Baraminology, Todd Charles Wood, CRSQ Vol 43 No 3, December 2006]
* [http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Biology]] 
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Baraminology

2007-05-27T20:53:45Z

Cypam: m

Baraminology

2007-05-27T20:52:59Z

Cypam: those are all english words: try here http://dictionary.reference.com/

'''Baraminology''' is the study of '''baramins''', also known by the Biblical term '''[[Kind|kinds]]'''.

A baramin is a lineage of earthly [[life]] which is believed by creationists to be created by [[God]] during the [[Creation Week]], and corresponds in some functional aspects to the secular concept of [[species]]. However, unlike species concepts that are based on Darwinian thinking, the baraminic barrier is inviolable, as other baramins do not [[Theory of evolution|evolve]] from earlier baramins.

[[Jonathan Sarfati]] writes regarding the Biblical kinds of organisms:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can [[Hybrid|hybridize]] with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3855/#kinds</ref>
</blockquote>

Baraminology, as a model of origins, complements the [[Linnaean taxonomy | Linnaean taxonomic system]], which is also based on the Biblical view of origins. Baraminology is seen as an alternative to the evolutionistic system of [[cladistics]], which is not compatible with Linnaean taxonomy.

==History==

The term ''baramin'' was coined in 1941 by [[Frank Marsh]] from the [[Hebrew]] words ''bara'' (create) and ''min'' (kind).

It was resurrected in 1990 by [[Kurt Wise]] for use as the unit of creation in his discontinuous biosystematical system. From this came the term ''baraminology''. That same year at the Second International Conference on [[Creationism]] in [[Pittsburgh]], [[Walter ReMine]] introduced additional sub-terms to help clarify baraminological discourse: ''holobaramin'', ''monobaramin'', ''apobaramin'', and ''polybaramin''.<ref name="frair">[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html "Baraminology -- Classification of Created Organisms"], by Wayne Frair, Ph.D, Originally published in ''CRS Quarterly'', Vol. 37, Num. 2, Sept. 2000.</ref>

==Baraminological Terms==

* '''Holobaramin''': A Holobaramin is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, meaning all races are descended from a singular creation event (i.e. the creation of Adam and Eve) and will always be fully and completely human. (This is in contrast to the conclusions of evolutionary theory, which holds that the same process that separated man from beast also separated the human races from one another.) But a group containing only [[Caucasian | Caucasians]] and [[Negro | Negroes]] is not a holobaramin since it excludes [[Mongoloid | Mongoloids]] and other races. Another example would be [[dog]]s, which form a holobaramin since [[wolf | wolves]], [[coyote | coyotes]], domesticated dogs and other [[canid | canids]] are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the [[Noah's Ark | Ark]], and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of "baramin" above and is the primary term in baraminology.

* '''Monobaramin''': A monobaramin is an ''ad hoc'' group of organisms who share common descent. Caucasians and Negroes are a monobaramin, as are any group of specific members of a holobaramin such as wolves, poodles, and terriers or the humans Tom, Dick, and Harry. Holobaramins contain monobaramins; for instance, wolves are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.

* '''Apobaramin''': An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins. Humans and Dogs are an apobaramin since both members are holobaramins. A group containing Negroes and wolves is not an apobaramin since both members are monobaramins.

* '''Polybaramin''': A polybaramin is an ''ad hoc'' group of organisms where at least one of the members must not be a holobaramin and must be unrelated to any or all of the others. For example: Humans, wolves and a [[duck]] are a polybaraminic group. This term is useful for describing such hodgepodge mixtures of creatures.

Three additional terms introduced by Wise:<ref name="frair"/>

* '''Archaebaramin''': An archaebaramin is the originally-created individual(s) of a given holobaramin. For instance, Adam and Eve form the archaebaramin of the holobaramin of Humanity.

* '''Neobaramin & Paleobaramin''': A neobaramin is the living population of a given holobaramin, whereas a paleobaramin represents older forms of a given holobaramin. Neobaramins have undergone genetic degradation from their perfectly created forms (archaebaramin) and so may differ from their paleobaramins in notable ways. For example, the neobaramin of Humanity has a much shorter lifespan and greater prevalence of genetic diseases than the Human paleobaramin (e.g. Adam lived for 930 years<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/ "Living for 900 years"], ''Creation'' 20(4):10–13, September 1998.</ref> and his children could interbreed without fear of deformity<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp "Cain's wife -- who was she?"], Answers In Genesis</ref>).

==Baraminic Demarcation==

In order to determine the baraminicity of a given group of organisms, '''baraminic demarcation''' must be evaluated. This process involves four foundational concepts<ref>[http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/003.pdf "A Refined Baramin Concept"], Wood ''et al.'', 2003, Baraminology Study Group.</ref>:

* '''Biological Character Space''' (BCS): A theoretical multidimensional space in which each character (e.g. height or color) of an organism comprises a dimension, and particular states of that character occupy unique positions along the dimension. A single organism is therefore precisely defined by a single point in the multidimensional space.

* '''Potentiality Region''': A region of that biological character space within which organismal form is possible. Therefore, any point in the biological character space that is not within a potentiality region describes an organism that cannot exist.

* '''Continuity''': describes the relationship between two organisms which are either in the same potentiality region, or linked to each other by a third, such that transmutation between the two is theoretically possible.

* '''Discontinuity''': describes the relationship between two organisms which are in disconnected potentiality regions, such that transmutation between the two is impossible.

Thus, organisms that are found to be continuous in a BCS potentiality region form a holobaramin or monobaramin (depending on if all organisms within the potentiality region are considered), whereas those that are discontinuous form a polybaramin or apobaramin (again, depending on completeness of the organisms considered).

== Criticism ==

Baraminology has been criticised for its lack of rigorous testing, its lax use of data and its failure to produce any peer reviewed scientific research. It is regarded as pseudoscience by evolutionary scientists, but creation scientists view it as a young field still in development and believe that criticism can be resolved with further research<ref>[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm The Current Status of Baraminology, Todd Charles Wood, CRSQ Vol 43 No 3, December 2006]</ref>. Further, it is often claimed that the stultiloquence of baraminology is rapt in a cocoon of absonous sciomachy rendered as legitimate discourse to obfuscate the ceremonious corrigendum of a sciolistic corypheus

==Further Information==
* [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html What are the Genesis “kinds”? Baraminology—classification of created organisms]
* [http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/ Baraminology Study Group]
* [http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/baraminology_ta.htm A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms]
* [http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm The Current Status of Baraminology, Todd Charles Wood, CRSQ Vol 43 No 3, December 2006]
* [http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Biology]] 
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Baraminology

2007-05-27T20:50:47Z

Cypam:

'''Baraminology''' is the study of '''baramins''', also known by the Biblical term '''[[Kind|kinds]]'''.

A baramin is a lineage of earthly [[life]] which is believed by creationists to be created by [[God]] during the [[Creation Week]], and corresponds in some functional aspects to the secular concept of [[species]]. However, unlike species concepts that are based on Darwinian thinking, the baraminic barrier is inviolable, as other baramins do not [[Theory of evolution|evolve]] from earlier baramins.

[[Jonathan Sarfati]] writes regarding the Biblical kinds of organisms:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can [[Hybrid|hybridize]] with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3855/#kinds</ref>
</blockquote>

Baraminology, as a model of origins, complements the [[Linnaean taxonomy | Linnaean taxonomic system]], which is also based on the Biblical view of origins. Baraminology is seen as an alternative to the evolutionistic system of [[cladistics]], which is not compatible with Linnaean taxonomy.

==History==

The term ''baramin'' was coined in 1941 by [[Frank Marsh]] from the [[Hebrew]] words ''bara'' (create) and ''min'' (kind).

It was resurrected in 1990 by [[Kurt Wise]] for use as the unit of creation in his discontinuous biosystematical system. From this came the term ''baraminology''. That same year at the Second International Conference on [[Creationism]] in [[Pittsburgh]], [[Walter ReMine]] introduced additional sub-terms to help clarify baraminological discourse: ''holobaramin'', ''monobaramin'', ''apobaramin'', and ''polybaramin''.<ref name="frair">[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html "Baraminology -- Classification of Created Organisms"], by Wayne Frair, Ph.D, Originally published in ''CRS Quarterly'', Vol. 37, Num. 2, Sept. 2000.</ref>

==Baraminological Terms==

* '''Holobaramin''': A Holobaramin is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, meaning all races are descended from a singular creation event (i.e. the creation of Adam and Eve) and will always be fully and completely human. (This is in contrast to the conclusions of evolutionary theory, which holds that the same process that separated man from beast also separated the human races from one another.) But a group containing only [[Caucasian | Caucasians]] and [[Negro | Negroes]] is not a holobaramin since it excludes [[Mongoloid | Mongoloids]] and other races. Another example would be [[dog]]s, which form a holobaramin since [[wolf | wolves]], [[coyote | coyotes]], domesticated dogs and other [[canid | canids]] are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the [[Noah's Ark | Ark]], and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of "baramin" above and is the primary term in baraminology.

* '''Monobaramin''': A monobaramin is an ''ad hoc'' group of organisms who share common descent. Caucasians and Negroes are a monobaramin, as are any group of specific members of a holobaramin such as wolves, poodles, and terriers or the humans Tom, Dick, and Harry. Holobaramins contain monobaramins; for instance, wolves are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.

* '''Apobaramin''': An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins. Humans and Dogs are an apobaramin since both members are holobaramins. A group containing Negroes and wolves is not an apobaramin since both members are monobaramins.

* '''Polybaramin''': A polybaramin is an ''ad hoc'' group of organisms where at least one of the members must not be a holobaramin and must be unrelated to any or all of the others. For example: Humans, wolves and a [[duck]] are a polybaraminic group. This term is useful for describing such hodgepodge mixtures of creatures.

Three additional terms introduced by Wise:<ref name="frair"/>

* '''Archaebaramin''': An archaebaramin is the originally-created individual(s) of a given holobaramin. For instance, Adam and Eve form the archaebaramin of the holobaramin of Humanity.

* '''Neobaramin & Paleobaramin''': A neobaramin is the living population of a given holobaramin, whereas a paleobaramin represents older forms of a given holobaramin. Neobaramins have undergone genetic degradation from their perfectly created forms (archaebaramin) and so may differ from their paleobaramins in notable ways. For example, the neobaramin of Humanity has a much shorter lifespan and greater prevalence of genetic diseases than the Human paleobaramin (e.g. Adam lived for 930 years<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/ "Living for 900 years"], ''Creation'' 20(4):10–13, September 1998.</ref> and his children could interbreed without fear of deformity<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp "Cain's wife -- who was she?"], Answers In Genesis</ref>).

==Baraminic Demarcation==

In order to determine the baraminicity of a given group of organisms, '''baraminic demarcation''' must be evaluated. This process involves four foundational concepts<ref>[http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/003.pdf "A Refined Baramin Concept"], Wood ''et al.'', 2003, Baraminology Study Group.</ref>:

* '''Biological Character Space''' (BCS): A theoretical multidimensional space in which each character (e.g. height or color) of an organism comprises a dimension, and particular states of that character occupy unique positions along the dimension. A single organism is therefore precisely defined by a single point in the multidimensional space.

* '''Potentiality Region''': A region of that biological character space within which organismal form is possible. Therefore, any point in the biological character space that is not within a potentiality region describes an organism that cannot exist.

* '''Continuity''': describes the relationship between two organisms which are either in the same potentiality region, or linked to each other by a third, such that transmutation between the two is theoretically possible.

* '''Discontinuity''': describes the relationship between two organisms which are in disconnected potentiality regions, such that transmutation between the two is impossible.

Thus, organisms that are found to be continuous in a BCS potentiality region form a holobaramin or monobaramin (depending on if all organisms within the potentiality region are considered), whereas those that are discontinuous form a polybaramin or apobaramin (again, depending on completeness of the organisms considered).

== Criticism ==

Baraminology has been criticised for its lack of rigorous testing, its lax use of data and its failure to produce any peer reviewed scientific research. It is regarded as pseudoscience by evolutionary scientists, but creation scientists view it as a young field still in development and believe that criticism can be resolved with further research<ref>[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm The Current Status of Baraminology, Todd Charles Wood, CRSQ Vol 43 No 3, December 2006]</ref>. Further, it is often claimed that the stultiloquence of Baraminology is rapt in a coccoon of absonous sciomachy rendered as legitimate discourse to obfuscate the ceremonious corrigendum of a sciolistic corypheus

==Further Information==
* [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html What are the Genesis “kinds”? Baraminology—classification of created organisms]
* [http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/ Baraminology Study Group]
* [http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/baraminology_ta.htm A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms]
* [http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm The Current Status of Baraminology, Todd Charles Wood, CRSQ Vol 43 No 3, December 2006]
* [http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Biology]] 
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]