Talk:Baraminology

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. --Ashens 10:40 27 February 2007 (EST)

The best reference to date is the review article "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. 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. Palmd001 11:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

Physical/genetic evidence that the categories are meaningful distinctions, presumably. 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"? 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. 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? 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). 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. 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. 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 here and here. 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. JoshuaZ 14:43, 26 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? 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. 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. Orgone 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I've replaced the link with a link to the original, and it works currently. The drop in lifespans was not a constant thing, but a large drop immediately after Noah's Flood. Philip J. Rayment 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)