| Line 6: |
Line 6: |
| | | | |
| | <blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;"> | | <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]]ize 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> | + | Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can [[hybrid]]ize 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> | | </blockquote> |
| | | | |
| Line 13: |
Line 13: |
| | ==History== | | ==History== |
| | | | |
| − | The term ''baramin'' was coined in 1941 by [[Frank Marsh]] from the [[Hebrew]] words ''bara'' (create) and ''min'' (kind). | + | 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> | + | 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== | | ==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 members of our species (Homo sapiens) are descended from a singular creation event (i.e. the creation of Adam and Eve) and will always be fully and completely human. Culturally, many racial ideas and myths still stubbornly linger on, but recent research regarding genetic diversity in humans, has convinced a great majority of scientists that "race" is no longer a useful concept in understanding our species. An example would be [[dog]]s, which form a holobaramin since [[wolf|wolves]], [[coyote]]s, domesticated dogs and other [[canid]]s 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. | + | * '''Holobaramin''': A Holobaramin is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, meaning all members of our species (Homo sapiens) are descended from a singular creation event (i.e. the creation of Adam and Eve) and will always be fully and completely human. Culturally, many racial ideas and myths still stubbornly linger on, but recent research regarding genetic diversity in humans has convinced a great majority of scientists that "race" is no longer a useful concept in understanding our species. An example would be [[dog]]s, which form a holobaramin since [[wolf|wolves]], [[coyote]]s, domesticated dogs and other [[canid]]s 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. Any group of specific members of a holobaramin such as wolves, poodles, and terriers or the humans Tom, Dick, and Harry are monobarmins. Holobaramins contain monobaramins; for instance, wolves are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin. | | * '''Monobaramin''': A monobaramin is an ''ad hoc'' group of organisms who share common descent. Any group of specific members of a holobaramin such as wolves, poodles, and terriers or the humans Tom, Dick, and Harry are monobarmins. Holobaramins contain monobaramins; for instance, wolves are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin. |
| Line 25: |
Line 25: |
| | * '''Apobaramin''': An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins. Humans and Dogs are an apobaramin since both members are holobaramins. A group containing [[Caucasian]]s and wolves is not an apobaramin since both members are monobaramins. | | * '''Apobaramin''': An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins. Humans and Dogs are an apobaramin since both members are holobaramins. A group containing [[Caucasian]]s 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. | + | * '''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"/> | | Three additional terms introduced by Wise:<ref name="frair"/> |
| Line 35: |
Line 35: |
| | ==Baraminic Demarcation== | | ==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> | + | 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. | + | * '''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. | | * '''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. |
| Line 43: |
Line 43: |
| | * '''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. | | * '''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. | + | * '''Discontinuity''': describes the relationship between two organisms that 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). | + | 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 the completeness of the organisms considered). |
| | | | |
| | == Evolutionist view == | | == Evolutionist view == |
| | | | |
| − | Evolutionary scientists criticize Baraminology, claiming that it lacks rigorous testing and fails to produce any peer reviewed scientific research.<ref>www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html</ref> It is regarded as pseudoscience by evolutionary scientists. However their claim has been rejected by creation scientists who described it as a young field still in development and stated 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> | + | Evolutionary scientists criticize Baraminology, claiming that it lacks rigorous testing and fails to produce any peer-reviewed scientific research.<ref>www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html</ref> It is regarded as pseudoscience by evolutionary scientists. However, their claim has been rejected by creation scientists who described it as a young field still in development and stated 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> |
| | | | |
| − | No creature has ever been observed changing from one Baramin into another. Evolutionist [[Richard Lenski]] claims to have observed a bacteria evolving, but even if the unproven claim<ref>Batten, Don, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827 Bacteria ‘evolving in the lab’?], 14th June 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref> is true, the bacteria is still bacteria, it has not left its Baramin. | + | No creature has ever been observed changing from one Baramin into another. Evolutionist [[Richard Lenski]] claims to have observed bacteria evolving, but even if the unproven claim<ref>Batten, Don, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827 Bacteria ‘evolving in the lab’?], 14th June 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref> is true, the bacteria is still bacteria, it has not left its Baramin. |
| | {{Creation vs. evolution}} | | {{Creation vs. evolution}} |
| | | | |