Baraminology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Baraminology, also referred to as typology or discontinuity systematics, is a pseudoscientific theory that classifies animals into created kinds, which are presumed to be isolated from all others.[1]
Like all of Creation science, scientists consider Baraminology to be pseudoscience and unfit to be presented as science.[2] It has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous tests, and post-study rejection of data to make it better fit the desired findings.[3] Baraminology has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[4] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany since 1924.[5]
The term was devised in 1990 by Kurt P. Wise, based on Frank Lewis Marsh's 1941 coinage of the term "baramin" from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind). The combination is not meaningful in Hebrew. It is intended to represent the different kinds described in the Bible, and especially in the Genesis descriptions of the Creation and Noah's Ark, and the Leviticus and Deuteronomy division between clean and unclean.
Contents |
[edit] Classification
Baraminology uses four terms, with Greek prefixes, to distinguish kinds or groups: holobaramin, monobaramin, apobaramin, and polybaramin.
[edit] Holobaramin
A holobaramin is a entire group (past and present) sharing a common ancestry, and therefore a genetic relationship. For example, humans form a holobaramin, since (in Creationist beliefs) they were created as a single kind and therefore share no ancestral or genetic relationship with other animals.[6]
By contrast, universal common descent is a well-established and tested scientific theory[7] that proposes all life derived from a common ancestor (and thus, in these terms, forms one holobaramin).[8] However, both cladistics (the field devoted to investigations of common descent) and transitional fossils are dismissed by baraminologists.[9]
[edit] Monobaramin
A monobaramin is any part of a holobaramin. So, for example, dogs could be seen as a monobaramin from the holobaramin of the dog kind which also includes wolves. However, the term is very loosely defined, and even a few individuals of a species count as a monobaramin.[6]
[edit] Apobaramin
An apobaramin is any number of complete holobaramins grouped together. For example, all animals together would form an apobaramin since (in Creationist beliefs) they were not a single kind of animal at the moment of their creation.[6] This concept does not exist in evolutionary biology, as all organisms share a common ancestor.
[edit] Polybaramin
A polybaramin is a group made up of parts of different holobaramins. For example, the mammals currently alive in North America would form a polybaramin. Like monobaramin, this is also loosely defined, with Wayne Friar giving as an example "representatives of all human races, the two species of United States box turtles, one dog, one lion, one tiger, and one sunflower plant."[6] Like the other concepts, no equivalent exists in evolutionary biology.
[edit] Distinction of Created Kinds
The question of determining the boundaries between baramin is a subject of much discussion and debate among creation biologists. A number of criteria have been presented.
[edit] Early efforts at demarcation
The traditional criterion for membership in a baramin was the ability to hybridize and create viable offspring. Frank Lewis Marsh coined the term baramin in his book Fundamental Biology (1941) and expanded on the concept in Evolution, Creation, and Science (c. 1944), in which he asserted that hybridization was a sufficient condition for being members of the same baramin. However, he asserted that it was not a necessary condition, as observed speciation events among drosophila had been shown to cut off hybridization. In 1993, German creation biologist Siegfried Scherer proposed the addition of the shared ability to hybridize with a third organism.[10]
[edit] Baramin Distance
To refine this method, the concept of "Baramin Distance" was proposed. The initial study by Robinson and Cavanaugh tested several methods on the Catarrhine primates, including genetic tests and tests based on ecology and morphology. However, one criterion for determining a baramin is whether scripture says the two groups are separate,[11] so methods that did not separate humans from primates were rejected.[12]
[edit] Notes
- ^ Wood, Wise, Sanders, and Doran, A Refined Baramin Concept
- ^ National Academy of Sciences
- ^ A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms. See also the last two sentences of the abstract of Robinson and Cavanaugh, A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates
- ^ A exhaustive search of the largest scientific publication database using the keyword Baraminology producees zero results
- ^ February 2007 search of Biological Abstracts.
- ^ a b c d Friar, Wayne, Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol 37 No 2 pp82-91 September 2000 (from the Wayback Machine, retreived 26 Feb 2007)
- ^ Theobald, Douglas, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
- ^ Theobald, Douglas, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
- ^ About the BSG: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods. Phrases to note are: "The mere assumption that the transformation had to occur because cladistic analysis places it at a hypothetical ancestral node does not constitute empirical evidence." and "A good example is Archaeopteryx, which likely represents its own unique baramin, distinct from both dinosaurs and modern birds."
- ^ Wood, Wise, Sanders, and Doran, A Refined Baramin Concept
- ^ Baraminology Study Group: About the BSG: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods
- ^ Robinson and Cavanaugh, A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates. ...We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates. See also A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms. (Thomas, August 2006)
- Baraminology in Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal
- About the BSG: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods
- Ligers and wholphins? What next? Crazy mixed-up animals … what do they tell us? They seem to defy man-made classification systems — but what about the created ‘kinds’ in Genesis?, Don Batten, Creation ex nihilo, 22(3):28–33, June 2000
- Baraminology by Richard Paley
