Baraminology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In creation biology, Baraminology, sometimes referred to as typology or discontinuity systematics, is the effort to classify created kinds. 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 does not make sense in actual Hebrew. It was intended to represent the different kinds described in the Bible. These occur especially in the Genesis descriptions of the Creation and Noah's Ark, and the Leviticus and Deuteronomy division between clean and unclean.
Contents |
[edit] Classifications
Baraminology aims to use four terms to distinguish groups of organisms: holobaramin, monobaramin, apobaramin, and polybaramin.[1]
- Holobaramin — A holobaramin is the full set of organisms that belong to a single baramin. In other words, it is a group of organisms that (1) shares continuity (meaning that each member is continuous with at least one other member) and (2) is bounded by discontinuity.
- Monobaramin — A monobaramin is a subset of a holobaramins, or a group of known species that share continuity without regard to discontinuity with other organisms. That is, it may be either part or all of a holobaramin. So, for example, dogs could be seen as a monobaramin from the holobaramin of the dog kind which also includes wolves.
- Apobaramin — An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins, or a group of known species that are bounded by discontinuity without regard to internal continuity. That is, it may be one or more complete holobaramins. For example, all plants together would form an apobaramin since (in creationist theory) they were not a single kind of plant at the moment of their creation (at least fruit-bearing plants and grass can be distinguished) but there is no single holobaramin that includes both plants and animals.
- Polybaramin — A polybaramin is group of organisms consisting of parts of two or more holobaramins, or an artificial group of known species that share continuity with organisms outside the group and discontinuity occurs within the group. It is argued that use of polybaramins should be avoided, as it is comparable to a polyphyletic taxon in conventional systematics. For example, the mammals currently alive in North America would form a polybaramin.
[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
Hybridization: The traditional criterion for membership in a common baramin is 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 presented two sufficient criteria for membership in a baramin: the ability to hybridize, or the shared ability to hybridize with a third organism.
Walter ReMine (1990 & 1993) argued that three conditions are each individually sufficient to place two organisms within the same monobaramin. (1) The hybridization criteria, (2) The ability to experimentally demonstrate (in comparable living organisms) a degree of biological change that approximately meets or exceeds the difference between the two organisms under inspection. For example, if the two organisms differ only by color, then they would be placed into the same monobaramin, because color-change is experimentally demonstrated (in many organisms), and (3) a clear-cut lineage linking the two organisms under inspection, where a clear-cut lineage is observed as: a long, narrow, trajectory (usually through morphology-space, since morphology is typically all that fossils provide), with a void (or absence of data) orthogonal to the trajectory. If those three criteria fail, then that is sufficient to place the two organisms into separate apobaramins.
ReMine proposed that a holobaramin be defined as "a complete set of organisms related by common descent." This definition, together with the three above criteria, is sufficient to identify holobaramins. ReMine 1993 argued that the classification of the actual "first created organisms" is needless and fruitless, because we cannot determine these even if we held its fossil in our hands. He argued that the actual "first created organisms" are a theoretical idea, suitable for theorizing, but not suitable for observing or classifying. By his definition, two identical organisms that were the first created organisms of their kind would be classified together, without special status, within the same monobaramin.
[edit] Contemporary criteria for demarcation
In 2003, the Baraminology Study Group developed and refined the baramin concept with four new concepts:
- Biological character space is 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 is 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.
In determining continuity and discontinuity, creation biologists emphasize the importance of applying a holistic dataset in determining whether there is significant similarity between two organisms. Hybridization is considered to be determinative evidence that two organisms exhibit holistic and substantial continuity.
[edit] Recent baraminology research
In 2003, the Baraminology Study Group applied "analysis of pattern" to multidimensional biological character space data on sunflowers and fossil equids. They found a strong linear relationship and continuity among the sunflowers, and termed this relationship "biological trajectory." In applying the method of fossil equids, they found a branching relationship in the data, which indicated a divergence in ancestry. The linear relationship corresponded to the known chronological order of the fossils.[2]
[edit] Scientific status
 |
Please help improve this article by expanding this section. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. Please remove this message once the section has been expanded. |
Baraminology has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research[1]. Like all of Creation science, Baraminology is, by mainstream scientists, considered "in fact not science and should not be presented as such."[2]
[edit] Notes
- ^ A exhaustive search of the largest scientific publication database using the keyword Baraminology produced zero hits
- ^ National Academy of Sciences
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- Baraminology in Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal
- A Refined Baramin Concept, from the Baraminology Study Group.
