Talk:Created kind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] merge inappropriate

1) baraminology is analogous to taxonomy and cladistics -- the means of CLASSIFYING the kinds, while created kinds are analogous to evolution -- telling the "STORY" of the kinds. the merge would be analogous to merging cladistics with evolution -- surely not appropriate or necessary. Ungtss 17:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2) baraminology is a term coined by one creationist organization, and is by no means universal. "kinds," on the other hand, are universal. all creationists agree on this page, but not necessarily on baraminology -- many of them won't even know what baraminology IS.

3) there would be no way to combine the two while furthering article clarity -- to describe the taxonomic classifications before describing what the kinds are would be ultimately meaningless, and to describe the kinds before baraminology wouldn't do justice to the title of the page.

thoughts, Schroederanon? Ungtss 14:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Obviously baraminology is the most well-developed idea associated with kinds (it's the one supported by ICR, from what I've read). We might decide to include baraminology here rather than include kinds over there, but I think there isn't a real need for two separate articles. If Kinds is more "universal" then the merge direction should be switched. Baraminology could easily be included on this page, I'd say. Joshuaschroeder 06:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
i repeat the point you ignored above: THIS article is analogous to "evolution" -- THAT article is analogous to cladistics. it is no more appropriate to merge these two articles than to merge those two. Ungtss 16:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The comparison is inapt. While there are tens of thousands of people who study mainstream cladistics and evolution in great detail, there are only a handful that make a distinction between created kinds and baraminology. Joshuaschroeder 01:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then merge to creation biology the material that would be more appropriate there, rather than baraminology. The topic of this article just is not clearly distinct, and all very much smacks of 'whack-a-mole POV creationist screed of the week'. Alai 18:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reworked this page

Please try to bear with me as I try to work out a better edit for this page. I tried to reincorporate all the material I could, but had to leave this out as I think it is not explicative (we already talked about the mechanisms creationists proposed) and the example given seems extremely ad hoc. I'm not averse to having material in here included in the article, however, on my first inspection I have not seen anything that indicates that these issues aren't well handled in the article.

mr. schroeder, this is an example and slow breakdown to EXPLAIN the idea in a way that people can understand. what exactly does "not explicative" mean? why are you deleting good text? provide BETTER text, but DO NOT DELETE GOOD TEXT. Ungtss 02:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
First of all, the new gene for "blue eyes" is a misnomer as there is no such thing as a singe gene for blue eyes. There is a level of homozygosity within the most basic model of blue eye inheritance, but to be perfectly in accord with what we know about modern biology, such is not the sum total of the story. So to talk about it forming with "low probability" is virtually meaningless. More than that, the concepts of genetic drift and inbreeding are not explicative of homozygous traits, for example.

[edit] Removed

For example, a viable new gene for "blue eyes" would occur by mutation only at very low probability within the evolutionary model, and thus typically only occurs over a very large number of generations. Within the creationist model, however, the original kinds already had the capacity for blue and brown eyes, so in the generations after the flood, some would be born with blue eyes, others with brown. As populations spread over the earth and became reproductively isolated, those traits would become "set" within the populations. Speciation is held to be rapid on this basis, with genetic drift and inbreeding causing these heterozygous traits to become homozygous. The result is hypothesised to be speciation within the space of no more than one or two thousand years. It remains an open question for creation biology to account for all of the observed variation among the the proposed kinds by such a mechanism within the limits of mainstream genetics, as several of the kinds hypothesised earlier correspond to a far greater degree of genetic variation.

Joshuaschroeder 01:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained reversion

Aside from questioning why I removed the above, which is still in discussion, I have to ask why Ungtss wholly reverted my edit without comment. I understand that Ungtss doesn't like my editorial style, but it would be nice if he would make an illustrative list of things that were included in the previous edit that are not included in this edit so we can actually move forward rather than backward. Joshuaschroeder

because, grand inquisitor, YOU failed to explain it other than "it is not explicative." that is NOT an explanation. the paragraph IS explicative. it is clear and concise. if it wasn't, you won't be deleting it -- because you're only interested in censoring things that make sense. you WILL justify your mass deletion HERE before you impose your pov on the article!!! Ungtss 17:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
SCHROEDER! YOU ARE THE ONE DELETING WITHOUT EXPLANATION! THE TEXT IS CLEAR, CONCISE, AND EXPLANATORY -- it gives an analogy to EXPLAIN THE CONCEPT. YOU DELETED IT CALLING IT "not explicative." what does that MEAN? WHY are you deleting it? Ungtss 18:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please stop shouting. I explained above why I deleted the text. Please respond to whatever other parts of the article you want preserved. Joshuaschroeder 18:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
<<First of all, the new gene for "blue eyes" is a misnomer as there is no such thing as a singe gene for blue eyes.>>
fine, we can change it to "a gene for blue eyes." Ungtss 18:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This misses the point. This invents a hypothetical "gene for blue eyes" that doesn't work as we see, for example, the relationship between natural features and specific genes working in nature. Maybe a comparison to Medelian peas would work better as being a little less controversial? Still, a lot of the paragraph would need serious reworking.
There is a level of homozygosity within the most basic model of blue eye inheritance, but to be perfectly in accord with what we know about modern biology, such is not the sum total of the story. So to talk about it forming with "low probability" is virtually meaningless. More than that, the concepts of genetic drift and inbreeding are not explicative of homozygous traits, for example.
this doesn't mean anything. these are conclusions without facts. there can be no response, because you haven't said anything. Ungtss 18:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ironically, this criticism of my response is exactly the criticism I was going for in the paragraph itself. If you can see, most of the explanations are themselves "conclusions without facts". My counterpoints also read that way because they are counterpoints to such beasts. Joshuaschroeder 18:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
that is plainly untrue. the paragraph uses an analogy to explain the concept very clearly and concisely. what you wrote above was essentially, "It's wrong." why? Ungtss 19:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
First of all, talking about "low probability" with respect to developing a homozygous trait is meaningless without discussing how you know it's low probability. Have you measured a Bayesian analysis for such an event. Secondly, genetic drift and inbreeding are extremely involved genetic terms they do not provide for a mechanism for changing from heterozygous to homozygous. In fact, inbreeding will preserve, in a probabilstic sense, the type of genes available in the gene pool. Joshuaschroeder 21:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
<<Please stop shouting.>>
please stop vandalizing. Ungtss 18:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism is an indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. Clearly, this is not indisputably in bad-faith, and I'm certainly not trying to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. Joshuaschroeder 18:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
you have consistently shown an unwillingness to work with other editors, evolutionist or creationist, relying on edit wars, VfD, and protection to get what you want. you were not demonstrating good faith here, insofar as you are deleting a large chunk of text without allowing for any discussion on the issue, despite repeated efforts to do so.
Edit wars, VfD requests, and asking for page protection to end an edit war are not instances of vandalism. I'm not sure what you mean by "without allowing for any discussion". That's what we're doing right now, discussing. Joshuaschroeder 21:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Ungtss, I'd like to tell you that I don't see any problem with the removal (which, in fact, were changes on the article, not a removal). You can disagree, but not attack. Also, stop writing on capital letters: it's like shouting. --Neigel von Teighen 18:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
what benefit does the deletion serve, insofar as it eliminates a clear example to demonstrate the principle in a way people can understand? Ungtss 18:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(Thanks for not using capital letters). I think it was a cleaning up. I like how the article appears. (After some edit conflicts!) --Neigel von Teighen 18:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
how is it a cleanup, insofar as it deletes an example, and leaves a huge patch of empty white space at the top of the article? Ungtss 19:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(moving to the left) The empty white space is a problem of the {{creationism}} template, I think: I've made some wikifying, but it is still there. The article looks great to me, anyway: it explains anything in a great manner. --Neigel von Teighen 18:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apobaramins and Polybaramins

The article doesn't really define the terms apobaramin and polybaramin, just gives a couple of examples (that I didn't find very illuminating). What's the criteria for what's an apo-, what's a poly-, and what's neither? (That they're both 'above' holo-s I got, so why is their 'baramin' status even interesting?) Alai 07:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to my little greek knowledge apo- is "over" (not hyper- "above") and poly- "many". --Neigel von Teighen 21:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
apo (stress on the o) means "from"/away from, and a major meaning is the concept of separation. So two creatures are apobaraminic if they not share common ancestry. (Another meaning is "from" in the sense of giving the origin, but this is not the sense here, or in scientific terms in general. E.g. the apogee is the point in an orbit furthest away (most separated) from the earth) Anyway, I changed the definition to correspond with the Baraminology Study Group's paper Taxonomic Concepts and Methods 220.244.224.8 09:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You may find this February 21 version easier to understand. Apparently an apobaramin contains whole kinds grouped together, while a polybaramin contains parts of kinds grouped together. My view is that recent edits have made this topic even less clear than it was originally. --Henrygb 20:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That helps... somewhat. So polybaramin have effectively nothing to do with either created kinds, or indeed conventional taxonomy? Or at any rate, they (in theory) would be agreed to be misclassifications in both schemes, whereas apobaramins would generally correspond to higher taxons/clades? Alai 23:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if baraminologists(?) would agree with your words, though I think you are roughly correct in one direction in that your examples fit the definitions, but in the other direction they might say there are other examples where a polybaramin was a useful positive concept, and an apobaramin may involve several kinds which have no relationship at all. Perhaps someone who actually uses the language might explain. --Henrygb 00:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The original definitions seemed garbled, and the new ones are at least from the horse's mouth. I don't much like these hybrid Greek/Hebrew neologisms, I must admit. 203.213.77.138 07:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal to authority

In most articles, the appelation "Dr." is unneccessary. It seems that it should also be here. Likewise, indicating the specialty someone is in is only useful if that speciality is worthy of inclusion by being an alternative viewpoint outside the area being discussed. Since everyone in the article is presumably a developer of the "kinds" idealizations, there is no reason to include what their specialized employments are.

I understand that it is common in creationist literature to use the "Dr. So-and-so professor of thus-and-such and researcher in xyz at the University of Here-or-there", but that's not an excuse for including it here. Convention would dictate otherwise, I'd say. Joshuaschroeder 04:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All the same, it is fair to mention that Hartwig Scherer is a paleoanthropologist by profession, and that Batten is a botanist. So these were fair appeals to authority, since their claims were in their fields. 203.213.77.138 07:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This does not respond to the above objection. Revert will remain. Joshuaschroeder 14:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New working

I have reworked this article and will try to clean it up more in the future. It is in much better shape than it was in before. I am considering merging this article with creation biology. There may be objections to this, but I think article actually states nearly everything that is the details of creation biology. The only things missing are disbelief in abiogenesis (which is at least off-handedly mentioned), and complexity arguments (which are really more ID-related conceits than they are "creation biology", at least from the reading I'm doing on the subject at AiG, ICR, etc.) Thoughts anyone? Joshuaschroeder 08:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Twoversions

I have removed the twoversions tag as it has been a number of days and there doesn't seem to be any sort of ongoing edit conflict. User:Ungtss seems to have adopted twoversions as his new tactic for editting pages with his pet versions without actually editting the pages. Joshuaschroeder 06:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My "tactic" was simply an effort to save schroeder the effort of reverting every edit coming from someone who actually knows about this topic. he appears to prefer revert wars. Ungtss 15:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Welcome back, Ungtss.
After looking at the new version that you posted I can only say that it looks like you haven't really considered closely what is needed for NPOV, nor did you closely read the last version. I'm not saying that the article is fine as it stands, but the vast majority of your edits seem to be moving in the wrong direction. There were a number of editorial deletions you made of creationist corrections to the article (for example, a creationist pointed out that humanity's kind may be associated with the genus). Then there is your attempt to provide a defintion that is free from criticism in the opening paragraph. While we shouldn't misrepresent creationist views, we also should be very clear that this is a view that is held by a very small number of people. Joshuaschroeder 16:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The other version of the article is not even pretending to try to be NPOV, it's just a pro-creationism piece. It starts out by saying Creation biology, which is an oxymoron if there ever was one, includes such bizarrely ridiculous POV-pushing statments as "As evidence that life was created in a superior form to life today", "The idea of created kinds was designed with the intent of providing a scientific alternative to the modern evolutionary biology" (taking a side that it is an honest attempt to be scientific, when they don't actually use the scientific method of follow normal science methods and just use scientific-sounding words to try to trick people into thinking it's science).

Most importantly, Ungtss' version tries to bury the fact that these creationists are basing their ideas on the Bible and that it's religiously-motivated. The fact that it's a religious movement that already had the answers it wants before it did any science and that it's not mainstream by any stretch of the imagination needs to be in the lead of any article that professes to be related to science, otherwise you mislead readers.

The whole two edits part is rather silly, as Ungtss has not even tried to make an article that meets NPOV guidelines and does not want to discuss or acknowledge specific problems but rather tries to ignore mainstream science and normal ways of writing things objectively in order to push his religious views. DreamGuy 20:29, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thus speaketh the voice of npov. and should anyone disagree with said voice, he would be a biased, bigoted, and hateful creationist, without regard to specific text which purportedly violates specific policies. and should anyone attempt to edit the text of the article to remove blatant anti-creationist bias, he would be defacing articles. let npov ring! Ungtss 20:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
please identify which policies are violated by the text you are complaining about. not just "i don't like the tone" or "it's too sympathetic" or "I think all this is bogus." please describe specific policies which you think the alternative version violates. thank you. Ungtss 20:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Specific policy: NPOV, in a HUGE way, as already described above. I'm not going to go around in circles with you again. It's pointless for you to claim I need to point out specific examples and reasons and policies when I already have, with direct quotes and so forth above. The fact that you refuse to accept them is your problem, not mine. DreamGuy 16:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose

Okay, fellas. In determining what the appropriate order of the article should be, and on the belief that articles should cover their primary purpose first, what's the primary purpose of this article that should be described first and in greatest detail?

1) to describe the model of biology held by creationists in a way that clearly explains the dynamics;

2) to make sure the reader knows it's religiously motivated;

3) something else; Ungtss 12:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the purpose should be to outline the specific claims about created kinds that are employed by creationists in their writings while showing how the claims are pseudoscientific at best and incorrect at worst. Joshuaschroeder 14:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your first goal, but i'm afraid that your second one is an invalid purpose, according to npov. articles will neither state nor imply that a particular view is true or false. You wouldn't want to explicitly violate npov, would you, schroeder? Ungtss 14:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are incorrect in your view that my stated purpose is a statement or an implication that a particular view is false. There are definitely pseudoscientific claims and there are definitely incorrect ones. To that end, there is nothing in violation of NPOV. If you think there is, start an RfC. Joshuaschroeder 15:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
let's review, shall we?
<<showing how the claims are pseudoscientific at best and incorrect at worst. >>
<<You are incorrect in your view that my stated purpose is a statement or an implication that a particular view is false.>>
Is it any wonder we creationists don't trust your judgment? you contradict yourself in fantastic ways. you said the purpose of the page was to show how it was false. then you said you didn't intend to imply that the view was false. carry on, schroeder, carry on. then you snicker and say, "call an rfc." truly, as we learned from Kuhn, the majority is always right. isn't that so, schroeder? Ungtss 23:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While we cannot outright state that it is false, it is not only a good idea but a question of basic fairness and intellectual honesty to point out near the top of the article that it "Created kinds" is primarily religiously motivated and not considered scientific by the vast majority of scientists, along with greater detail why down below. That's not us saying it's false, that's just telling the truth and letting the reader sort it out on their own. Those who are of the persuasion that science is bad and conservative religion is good with treat that information as if it's a positive thing for the field, those who are pro-science will treat it as a negative. Trying to hide the fact that it's based upon religion and extremely controversial and disputed is a bias toward trying to make it look mainstream and scientific when it is not. DreamGuy 16:16, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

as long as your particular and disputed "facts" are attributed to people who believe them, it's all good. similarly, creationists have a different take on all your above "facts," and their views must be documented as well. Ungtss 23:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Creationist view doesn't pass Occam's Razor (who, by the way, was a monk!!!!!)

[edit] Removed the "two versions" tag

I removed the two versions tag from the article. If Ungtss would go to the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and go to the Giving "equal time" section, he would note that minority views do not automatically get equal time just because someone expresses a differeing view. That same page also has a section on Pseudoscience that makes it clear that NPOV policy does not mean only being able to say things in favor of a view on an article about it, it necessities making it clear when minority views are minority vies and pointing out when fields of study are considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientists. Thus Ungtss' minority view that the article should hide the religious motivation behind this topic and only summarize the views of those who believe in it instead of providing critical and necessary context to let readers know how unaccepted this whole topic is from the vast majority of experts is counter to Wikipedia policies. We also know from the FACTS vote for deletion (as well as the recent speedy deletion of the Template:FACTS_Creationism_Template that Ungtss made to compete with Template:Creationism) that creating new replacement pages to replace current articles in an attempt to get around the normal editing process is not allowed. That is clearly all that this "two versions" tag is trying to do, so, along with the clearly policy-violating pro-Creationism content of the alternate version, I removed it. DreamGuy 21:39, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

dreamguy. you're dreaming. this article is supposed to be ABOUT creation biology. it is supposed to describe the ideas of the field. what's this nonsense about not giving minority views equal space? when the article is ABOUT an idea, that idea should have MOST of the space. Ungtss 21:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's funny how you only put the tag on the version that you don't like; it's missing from your preferred version. I wonder why...? -- ChrisO 22:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's not supposed to be on the other version. the other version is in the page history. Ungtss 22:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss wrote: ":dreamguy. you're dreaming. this article is supposed to be ABOUT creation biology. it is supposed to describe the ideas of the field." And the version you are oppposed to does that as well. The reason you are opposed to it is not because it doesn;t describe it, but because it describes it in less than glowing terms. Read the text on the page about Neutral point of view. Note that it is not listed as suggestions or semi-policy but full-on policy that people here must follow. It VERY CLEARLY states that articles are not supposed to solely describe all theories as if they were equally accepted, it says it's NECESSARY to include information about topics that are fringe beliefs indicating that they are not mainstream. There is NO WAY anyone can actually read the policy and honestly claim what you are saying. NONE.

Ungtss adds: "what's this nonsense about not giving minority views equal space? "

IF YOU'D READ THE POLICY YOU WOULD KNOW. The section on Giving "equal time" very clearly states that we DO NOT give "equal space" to everything that comes along, because that gives a biased impression that the topic is mainstream if it is not. Topics that are considered fringe beliefs and pseusoscience by mainstream science and so forth must be clearly labeled as such. Drastically minority views do not get equal time, as that would falsely imply that 50% or more sources agree with them, which is false. READ THE POLICY. It's in black and white. DreamGuy 02:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Somehow, in all the hubub, Ungtss' POV version made it to the frontpage. I have reverted it to the version that was agreed upon before he reentered the fray. We can start from there. Joshuaschroeder 00:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You went a little too far back so I moved it up a couple. The problem popped back up with the "16:45, Apr 11, 2005 ChrisO (Rewritten top two sections)" edit that didn't rewrite the top two sections of the current approved section but restored the version thatwas going against Wikipedia policy and the consensus of the editors. DreamGuy 02:29, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I can tell you didn't read it too closely - it was an attempted hybrid of the two versions, not a restoration of Ungtss's version. With all the reverting, all of you are getting dangerously close to the 3RR limit. I've restored my edits, but please read the thing before you hit the rollback button in future. -- ChrisO 07:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, we're supposed to assume good faith, so when it restored large parts of Ungtss' biased version, I assumed it was a mistake and not something intentional. By the way, I'm nowhere close to violating the three revert rule. I've got one revert in the last 24 hours, and even that one is questionable as the minor changes between the two versions were things I had entered by hand previously which got erased in the rollback. I think your version needs cleaning up on some major points, but instead of reverting it so you can revert it again I'll see if you or Joshua want to try to come up with a better version. DreamGuy 08:11, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps if you assumed good faith, you'd realize that his version didn't bear any resemblence to mine, but was a solid, good faith stab at npov. if you look a little closer, you might realize that the version you're supporting is grossly pov. Ungtss 13:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] blind reverts.

this article is about created kinds, not baraminology. the information about created kinds should come first. i've edited accordingly. Ungtss 12:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proving a negative...

"The creationist challenge is even more difficult, as it is forced to prove a negative -- that is -- to provide evidence that all life is not related."

Why is either side of this any more difficult to prove in principle? The "proving a negative" cliché frankly pales compared to more pertinent considerations like the state of the evidence (which certainly poses a difficulty, I'd think), and questions of falsifiability, as this whole "your guess is as good as ours" section rather illustrates. Some evidence that creationists are even interested in addressing this issue would also be pertinent. Alai 05:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

you're right. i'm reading up on it right now -- found some baraminology papers that will provide a framework -- i'll put most of it on baraminology tho. Ungtss 05:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wolphin

Though I have really no idea what it has to do with the article, isn't the caption on the Wolphin picturea bit misleading? As I understand it, the "wolphin" is a cross between a false killer whale and a dolphin, not a killer whale and a dolphin. The former is actually just another type of dolphin, not a true whale. Anyway, I am adding the "false" in there. --Fastfission 22:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC) A killer whale is also a type of dolphin, not a whale.--Spyrral 20:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rhaphanobrassica

Rhaphanobrassica is an allopolyploid, not a hybrid. There is a hybrid plant between the two genera, but it is sterile. I debated whether to explain this in the text or just delete Rhaphanobrassica. I decided that since it is not a true hybrid, it is best deleted. Ted 01:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baraminology merge

Merged the two, but there was a copyvio in the definition of terms, (with http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/aboutconcepts.html) so I had to remove it. I also removed some single-source material apparently based on the same site. However, I can't guarantee that anything from that article actually makes a lick of sense, and, frankly, think that's probably the whole point - to wow with hard-too refute (as over-complicated) arguements. Adam Cuerden talk 01:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes. And I'm afraid the merged material is terribly POV for the obfuscatory material. The scientific consensus scarcely gets a look in. Adam Cuerden talk 01:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ReMine

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.


Besides making no sense, this seems to come down entirely to summaries of two short articles published in Creaation Science journals. I think the main source is probably this one: http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/002.pdf Thoroghly non-notable, and barely literate writing to boot.

This does leave the question: What SHOULD go in? Adam Cuerden talk 01:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism and Common descent

Please vote on the relevance of this section on the article common descent. -- Pbarnes 03:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Hypothesised kinds" section

I honestly don't think this is all that maintainable or encyclopedic, particularly as only one of them is referenced. Would anyone object if I made it more general, keeping mainly Humanity, and a little discussion elsewise. Adam Cuerden talk 16:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsalvagable sections

I don't think these two sections are salvagable - permeated with POV, a certain amount of cruft... I'm going to rewrite something on cthe view of Hybridisation from scratch. Adam Cuerden talk 16:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Boundaries between kinds

The asserted boundaries between the kinds -- the position that the kinds are unrelated -- is arguably the most divergent view of creationists from mainstream biology. Those challenging creation biology often ask what basis creationists have for asserting that such boundaries exist, or for determining what those boundaries are.

The project of determining the precise boundaries between the kinds is not agreed upon by creationists. Creationists generally assert that conclusions about common ancestry should only be drawn if there is "substantial evidence" to support the conclusion. As to what qualifies as "substantial evidence", creationists are often at odds with each other. However, they are in unanimous agreement that humans and other extant primates are not in the same kind.

In the absence of the ability to directly observe life in its original form, classification of kinds generally revolves around reproductive compatibility -- that is, created kinds are generally seen as having common descent if they are reproductively compatible.

The classification is more difficult when reproductive compatibility is partial, as in the case of the mule, a hybrid of the horse and the donkey which, although viable, is not fertile. While it is possible that the two species descend from a common ancestor due to their reproductive compatibility, it is also possible that they do not, but were created separately with reproductive systems similar enough to create viable offspring, but not similar enough to create fertile offspring.

Other criteria for common ancestry are rejected. The mere fact that organisms are alive is not seen as evidence of common ancestry. Genetic and physiological similarities are not seen as evidence of common ancestry, but rather are thought to result from a similar design being used on different "kinds." There is normally no justification offered as to why reproductive compatibility shouldn't be viewed in the same way, though there are references made to biblical verses such as "go forth and multiply" -- the command given by God to Noah's family after the flood.

[edit] Hypothesized kinds

Creationists have proposed a handful of possibilities for the created "kinds":

Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family, and possibly even the order with the notable exception of humanity.[1]

Creationists also point to known examples of hybridization to argue that the kind is broader than the biological species, and sometimes even than the genus. For example:

  • Kekaimalu the wholphin is a fertile hybrid of two different types of dolphin, the false killer whale (actually a kind of dolphin), and bottlenose dolphin. Kekaimalu herself gave birth to a calf, showing she was a fertile hybrid. Thus these creatures classified as different genera are really a single polytypic (many-type) species.
  • Bos (true cattle) and Bison (American buffalo) can produce a fertile hybrid called a cattalo. Bos and Bison are thus likewise the same polytypic species although they classified as different genera.
  • The creationist Don Batten helped create a hybrid of the fruit species lychee (Litchi chinensis) and longan (Dimocarpus longana), again classified as different genera.

A canonical list of kinds has not been constructed and such examples are extremely provisional (with the exception of humans, on which there is a strong creationist consensus).

Creation biology looks to the animals visible in the fossil record (which creationists interpret as having mostly been laid down during the flood) as evidence that antediluvian life was much more diverse than life today. They reject the dating methods of paleontologists and geologists that determine the age of fossils from the order of the fossil record and instead believe that almost all fossils were deposited in a single catastrophic flood event and were sorted out by processes associated with the flood. (See flood geology for more on this topic.)

What are the POV issues you see in this section? Ungtss 03:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I should've been clearer: This section, as opposed to the other, is more unmaintainable than POV. There's no real agreement about kinds, except with a few groups, so this is effectively setting out to name anything anyone had ever called a kind. We can't really do that, so it's better to instead be a bit more general. Adam Cuerden talk 05:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Baramin" Doesn't even get the basic Hebrew right

Syntax aside, "Bara" (ברא) does mean "Created" in Hebrew, but in the active verb sense of it. Passive "created" is "Nivra" (נברא), or "Nivre'u" (נבראו) in case you're referring to something in the plural, as the intent seems to be here.

"Bara min" literally means "(He) created a species". --AceMyth 14:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)