Replies

Kind is perfectly explained in Baraminology- it is a valid description that precisely describes what we know in biology and species.

Not that you’ll even read or concider anyhtign here- and will just come back with the petty ‘You haven’t precisely defined it’ argument as though it somehow invalidates Baraminology altogether, when it does no such hting- but...

The fact is Baraminology shows quite clearly that species are infact subject to discontinuity, but htose who seek to hide htis scientific fact have to resort to tryign to attack the science (I guess that makes them anti-science- hmmm- itneresting) in order to keep the public unaware of what the actual science actually shows.

“It is important to emphasize that the strictly empirical component of baraminology is discontinuity systematics which can be utilized by itself without any reference to religious literature. In fact, most of the sections in this present paper, including the figures, actually are based on discontinuities as observed in nature. ReMine (2000) has pointed out that discontinuity systematics

is intentionally designed to be a neutral, scientific method for studying some of nature’s patterns. We do not begin by assuming discontinuity; rather we follow the data to identify the discontinuities, wherever they may be. This systematic method is an empirical, scientific enterprise—moved by the data, not by theoretical presuppositions.”

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm

The KINDS are seperated from other species by obserbavle genetic gaps that can NOT be explained away by simply stating ‘those gaps were ‘filled in’ sometime in the past- we just don’t know when, where, or how”, nor can htose gaps be closed by pointing to two dissimiliar kinds and simply stating ‘they were related’ without giving ANY genetic evidnece that they were. Do scientists really htink we are just all a bunch of guillible sponges that simply absorb what we’re told without questioning the validity of those statements? Baraminology catelogues the species kinds, notes the genetic gaps, and stops AT THE EVIDENCE instead of goign WAY beyond hte evidence and proposing biologically impossible leaps from one dissimiliar kind to another dissimiliar kind like phylogeny does.

I can however udnerstand your need to denigrade the term, as in order for macroevolution to be true, the following must be done appologetically:

Microevolution has to be extrapolated to = Macroevolution, even though the two are entirely different biological process, one with plenty of scientific evidence to prove, the other without a shred of evidnece to prove

Adaption via Genetic change has to be extrapolated to = the creation of new non species specific information resulting in significant morphological change, again, for which there is no evidence

homological similarities have to be extrapolated to = genetic continuance and again, creation of new non species specific information

Speciation has to be extrapolated to = ‘New Species’

[[or explained what the barrier is to speciation.]]

There’s a barrier to speciation? Species can and most certainly do degrade genetically to the point of dead end speciation- they however are still gulls, still lizards, still fish of hteir own kind- to suggest otherwsie is silly, and to suggest it ‘leads to macroevolution’ or is ‘an example of macroeovlution’ is equally silly.

You know full well the definition of kinds is precie enough to form a perceftly ligitimate hypothesis of Baraminology, but somehow, you think attacking the definition of kind, and demanding an exact definition without any problems associated with it invalidates the definition when it is far more precise than your own phylogentic definitions, and doesn’t have nearly the serious problems associated with classifications that phylogeny does. What few problems exist with the definitions from baraminology are insignificant, and oyu know full well that niether phylogeny nor baraminology is a 100% precise theory- so if you’re goign to play your silly little word definition game, then you are goign to have to admit that since baraminology apparently can’t be conciddered science, then phylogeny too must be thrown out and that hte whole theory of common descent is not then valid.

For those interested in Baraminology, and how it looks at the actual scientific evidnece instead of going WAY beyond the actual science and basing itself on a priori pressumed and unsupported, biologically impossible assumptions:

Holobaramin
Holobaramin (holo, from the Greek “holos” for “whole”) is an entire group of living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship by common ancestry. It is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, but a group containing only Caucasians and Negroes is not a holobaramin since it excludes other races. Another example would be Canines, which is a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard Noah’s 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
Monobaramin (mono, from the Greek for “single” or “one”) is defined by Walter ReMine (1993, p. 444) as: a group containing only organisms related by common descent, but not necessarily all of them. (A group comprising one entire holobaramin or a portion thereof). It is an ad hoc group of organisms who share common descent. Caucasians and Negros are a monobaramin, as are any group of a holobaramin such as wolves, poodles, and terriers. Holobaramins contain monobaramins; for instance, wolves are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.

Apobaramin
Apobaramin (apo, from the Greek for “away from”) is a group consisting of the entirety of at least one holobaramin. It may contain a single holobaramin or more than one holobaramin, “but it must contain the entirety of each of the one or more holobaramins within it.” (Kurt Wise, 1999–2000). A groups consisting of both Humans and Canines are apobaraminic since both members are holobaramins. The term apobaramin is a term useful especially during evaluations of two types of organisms (pairwise comparisons).

Polybaramin
A polybaramin (poly, from Greek for “many”) is defined as a group consisting of part of at least two holobaramins. It may be any of numerous mixtures which could contain holobaramins, monobaramins, apobaramins, and individual specimens. It is an ad hoc group of organisms where at least two of the members must be unrelated. For example: Humans, wolves and a duck are a polybaraminic group. This term is useful for describing such hodgepodge mixtures of creatures.

http://creationwiki.org/Baraminology