Baraminology?

[USIncognito]

Have Creationists finally owned up and offered a definition as to what constitutes a "kind?"

http://www.creationtruths.com/default.a ... hatisakind

I've read through this twice and still don't see it.

[Jose]

Potential for interbreeding cannot be the only criteria when differentiating species. As far as I know, tigers could interbreed with lions if they felt so inclined. At least in theory, there's no reason why that would be impossible. Only it doesn't happen in practice.

Not happening in practice is biologicallyl valid. Whether there are behavioral cues that differ, or color patterns, or whatever, once the populations have developed a barrier to interbreeding, they are "reproductively isolated." That makes them different species.

We can overcome many species barriers in the lab--like by removing the jelly coat of a frog or fish egg, so the sperm can get through. Just because we can do it in the lab doesn't mean it's possible in the wild. That is: it's not so much "potential" for interbreeding, but actual interbreeding in practice.

But that's "species," not "kind." Since "kind" was originally used in Genesis in the context of what was known 2000 years ago, it's a pretty vague term. It used to be interpreted as "species," until the evidence for speciation became overwhelming. Then, it was reinterpreted as "genus," but now people are saying it has to be "family" or "higher taxa." This is simply because we haven't been watching long enough to observe that level of divergence yet, so it's possible to pretend that it can't occur by "microevolution." In any event, the vagueness of the original colloquial use of the term seems, to me, to preclude assigning it any "kind" of explicit, scientific definition.

Oh yeah--you're right, USI. My intent was to direct the "other" discussion to the appropriate thread.

[Dilettante]

Not happening in practice is biologicallyl valid. Whether there are behavioral cues that differ, or color patterns, or whatever, once the populations have developed a barrier to interbreeding, they are "reproductively isolated." That makes them different species.

I suspected so. Thanks for the clarification, Jose!

[MagusYanam]

As far as I know, tigers could interbreed with lions if they felt so inclined. At least in theory, there's no reason why that would be impossible. Only it doesn't happen in practice.

Not happening in practice is biologicallyl valid. Whether there are behavioral cues that differ, or color patterns, or whatever, once the populations have developed a barrier to interbreeding, they are "reproductively isolated." That makes them different species.

I'd have to say yes and no, Jose. Dilettante is right that tigers and lions can interbreed, but it's not a very good example since ligers (the offspring of a tiger and a lion), like mules (the offspring of a horse and an ass), are always sterile. There can be no stable populations of Panthera leo x tigris. That's a definite indication that Panthera leo and Panthera tigris are two separate species.

However, you do make a good point that not happening in practise is also biologically valid. There is a viable breed of domestic cat that is Felis domestica x bengalensis (the Bengal), but Felis domestica and Felis bengalensis are geographically and physically distinct and don't normally interbreed without human intervention (the Bengal being a relatively new breed of cat).

I don't really know whether the discussion of the meaning of 'kind' in Genesis is useful in a scientific context - the Hebrew word mishpachah generally refers to a (human) family or tribe or caste but, by extension, also refers (very loosely, mind) to a species of animals.

[jcrawford]

Do you object to the existance of animal husbandry? Cat breeders? The AKC?

I don't even object to animals being locked up in a zoo as long as human beings are the zoo-keepers and don't put any other people in some animal cage like neo-Darwinist race theorists are wont to do in some of their phylogenetic taxonomies.

Could you also tell us about these so-called "neo-Darwinist race theories"?

Yes. Classifying the human family, the human race and humankind in the Homindae family of Great Apes is based on a neo-Darwinist form of scientific racism. Labeling the first so-called evolutionary 'species' of people in Africa in the same taxon as Austrlopithicine ape fossils are found is other example of neo-Darwinist racial prejudice and 'scientific' discrimination.

It's the religionists who divide people up, into different races, the saved/unsaved, etc etc etc...

Maybe that's why neo-Darwinist taxonomists religiously divide the present and past human race up into several distinct and separate 'scientific species;' the extinct and extant. They don't want to appear too religious.

It's the scientists that show that we are all very closely related, and of course, related also to the apes.

They may show some physiological relationships based on anatomy but labeling our human ancestors as different 'species' in an evolutionary progession from non-human and dumb ape ancestors is a form of scientific racism.

[micatala]

After several more rereadings, I'm still missing where Baraminology addresses things like biogeography, ERVs, fossils, extant species that exhibit characteristics we'd expect of transitionals, Cytochrome C, etc.?

It doesn't address much at all, does it. I did a search on baraminology and came up with quite a few hits, including a wikipedia definition. Towards the bottom it notes that Richard von Sternberg, the editor who had a Stephen Meyer ID article published, is a part of the baraminology study group (BSG).

Here is a letter from a BSG explaining Dr. Sternberg's involvement in the group, from there standpoint.

The Wikipedia article also notes

In creation biology, Baraminology is the effort to classify created kinds. The term was devised in 1990 by Kurt P. Wise, based on Marsh's 1941 coinage of the term "baramin" from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind) to represent the different kinds described in the Bible.

This Baraminology Study Group is now the Creation Biology Study Group .

Found a more detailed article. Here is one from the Creation Research Society QUarterly . Have not had a chance to look it over much yet.

Here is a brief blurb on baramins and kinds from the AAAS. According to them, the term has roots going back to 1940.

Searching talkorigins produced no hits on "baraminology" and five hits on "baramin".

Suffice it to say, if we want to investigate baraminology, we should be able to find plenty of sources that should be more detailed than the initial one. It seems to have been around for a while and seems to have at least some traction in creationist circles.

[USIncognito]

And yet, as with most Creationist "theories" is offers little in terms of evidence or support... how typical.

[Sender]

And yet, as with most Creationist "theories" is offers little in terms of evidence or support... how typical.

Intelligence absence is absence of intelligence....Sender

[USIncognito]

Intelligence absence is absence of intelligence....Sender

Baraminology suffers from the same problem that ID does, it relies on God of the Gaps, which is not great theology, and certainly is bad science. If we take the hybridization argument, Tigers and Lions must be part of the same "cat" kind since they can produce (though almost always infertile) offspring, but it doesn't address whether leopards, jaguars or cheetahs can or cannot interbread with lions and tigers, why or why not and whether all of the worlds extant large cat breeds should be considered a "kind" when clearly the are... if one accepts an amorpous definition of "large cat."

There is no scientific explanation as to why 3 of 5 big cat species cannot interbreed with the others in Baraminology, other than Goddiit or appealing to the God of the Gaps.

[Jose]

So...did we ever come to a conclusion about what a "kind" is? (or a baramin...maybe we need a baramiter?) It would actually be quite useful in our discussions of evolution, speciation, etc. A "kind" used to be a "species," but now that seems to be changing. Has the field of baraminology found out yet?

[USIncognito]

So...did we ever come to a conclusion about what a "kind" is? (or a baramin...maybe we need a baramiter?) It would actually be quite useful in our discussions of evolution, speciation, etc. A "kind" used to be a "species," but now that seems to be changing. Has the field of baraminology found out yet?

Ironically I was rereading my copy of "The Creationists" by Ronald L. Numbers last week just a few days after posting the OP to this thread. In it he discusses the advent of Baraminology in the 1940s. I'll post a transcript of his passage soon.

If any of you want a scholarly historical survery of the Creationist movement (well, you can read up to George McCready Price and stop... but I digress), this book is excellent and contains 40-60 pages of endnotes supporting Numbers' description of the "evoluiton of creationism" over the last 100 years.

And I haven't seen anything on Hovind, AiG, ICR, etc. etc. ever giving a definition beyond "we'll know it when we point to it... at some later date."