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.

[jcrawford]

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.

I don't see how neo-Darwinist race classifiers still continue to get away with lumping the human family in with a family of great African apes (Homidae family) and then racially dividing humankind and the whole human race up into different and separate 'species' under the genus of Homo. The only purpose for that taxonomic system is to enable neo-Darwinist race theorists to taxonomically associate and link some human fossils of African people with those of Australopithicine apes. (Homo habilis)

[MagusYanam]

I don't see how neo-Darwinist race classifiers still continue to get away with lumping the human family in with a family of great African apes (Homidae family) and then racially dividing humankind and the whole human race up into different and separate 'species' under the genus of Homo. The only purpose for that taxonomic system is to enable neo-Darwinist race theorists to taxonomically associate and link some human fossils of African people with those of Australopithicine apes.

Who pays you to do this kind of definition-mutilation? 'Race' and 'species' are two different things entirely - in this context, 'species' is a biological term referring to a grouping of organisms capable of producing offspring with other members in the same grouping. 'Race' is not a biological term but a sociological one and refers in this context only to superficial differences between individuals or populations of the same species. If a population becomes too genetically different from other populations of its species to reproduce with a member of another population, it is no longer that species. The definition is simple and straightforward and has nothing to do with race or racism.

Why do you think it is we classify domestic cats as a species separate from mountain lions? It's because cats can't have viable offspring with mountain lions, but domestic cats can have offspring across 'breed' boundaries (which are, of course, superficial and have no real meaning outside the cat fancy).

[micatala]

Not sure how this article is playing in creationist circles. Might be interesting to see who agrees and who does not with this approach.

At any rate, the author (A.T. Ross) gives three criteria for determining kind.

1) Hybridizational Criterion
2) Discontinuity Systematics
3) The Kind Boundaries

By the first, he seems to mean that if animal A and animal B (or animals from species A and species B) "can successfully hybridize with true fertilization, the two organisms are descended from the same original kind". If I am understanding this correctly, he is saying that if A can fertilize B, then A and B are of the same kind. He seems to also say that the offspring needs to express both maternal and paternal genes into subsequent generations. I am not sure how much different this is than how scientists would define species.

He also notes that the kind classification is coarser than the 'hybridization' classification. Just because A and B cannot hybridize does not mean they are not of the same kind. How one determines whether or not they are of the same kind when this happens does not seem to be explained anywhere.

So, basically he is saying kind is a coarser classification than species, but doesn't say specifically what a 'kind' is.

Criterion 2 seems to be not scientific, but Biblical. He says, based on his interpretation of Genesis, that certain animals do not have common ancestors with others (eg. birds and whales do not share a common ancestor with land animals). There is not scientific criteria offered as to how to determine whether or not A and B have a common ancestor. It seems to be entirely non-empirical.

Criterion 3 simply refers back to criterion 1 to determine the kind boundary. He claims the kind boundary is different than the species boundary, but does not really indicate why the former is more accurate.

Doesn't seem to be anything here. Do any other creationists even buy into this?

[jcrawford]

I don't see how neo-Darwinist race classifiers still continue to get away with lumping the human family in with a family of great African apes (Homidae family) and then racially dividing humankind and the whole human race up into different and separate 'species' under the genus of Homo. The only purpose for that taxonomic system is to enable neo-Darwinist race theorists to taxonomically associate and link some human fossils of African people with those of Australopithicine apes.

Who pays you to do this kind of definition-mutilation? 'Race' and 'species' are two different things entirely - in this context, 'species' is a biological term referring to a grouping of organisms capable of producing offspring with other members in the same grouping.

Would that I were paid to argue against neo-Darwinst racial theories of the human race's origins, evolution and biological descent from some ancestral 'species' of African people, monkeys and apes. As it is, without either professional or monetary compensation, I remain a free individual volunteer in the growing army of social and scientific critics of neo-Darwinist race theories being taught in U.S. public schools.

[juliod]

I remain a free individual volunteer in the growing army of social and scientific critics of neo-Darwinist race theories being taught in U.S. public schools.

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

Could you also tell us about these so-called "neo-Darwinist race theories"? It's the religionists who divide people up, into different races, the saved/unsaved, etc etc etc...

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

DanZ

[jcrawford]

I remain a free individual volunteer in the growing army of social and scientific critics of neo-Darwinist race theories being taught in U.S. public schools.

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

They are already plastered all over Internet forums on evolution, racism and creation. Read Lubenow's "Bones of Contention" for a good introduction to neo-Darwinist racial theories about human origins, evolution and genetic descent from African monkey and ape ancestors.

[Jose]

Could you also tell us about these so-called "neo-Darwinist race theories"? It's the religionists who divide people up, into different races, the saved/unsaved, etc etc etc...

NO, no! Don't get into this! Oh...sorry. This has been discussed extensively in the Bones of Contention thread, of which a brief perusal will quite quickly show you the nature of this assertion.

[USIncognito]

Please don't mess up my thread with replies to John Crawford's trolling. Feel free to smoke him on wasted bandwidth he initiates, but pleas ignore him elsewhere.

Doesn't seem to be anything here. Do any other creationists even buy into this?

The emptiness of the hypotheses should be obvious to anyone who actually has studied the issue. Unfortunately, most haven't actually studied the issue. Here's the thread on another forum where I first ran across the concept.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1601652 ... tml&page=2

One of the great ironies of the whole claim that successful hybridatization consitutes a "kind" is that ring species actually evidence common descent rather than special creation. In The Ancestor's Tale Dawkin's cites terns that, in North America can interbreed. In Europe can interbreed. In Asia can interbreed. But those in Eastern Asia cannot interbreed with those in Western North America.

Similarly he cites salamanders that form a ring the ability to breed follows a geographic circle where one species can breed with another, except where the ring wraps on itself.

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.?

[Dilettante]

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.