Baraminology

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In creationism , the baraminology , and occasionally the typology or systematics of discontinuity, is the attempt to classify creations , groups of animals and other beings as common or to differentiate them from one another.

The expression was used in 1990 by Kurt P. Wise , based on the made -up word "Baramin", coined by Frank Lewis Marsh in 1941 , composed of the Hebrew words bara (created) and min (kind). This system was intended to represent the different ways that the Bible describes. These appear especially in the book of Genesis , in the descriptions of the creation story and Noah's Ark , in " Leviticus " and Deuteronomy as a distinction between "clean" and "unclean".

This theory was harshly criticized for its lack of tests and for its subsequent modification of the data to make the results better fit the theory.

classification

Baraminology aims to create and differentiate between types or groups using four terms:

  • Holobaramin
  • Monobaramin
  • Apobaramine
  • Polybaramine

Holobaramin

A holobaramin is a whole group (past and present) that share a common ancestry and are therefore genetically related. As an example, humans form a holobaramin because (according to the creationists ) they were created as a single species and therefore do not share ancestry and genetics with other animals.

In contrast, the Universal Theory of Descent is an established and tested scientific theory that assumes that all life proceeds from a common origin (and thus, in terms of baraminology, forms a holobaramin). In any case, both cladistics (the field of research devoted to the study of common ancestry) and transitional (transitional) fossils are rejected by the baraminologists.

Monobaramin

A monobaramin is any part of a holobaramin. As an example, dogs can be viewed as monobaramin, part of the holobaramin of the canidae (canine species), which also includes wolves . The term is very loosely defined, and a few individuals of a species count as a monobaramin.

Apobaramine

An apobaramin is any number of complete holobaramines grouped together. Example: all animals are called apobaramin (in the conception of creationism); they were not a single species at the time of their creation. This concept does not exist in evolutionary biology , in which all organisms share a common ancestry.

Polybaramine

A polybaramine is a group made up of different holobaramines. As an example, the mammals currently living in North America make up a polybaramine. Like a monobaramin, this is just as loosely defined; Wayne Friar gives as an example "Representatives of all human races, the two kinds of pigeons, a dog, a lion, a tiger and a sunflower." As with the other concepts, there is no equivalent to this in evolutionary biology.

Differentiation of the created kinds

The question of demarcation between baramines has been the subject of much discussion and debate between creationist-biologists. A number of criteria were identified.

Early demarcation efforts

The traditional criterion for membership in a baramin was the ability to produce hybrids and lively offspring. Frank Lewis Marsh coined the term baramin in his book Fundamental Biology (1941) and expanded it to the concept in Evolution, Creation, and Science (c. 1944), in which he showed that hybridization was a sufficient condition for membership in the same baramin . In any case, he indicated that this was not a necessary condition, since species of Drosophila had been observed to cut off hybridization. In 1993, the German microbiologist Siegfried Scherer suggested the common ability of living beings to hybridize with a third species as a criterion.

Baramin distance

To refine this method, the concept of a "baramin gap" has been proposed. The initial study by Robinson and Cavanaugh tried various methods of the primates catarrh , including genetic testing and tests based on ecology and morphology . In any case, a criterion for delimiting a baramin is when the literature says that these two groups are separate. So methods that didn't separate humans from animals were discarded.

Scientific status

The content of baraminology does not play a role in scientific research in the field of zoology and botany .

See also

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b Wood, Wise, Sanders, and Doran, A Refined Baramin Concept ( Memento from February 20, 2006 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 0 kB)
  2. ^ A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms. See also the last two sentences of the abstract of Robinson and Cavanaugh, A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates ( Memento from January 10, 2010 in the Internet Archive )
  3. ↑ a b c d Friar, Wayne, Baraminology — Classification of Created Organisms ( Memento June 18, 2003 in the Internet Archive ) Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol 37 No 2 pp82-91 September 2000 (from the Wayback Machine, retreived Feb 26, 2007)
  4. ↑ Theobald, Douglas, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
  5. ↑ Theobald, Douglas, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
  6. ^ A b About the BSG: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods ( Memento from April 15, 2005 in the Internet Archive ). Phrases to note are: "The mere assumption that the transformation had to occur because cladistic analysis places it at a hypothetical ancestral node does not constitute empirical evidence." And "A good example is Archeopteryx , which likely represents its own unique baramin, distinct from both dinosaurs and modern birds." (A good example is the Archeopteryx, which represents its own unique baramine, differentiated from both dinosaurs and modern birds).
  7. ^ Robinson and Cavanaugh, A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates ( Memento January 10, 2010 in the Internet Archive ). ... We found that the baramin spacing was based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, on 12S rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data was found to be largely ineffective for identifying human holobaramines. Baramin distances are based on ecological and morphological characters, in any case they have been fairly reliable in distinguishing humans from non-human primates. See also A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms.