Basic type

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The basic type is a concept that, within the framework of a theory that is called creationism and is assigned to creationism , should serve to bring the biblical account of creation into harmony with a historical biological science . Followers of this creation biology believe that the basic types were created by God and then evolved naturally into a number of different types . This sets you apart from other creationists who generally consider evolution to be impossible and for whom each type of god was created separately. Within evolutionary biology , the sub-area of biology that deals with the evolution of living things, the concept of basic types is rejected and rejected as unscientific, so the term is not used here.

Origin of the term

The term "basic type" was coined in 1993 by the microbiologist and evolutionary critic Siegfried Scherer . Since then, it has been propagated mainly by Reinhard Junker and other representatives of the study group Word and Knowledge , while other creationists, with similar convictions, sometimes prefer different terms.

In the creation story of the so-called priestly scriptures (one of the two creation stories of the Torah, which has become part of the Bible as the Old Testament), God created living beings "each according to its kind". For creationist authors, this account has been revealed by God himself and is therefore unquestionably correct. They admit, however, that it is impossible that God can err, but that man can commit errors in his interpretation of the divine Word, which is evident from the fact that so many serious and devout Christians interpret the text in such different ways. This results in, within certain limits, scope for interpretation for a natural science, provided that it does not clearly contradict the wording of the Holy Scriptures. You now assume that the "species", Hebrew min , does not correspond to the biological definition of a species, but that it is one is a superordinate unit, each of which can consist of several, or many, species. These types have evolved from the basic types through natural development since creation. The basic types are directly created by God. They are therefore neither related to one another, nor are there transitions between them.

In the context of the concept, the existence of a natural evolution within the basic types is recognized, called microevolution by the proponents . An evolution of the basic types themselves, however, never took place and was also impossible; for this they use the term macroevolution (also used by evolutionary biology itself, but defined differently here) .

Relationship to other creationist concepts

In 1941, the American creationist Frank Lewis Marsh coined (in his book Fundamental Biology ) from the Hebrew expressions min (kind, sort) and bara (create) the made-up word baramin for the "species" mentioned in the biblical account of creation. After that, especially in the American-speaking area, the self as a scientifically understanding occupation with the (created) species is called baraminology . For creationists, however, it is problematic that Marsh never precisely defined his new term and that his description in various works contradicts one another. Initially, the focus for him was on reproduction; accordingly, baramin would be defined by the fact that there would be no hybridization between them . He later modified his view to the effect that what matters most is the fusion of the germ cells during fertilization , even if the germ or embryo that is formed is not viable. Even later he changed his mind again, now he was mainly concerned with morphological differences, while hybridization should only be the criterion for the distinction. Since the definition and the criterion used for it now coincide, its definition became tautological .

Scherer's “ basic child ” was now an attempt to solve these problems through a new definition. Creationist critics, however, pointed to numerous problems with Scherer's definition (which Scherer freely admitted). In addition to successful (there are viable offspring) and unsuccessful (no offspring can be formed), hybridization can comprise numerous intermediate stages of more or less vital offspring, so that all possible gradual transitions must be taken into account. The formation of hybrid offspring can fail for more or less external reasons, although it would in principle be possible. In addition, it would not be logically clear in what connection individuals with morphological similarities or differences, each of which can either hybridize or not, stand to one another. This makes it impossible to actually recognize the baramin created (or basic types in Scherer's terminology) by examining real living beings . Most of the American creationists have therefore discarded Scherer's term and instead defined a modified concept of baramin that deviates from Scherer's definition.

definition

The most important criterion for Scherer is the possibility of inter-species crossing : " Two species that are connected by inter-species crossings belong to one basic type ". Here, like others before him, Scherer is changing the concept of the bio-species of the biologist Ernst Mayr . Since the cross-ability between species is often difficult to research and unknown for numerous species, Scherer also recognizes indirect evidence of this via a third species: “ Two species which are linked to the same third species by crossing belong to the same basic type. “In the hawk-like family (Accipitridae), hybrids were actually only found between a few species, but these were in part between species from different subfamilies, so that it could be assumed that all hawk-like forms a basic type. Based on the observation that there are transitions in the degree of vitality of the embryos even with inter-species crossings, so that the fusion of the germ cells alone as evidence of hybridization is risky, as Marsh assumed at times, a third criterion is suggested: “ If a zygote From germ cells of two species after the maternal phase of development embryogenesis continues with the coordinated expression of the paternal and maternal genetic material, the parents belong to the same basic type ”.

Examples

Creationists have suggested a number of candidates for basic types, for which some cross-linking has been documented from the literature.

  • the man : creationists reject the view that man and ape had a common ancestor. The creationist Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer believes that Homo erectus , Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens) belong to the same basic type (human), while the australopithecines belong to a different basic type and are not related to humans.
  • the Canidae (dogs): Similar to cats, all types of dogs can be traced back to a common ancestor (see Hesperocyon ). The crossability is z. B. proven for red fox x ice fox (Alopex), red fox x gray fox (Urocyon) as well as between domestic dog and wolf .
  • the Camelidae (camel-like): Here it is known of the camels and the lamas that they can be crossed with one another. They are considered different genera in biology.
  • Crocodylia (crocodiles) - including all types of alligators , crocodiles and gharials . However, these cannot be crossed with one another.
  • Elephant : The African elephant ( Loxodonta africana ) and the Indian elephant ( Elephas maximus ) are usually not crossable with each other, a single hybrid produced in the zoo is guaranteed ( called motty ), but it only survived a few days. They are listed as two species of the same family (Elephantidae).
  • Duck birds (Anatidae): 126 of the 149 species of the Anatidae are directly or indirectly linked by crossbreeds.
  • Wheat-like (tribe Triticeae ): Over 300 bio-species, many hundreds of species and genus crosses. Well researched.
  • Pome fruit plants: 24 genera with over 200 species; the bastards are vital. Targeted systematic crossings have not yet been carried out.

A basic type thus encompasses more than the population genetic species concept of biology. Biology knows different species concepts . The criterion for the basic type is whether offspring can be produced. The basic type is therefore often at the level of the biological family . (See also Ernst Mayr's easily understandable concept of species ).

Species formation in the basic type concept

Origin of races from basic types through impoverishment of the gene pool
"Creationist family tree from above"

In the basic type concept, a basic type is split into several species in many cases (see graphic), so that the number of basic types is presumably much lower than that of species. Scherer assumes that the basic types were created by God with a noticeable variability. These originally quite small differences would then have increased through natural (micro) evolution. The basic type concept is intended to explain the fossil record of extinct species that differ in their morphology from the living species. Microevolution of ways within the basic types can thereby completely according to biological speciation by isolation of populations with disruption of gene flow between them, run, this makes the concept of the basic type no specific statements. “Creation scientists” emphasize to evolutionary biologists that the basic type with its specific blueprint cannot be changed by the action of evolution. Species formation is more likely to take place through small-scale optimization through adaptation to certain environmental factors, i.e. rather variation of given forms than the creation of completely new ones.

Relationship to evolutionary biology

The concept of basic types is not a scientific theory and does not play a role in evolutionary biology. Its justification does not lie in gaining scientific knowledge, but, within the framework of a creation paradigm , in the attempt to somehow make scientific thinking and research compatible with a word-inspired Christian faith. Reinhard Junker, like many other creationists, expresses this in a similar way: “ For a Bible-oriented science - even in the face of enormous problems - the statements of the Holy Scriptures have priority over empirically founded theories, even if these are well supported by data seem to be. “It is true that nature can supposedly also be explained within the framework of creation-oriented science, but in cases of doubt the primacy of the revealed Scriptures over fallible reason always applies. In contrast to creationist approaches such as intelligent design , the basic type concept is openly and clearly based on Christian teaching.

Before Darwin's theory of evolution, concepts similar to the basic types were also represented within science. The naturalist Georges Cuvier (Le règne animal distribué d'après son organization, 1817), for example, divided the animal world into four basic blueprints according to its morphology ( vertebrates , mollusks , radiant animals , arthropods ). Evolution between the blueprints was, in his opinion, impossible (which led him to a bitter controversy with his compatriot Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire , who assumed the opposite; the controversy became famous in the history of science as the Paris Academy Dispute). Only with the development of the theory of evolution were such ideas rejected in the natural sciences.

Contrary to the assumption made by “creation science”, evolutionary biology has no fundamental difficulties in explaining macroevolution, in spite of manifold problems in detail. From the point of view of evolutionary biology, the evolutionary constancy of numerous basic construction plans, with the simultaneous variability of many other characteristics, is a scientific problem, but the researchers are confident that they can solve it within the framework of methodical naturalism .

literature

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c Siegfried Scherer: Basic Types of Life. In: Siegfried Scherer (editor): Types of life. Pascal-Verlag, Berlin 1993, ISBN 3-927390-12-7 , pages 11-30. (with German abstract: Types of Life, pp. 26–28).
  2. ^ Alvin Plantinga (1991): When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible. Christian Scholar's Review 21 (1): 8-33.
  3. ↑ a b Reinhard Junker (2006): To differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution. Genesisnet.info, PDF . Genesisnet.Info, portal on creationism, intelligent design, creation theory and evolution, cooperation project of the study group Word and Knowledge, Evangeliums-Netz, cid christlicher internet dienst GmbH.
  4. ^ A b Todd Charles Wood, Kurt, P. Wise, Roger Sanders, N. Doran: A refined Baramin Concept. Occasional Papers of the Creation Biology Society 3: 1-14.
  5. ↑ Reinhard Junker: Science within the framework of the creation paradigm. PDF , download from www.wort-und-wissen.de, status: September 13, 2005.
  6. ↑ Creation: Creation theory and science . In Reinhard Junker, Siegfried Scherer (editor): Evolution, a critical textbook. 7th completely revised edition (from November 2013), online version, www.wort-und-wissen.de.
  7. ^ Francisco J. Ayala (2007): Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104, Supplement 1: 8567-8573. doi: 10.1073pnas.0701072104
  8. ^ Brian K. Hall (1996): Blueprints, phylotypic stages and constraint. Why are there so few types of animals? Evolutionary Biology 29: 215-261.
  9. ^ Katherine E. Willmore (2012): The Body Plan Concept and Its Centrality in Evo-Devo. Evolution: Education and Outreach 5 (2): 219-230.

Web links