| Revision as of 12:05, 26 August 2005 editPlumbago (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,339 editsm →Early efforts at demarcation: Typo← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:39, 15 February 2020 edit undoPaleoNeonate (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,743 edits Restore rev. 838799364Tag: Replaced | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{creationism2}} | |||
| In ], '''Baraminology''' is the effort to classify ]s. The term was devised in ] 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 ]. These occur especially in the ] descriptions of the ] and ], and the ] and ] division between clean and unclean. Baraminology has also been termed ]. | |||
| {{R to section}} | |||
| Baraminology aims to use four terms to distinguish groups of organisms: ''holobaramin'', ''monobaramin'', ''apobaramin'', and ''polybaramin''. | |||
| {{R with history}} | |||
| *''Holobaramin'' — A holobaramin is the full set of organisms that belong to a single baramin. In other words, it is a group of organisms that (1) shares continuity (meaning that each member is continuous with at least one other member) and (2) is bounded by discontinuity. | |||
| *''Monobaramin'' — A monobaramin is a subset of a holobaramins, or a group of known species that share continuity without regard to discontinuity with other organisms. That is, it may be either part or all of a holobaramin. So, for example, ]s could be seen as a monobaramin from the holobaramin of the '']'' which also includes ]. | |||
| *''Apobaramin'' — An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins, or a group of known species that are bounded by discontinuity without regard to internal continuity. That is, it may be one or more complete holobaramins. For example, all ] together would form an apobaramin since (in creationist theory) they were not a single kind of plant at the moment of their creation (at least ]-bearing plants and ] can be distinguished) but there is no single holobaramin that includes both plants and animals. | |||
| *''Polybaramin'' — A polybaramin is group of organisms consisting of parts of two or more holobaramins, or an artificial group of known species that share continuity with organisms outside the group and discontinuity occurs within the group. It is argued that use of polybaramins should be avoided, as it is comparable to a polyphyletic taxon in conventional systematics. For example, the ]s currently alive in ] would form a polybaramin. | |||
| ==Demarcation of baramin== | |||
| The question of determining the boundaries between baramin is a subject of much discussion and debate among creation biologists. A number of criteria have been presented. | |||
| ===Early efforts at demarcation=== | |||
| '''Hybridization''': The traditional criterion for membership in a common baramin is the ability to hybridize and create viable offspring. In ''Evolution, Creation, and Science'', Marsh, who coined the term baramin, asserted that that hybridization was a sufficient condition for being members of the same baramin. However, he asserted that it was not a necessary condition, as observed speciation events among ] had been shown to cut off hybridization. In 1993, German creation biologist Siegfried Scherer presented two sufficient criteria for membership in a baramin: the ability to hybridize, or the shared ability to hybridize with a third organism. | |||
| The hybridization criterion was challenged in 1993 by creation biologist Remine. Remine argued that hybridization criteria were insufficient, because while organisms that could hybridize could be categorized as being part of a common baramin, organisms that could not hybridize were not necessarily of different baramin. Thus the definition was vague and not particularly useful. | |||
| Remine proposed instead that a holobaramin by defined as "a complete set of organisms related by common descent." This definition, while unambiguous, cannot be applied, however, because the actual line of descent cannot be observed today. Further, it was criticized because it failed to account for the possibility that more than one of each kind was originally created; according to his definition, two identical bacteria created by God would have been of different baramin. Finally, it excluded the first generation of organisms from the definition, because the first organisms, as created, were not related to each other. | |||
| ===Contemporary criteria for demarcation=== | |||
| In 2003, the ] developed and refined the baramin concept with four new concepts: | |||
| * '''Biological character space''' is a theoretical multidimensional space in which each character (e.g. height or color) of an organism comprises a dimension, and particular states of that character occupy unique positions along the dimension. A single organism is therefore precisely defined by a single point in the multidimensional space. | |||
| * '''Potentiality region''' is a region of that biological character space within which organismal form is possible. Therefore, any point in the biological character space that is not within a potentiality region describes an organism that cannot exist. | |||
| * '''Continuity''' describes the relationship between two organisms which are either in the same potentiality region, or linked to each other by a third, such that transmutation between the two is theoretically possible. | |||
| * '''Discontinuity''' describes the relationship between two organisms which are in disconnected potentiality regions, such that transmutation between the two is impossible. | |||
| In determining continuity and discontinuity, creation biologists emphasize the importance of applying a holistic dataset in determining whether there is significant similarity between two organisms. Hybridization is considered to be determinative evidence that two organisms exhibit holistic and substantial continuity. | |||
| ===Recent baraminology research=== | |||
| In 2003, the Baraminology Study Group applied "analysis of pattern" to multidimensional biological character space data on sunflowers and fossil equids. They found a strong linear relationship and continuity among the sunflowers, and termed this relationship "biological trajectory." In applying the method of fossil equids, they found a branching relationship in the data, which indicated a divergence in ancestry. The linear relationship corresponded to the known chronological order of the fossils. | |||
| ==Controversy== | |||
| In 2004 Richard von Sternberg, a member of the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group, acting in his capacity as editor of ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' accepted for publication a paper by ], Program Director of the ]’s ], causing a storm of controversy . This is the only paper on ] to have appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| * | |||
| *, from the Baraminology Study Group. | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 12:39, 15 February 2020
Redirect to:
- To a section: This is a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a section of a page on the subject. For redirects to embedded anchors on a page, use {{R to anchor}} instead.
- With history: This is a redirect from a page containing substantive page history. This page is kept as a redirect to preserve its former content and attributions. Please do not remove the tag that generates this text (unless the need to recreate content on this page has been demonstrated), nor delete this page.
- This template should not be used for redirects having some edit history but no meaningful content in their previous versions, nor for redirects created as a result of a page merge (use {{R from merge}} instead), nor for redirects from a title that forms a historic part of Misplaced Pages (use {{R with old history}} instead).