|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 12/22/2009 2:32:39 AM
|
|
|
juliebme
Posts: 25
Joined: 12/19/2009
Status: offline
|
Thanks for that StephenJ!
I had no idea that "bariminology" even existed.
More to the point, I never knew that creationwiki existed.
Brilliant!
The contrast between the references presented in both articles, the language - all utterly priceless!
I'll be chuckling for days.
_____________________________
Who do I worship?
It depends upon when I was born, where, and to whom.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 12/22/2009 4:15:57 PM
|
|
|
StephenJ
Posts: 452
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline
|
Hey a reply! I didn't think anyone wanted to discuss this!
Yes this field or section of creationism deals with the study of created kinds, or Baramins. Many creationist see these baramins as fixed, so that variation can happen within them but never to the point that a new "kind" appears. It basically allows micro-evolution or adaptation but never so called macro-evolution.
The problem is that nobody has officially defined what officially makes something a kind. Is it animals that can succesfully reproduce (similar to how scientest define species)? Is it animals that share many common design features (like turtles/tortises)? Or is it something else?
< Message edited by StephenJ -- 12/22/2009 6:40:36 PM >
_____________________________
Rock on!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 12/26/2009 1:17:14 PM
|
|
|
litfire2000
Posts: 711
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
baraminology...first I ever heard of it.
Does anyone know if creationwiki can be edited like wikipedia?
_____________________________
Ps. 122:6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem
Many people desire to serve God in the capacity of an advisor
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 12/26/2009 9:08:42 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5613
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
As far as I know most creationist studies don't make it into mainstream science journals. Of course they don't! Mainstream science journals are controlled by editorial boards composed almost entirely of uniformitarian naturalists - they have no interest in sharing their religious platform with the "enemy".
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 12/26/2009 9:28:47 PM
|
|
|
StephenJ
Posts: 452
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
As far as I know most creationist studies don't make it into mainstream science journals. Of course they don't! Mainstream science journals are controlled by editorial boards composed almost entirely of uniformitarian naturalists - they have no interest in sharing their religious platform with the "enemy".
It's not a horrible conspiracy to keep alternative views out of the scientific field. It's the rational response to the evidence of the extinct and extant fossil records that seems to demonstrate the transition of one "kind" to another. Something which bariminology rejects.
For example the discovery of dinosaurs with full feathers, and body parts that seem to imply that proto-feathers were once connected to them (some of the dromeosaurs aka raptors)
and
The extant femural bones and hind rudiments in some of todays marine mammals.
Those are the sort of things that keep bariminology away from the acceptance of most legit scientific circles not irrational hatred from scientest (some of whom are theist.)
_____________________________
Rock on!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/1/2010 9:49:24 AM
|
|
|
Embedded
Posts: 61
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
As far as I know most creationist studies don't make it into mainstream science journals. Of course they don't! Mainstream science journals are controlled by editorial boards composed almost entirely of uniformitarian naturalists - they have no interest in sharing their religious platform with the "enemy".
Which brings up an interesting point. ID was supposed to be the "new science" which would "sweep away darwinism" and "revolutionize the biological sciences" and "put a solid foundation on origins science" etc, etc, blah, blah. Yet the ID movement has produced nothing of value and has not advanced our understanding of the natural world (nor even the supernatural) after years of "research" and millions of dollars spent on it.
ID researchers need only produce the rejection letters from scientific journals to prove your point. They have been askedfor this evidence. They have never produced it.
The ID movement has even started their own journal(s) and society:
http://www.iscid.org/
The Wikipedia page on ISCID addresses the exact issue you complain about:
Peer Review Controversy at PCID
It also doesn't appear that the PCID journal has published anything since November of 2005... 4+ years and nothing new in the world of tARD (the Argument Regarding Design)??
I have heard it said that "methodological naturalism is dead" etc... but it appears that ID and tARD are not producing much in the science.
To be sure... the Discovery Institute has been very active publishing press releases and various commentary but not a peep out of their Biologic Institute except for a program called Stylus that supposedly recognizes Chinese characters in the shapes of proteins.
On the other hand, places like ICR have been active for decades and produce all sorts of pseudoscientific research about dating of rocks and flood geology. The YECs have their own journals and research but nobody reads them or cites them for anything useful.
My basic point is: ID, tARD, and Creation "research" do not produce anything research of use. ID and tARD doesn't appear to be producing any research at all.
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/1/2010 12:42:05 PM
|
|
|
parkerbrother
Posts: 397
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline
|
Superb post Embedded.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/25/2010 12:21:04 AM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
So sentence 2 claims there is no peer-reviewed research, yet reference [22] links to a peer-reviewed creation journal!
Lol, the devil is in the details:
"Baraminology is a pseudoscience[23], and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research""
Which is absolutely true. All reviews have been exceedingly poor, focusing on the pseudo-scientific methods used in the paper.
Furthermore, come on; the CRS Quarterly is hardly a good (or even a decent) source for scientific information.
Although, I do have a question for any creationists: What method specifically inhibits speciation?
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/25/2010 7:43:54 AM
|
|
|
RSchorne
Posts: 157
Joined: 1/9/2010
Status: offline
|
I still get chuffed at the whole reason for the idea of bariminology.
It makes absolutely no sense, if you want to claim that that the story of Noah and his boat was true, that every species, extinct or still existing, managed to fit on the ark.
There are tens of millions of species still in existence and these number less than one percent of every species that has ever existed.
Which, of course, means that there were, at least, hundreds of millions of pairs of animals on one boat.
Not eating each other.
So lets's hatch an idea.
Not every species was on the boat.
Only a couple of every kind.
Oh, and over the next 4000 years those kinds will evolve (but don't use that word please) into the myriad of species in existence today or in the past.
Which can no longer interbreed to produce fertile young.
Oh, and which we have not observed further "evolving" in the last several hundred years that we have been seriously studying zoology.
It's utterly precious.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/25/2010 2:39:53 PM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RSchorne
I still get chuffed at the whole reason for the idea of bariminology.
It makes absolutely no sense, if you want to claim that that the story of Noah and his boat was true, that every species, extinct or still existing, managed to fit on the ark.
There are tens of millions of species still in existence and these number less than one percent of every species that has ever existed.
Which, of course, means that there were, at least, hundreds of millions of pairs of animals on one boat.
Not eating each other.
So lets's hatch an idea.
Not every species was on the boat.
Only a couple of every kind.
Oh, and over the next 4000 years those kinds will evolve (but don't use that word please) into the myriad of species in existence today or in the past.
Which can no longer interbreed to produce fertile young.
Oh, and which we have not observed further "evolving" in the last several hundred years that we have been seriously studying zoology.
It's utterly precious.
True. The irony of course being that this sort of creationist notion actually promotes the idea of "Super" Evolution.
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/25/2010 3:19:57 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 700
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dante_Alighieri
quote:
So sentence 2 claims there is no peer-reviewed research, yet reference [22] links to a peer-reviewed creation journal!
Lol, the devil is in the details:
"Baraminology is a pseudoscience[23], and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research""
Which is absolutely true. All reviews have been exceedingly poor, focusing on the pseudo-scientific methods used in the paper.
Furthermore, come on; the CRS Quarterly is hardly a good (or even a decent) source for scientific information.
Where do you get this information?
quote:
Although, I do have a question for any creationists: What method specifically inhibits speciation?
Dante
There is no mechanism that inhibits speciation (in the normal sense, but this is all depending on your view of a species of course). There is a perfectly reasonable mechanism for a population splitting and speciating (becoming unable to interbreed with the parent population). There is, however, NO mechanism for the production of new and novel structures and/or chemical pathways. Unless you'd like to propose one, I know of none.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/25/2010 4:19:36 PM
|
|
|
RSchorne
Posts: 157
Joined: 1/9/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
There is no mechanism that inhibits speciation (in the normal sense, but this is all depending on your view of a species of course). There is a perfectly reasonable mechanism for a population splitting and speciating (becoming unable to interbreed with the parent population).
Over how long would you suggest it would be possible for the "cat" baramin - just as an example to split/evolve (but let's not split hairs) to become lions, leopards, cheetahs, lynx's, cougars, jaguars, tigers, ocelots, snow leopards, clouded leopards etc etc etc etc?
And then, once split/evolved (within your magical timeframe of a very few thousands years), why would no new species be observed splitting/evolving in the last several hundred that we have been seriously studying them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/25/2010 8:04:38 PM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
There is a perfectly reasonable mechanism for a population splitting and speciating (becoming unable to interbreed with the parent population).
You do realize that this is the very definition of macroevolution, right? Lol 
quote:
There is, however, NO mechanism for the production of new and novel structures and/or chemical pathways.
Lol, yes there is. Gene duplication and mutation. Haha.
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/25/2010 10:13:06 PM
|
|
|
RSchorne
Posts: 157
Joined: 1/9/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ohioman1972
Notice: Empirical facts or even really good examples pale in comparison to a well placed "LOL"
Too bad this is not a video forum, or we would have the full effect of the eye roll, and perhaps the sound of scoffing!
Leaving aside the irrelevant "style" of certain posters, what do you make of baraminology?
Particularly in regards to the time frame that the flood story enforces.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/26/2010 12:55:13 AM
|
|
|
Ohioman1972
Posts: 409
Joined: 8/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RSchorne
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ohioman1972
Notice: Empirical facts or even really good examples pale in comparison to a well placed "LOL"
Too bad this is not a video forum, or we would have the full effect of the eye roll, and perhaps the sound of scoffing!
Leaving aside the irrelevant "style" of certain posters, what do you make of baraminology?
Particularly in regards to the time frame that the flood story enforces.
I don't know
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/26/2010 10:54:53 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 700
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dante_Alighieri
quote:
There is a perfectly reasonable mechanism for a population splitting and speciating (becoming unable to interbreed with the parent population).
You do realize that this is the very definition of macroevolution, right? Lol
Hardly. I don't actually use words like "macroevolution" or "microevolution" because the definitions are too cloudy to be of any real use. Indeed, macroevolution seems to be "evolution that makes creationists uncomfortable", and microevolution "evolution that creationists can accept". Since "evolution" is a already a completely useless word (everything is evolution), tagging on macro and micro is really just adding another label to an empty bottle. So, let's not talk about definitions and labels when it comes to taxonomy and evolution. The definition required for the moment is the definition used. I like to talk about mechanisms.
quote:
quote:
There is, however, NO mechanism for the production of new and novel structures and/or chemical pathways.
Lol, yes there is. Gene duplication and mutation. Haha.
Dante
That's the popular theory, and it seems reasonable as long as we're using stick figures on a powerpoint slide, but it's never been demonstrated in a lab to even be feasible, let alone a historical fact. Mutations are great at breaking enzymes and ending chemical pathways, sometimes necessary in order for a bacterial population to survive, but these are not the kinds of mechanisms that are going to lead to the development of novel enzymes, new chemical pathways. The chemistry just doesn't exist for this kind of upward complexity to occur, or at least, it hasn't been demonstrated to exist experimentally.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/26/2010 11:01:15 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 700
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RSchorne
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
There is no mechanism that inhibits speciation (in the normal sense, but this is all depending on your view of a species of course). There is a perfectly reasonable mechanism for a population splitting and speciating (becoming unable to interbreed with the parent population).
Over how long would you suggest it would be possible for the "cat" baramin - just as an example to split/evolve (but let's not split hairs) to become lions, leopards, cheetahs, lynx's, cougars, jaguars, tigers, ocelots, snow leopards, clouded leopards etc etc etc etc?
And then, once split/evolved (within your magical timeframe of a very few thousands years), why would no new species be observed splitting/evolving in the last several hundred that we have been seriously studying them.
Honestly, I'm not very good with the history of evolution, but I'll try to answer your questions as best I can. I haven't studied which cats are of the same baramin. However, I'm positive that there is some literature out there because cats, dogs, and bears (I think) are some of the most studied animals by baraminologists. Assuming they did all come from the same two animals on the ark, I would suppose that the rapid spreading by all of the animals lead to the frequent population splitting and subsequent speciation necessary for the development of all the tetrapod species. I have no idea; that went straight from the head to the keyboard. Perhaps I could ask an ecologist whether or not that's a feasible scenario, but I see no reason why that couldn't happen within a few hundred years.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/26/2010 12:13:01 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5613
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Perhaps I could ask an ecologist whether or not that's a feasible scenario, but I see no reason why that couldn't happen within a few hundred years. It's more than feasible for scores of dog breeds to "evolve" over a few hundred years in Europe! The ecological diversity present after the Flood would have been more than adequate to stimulate the front-loaded genomes of Hand-picked individual baramin to diversify into numerous "species" within a relatively short time frame.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/26/2010 12:29:51 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 700
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Perhaps I could ask an ecologist whether or not that's a feasible scenario, but I see no reason why that couldn't happen within a few hundred years. It's more than feasible for scores of dog breeds to "evolve" over a few hundred years in Europe! The ecological diversity present after the Flood would have been more than adequate to stimulate the front-loaded genomes of Hand-picked individual baramin to diversify into numerous "species" within a relatively short time frame.
I suppose it would have to be considering the fact that such is the history of our world per the Bible. But I'm still curious as to why it would have happened, which is the realm of the ecologist and perhaps the metageneticist.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
