Baraminology

Template:Creationism2 In creation biology, Baraminology is the effort to classify created kinds. The term was devised in 1990 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 Bible. These occur especially in the Genesis descriptions of the creation and Noah's Ark, and the Leviticus and Deuteronomy division between clean and unclean. Baraminology has also been termed discontinuity systematics.

Baraminology aims to use four terms to distinguish groups of organisms: holobaramin, monobaramin, apobaramin, and polybaramin.[1] (http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/aboutconcepts.html)

• 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, dogs could be seen as a monobaramin from the holobaramin of the dog kind which also includes wolves.

• 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 plants 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 fruit-bearing plants and grass 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 mammals currently alive in North America would form a polybaramin.

Contents

1 Demarcation of baramin 1.1 Early efforts at demarcation 1.2 Contemporary criteria for demarcation 1.3 Recent baraminology research 2 Controversy 3 External links

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 drosophilia 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. Remind 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 Baraminology Study Group 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.[2] (http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/002.pdf)

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 Stephen C. Meyer, Program Director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, causing a storm of controversy [3] (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/ZZ/331_id_paper_continues_to_attract__9_10_2004.asp). This is the only paper on intelligent design to have appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. [4] (http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html)

External links

• Baraminology in Creation Research Quarterly Journal (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm)
• A Refined Baramin Concept (http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/003.pdf), from the Baraminology Study Group.