Talk:Baraminology
(→AIG) |
(→AIG) |
||
| Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
::::Dead link! {{User:SusanG/sig/sig}} 23:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | ::::Dead link! {{User:SusanG/sig/sig}} 23:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
(unident) So sue me, I assumed that Wikipedia has article on everything. [[User:Csmiller|CS Miller]] ([[User talk:Csmiller|talk]]) 23:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | (unident) So sue me, I assumed that Wikipedia has article on everything. [[User:Csmiller|CS Miller]] ([[User talk:Csmiller|talk]]) 23:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | :::::Who is she? {{User:SusanG/sig/sig}} 23:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:39, 7 March 2010
Is this import or original work? I like it either way.DocSock 10:29, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
- Import for now, I am going to slaughter it to the true god and show how poor of a field it is.--TimS 10:31, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
Contents |
pseudoscience
In order to be a psuedoscience, shouldn't you establish that somebody is claiming that it is science? Heart♥GoldIllustrate effects of HRT overdose 20:01, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
Well, I'm no etymologist, but the "-ology" in "baraminology" (a word which sets off fire bells on the spell-check, by the way...) means "the study of." And if baraminologists aren't trying to proceed scientifically, how are they learning about their baramin buddies? PFoster 21:41, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
I understand creation "scientists" call it science. Doesn't CP present it as science?--Bob_M (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
Rewrite
Still needs a major rewrite, and yes, HG, creationists believe this to be science, strangely enough.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 22:06, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
I have just read CP's entry on baraminology (again), I can see why it would appeal to schoolkids (assuming that it was all they were taught). I reckon it was originally a spoof by the inheritors of Lewis Carrol that got out of hand. The attempts (big words based on dead languages) to make it sound like a science are sadly laughable. "Sadly" because thes youngsters are more likely to be impressed by the pseudo flummery when it sounds so good. I hate the perversion of such (presumably) intelligent young minds. That's what really annoys me about almost everything cp stands for.
I could go on and on and on and ... ... Keepoff the grass 22:32, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
Friggin Baramins!
I can't turn around in my house without falling over a baramin. Those damn baramins - they're everywhere! DogP 18:57, 4 September 2007 (CDT)
Actually
Just for the record, "baraminology" is almost exclusively only heard of by the professionals practicing it. Most lay people (including school-age, homeschool, YEC science kids) have never heard of it.
One of the main baraminology guys is Dr. Wood, who was part of the team that sequenced the Rice genome, and has published numerous papers on plant transposons, and also has written many chapters in standard textbooks on genome sequencing and statistical significance in genome sequence comparisons. To get a feel for how baraminology is practiced, check out the book "Understanding the Pattern of Life".
The main differences between baraminology and other forms of taxonomy is that (a) it is not based on ancestry. Two organisms can be in the same baramin without having any common ancestors. Another is that (b) it allows for real discontinuity. Traditional taxonomy in large part assumes universal common ancestry with no major discontinuities.
The most persuasive evidence for including two species in the same baramin is reproductive compatibility. This is considered cumulative. For instance, if A is reproductively compatible with B and B with C, all are considered to be within the same baramin. The BSG is currently working on a hybridization database of all published crosses. The current results (which leaves a WHOLE lot of data out -- they haven't had the funding to get it completed) can be found here -- http://bryancore.org/hdb/
Current taxonomy studies by baraminologists have shown in some cases the baramin exists out to the "order" level of traditional taxonomy. However, it is thought, in general, to lie at approximately the family level. Jean Lightner's breeding studies of sub-order Ruminantia have shown significant amounts of reproductive compatibility throughout many disparate parts.
As for whether or not there is a 100% always-good litmus test for baramins, while there is none, that is the same for all taxonomy. Witness the proposal of Pegasoferae in secular science.
Other people prefer to take a statistical morphological approach, which is described in some detail in "Understanding the Pattern of Life".
Also, on the extreme rates of evolution, I think the analysis of the number of mutations is flawed for multiple reasons. First of all, it takes the assumption that the changes must be the result of mutation. However, current examples of rapid morphological change are actually the result of new symbioses. This can produce radical morphological shifts with little mutation (and then sometimes mutations follow it that trim down the genomes of both species to throw off the excess). Likewise, for things that do happen mutationally, baraminologists generally think that, like every other part of creation, the change process within organisms has been deteriorating. Therefore, detrimental mutations would not have been nearly as prevalent in the past as it is currently.
To understand baraminology, the best introduction would be:
1) Getting the book "Understanding the Pattern of Life" 2) Reading the proceedings of the Creation Biology Study Group (originally the baraminology study group -- they changed their name since they expanded beyond pure systematics and few people knew what baraminology was) -- http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/index.html — Unsigned, by: 207.155.33.225 / talk / contribs
- All good insights. Could you put it into the article, and de-snarkify the article as needed?-αmεσ (ninja) 00:52, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
Sorry
I can't help out your project. I just wasted an hour typing, and I think I lost everything because of some system wierdness (actually I think it was because someone typed in the notes while I was posting, but I'm not sure). It looked like it saved to me, but in fact it did not, and I lost all my work.
207.155.33.225 08:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
- It may have been an edit conflict, or an internet error on your end. Hit "back" in your browser; the text will still be there. I hope you haven't closed the window yet? Also, a good idea, if you're typing something long, is to type it in a word processor (MS Word) and then paste it over here, just to make sure it's saved. Hope you stay? Hope this allows you to recover the text?-αmεσ (ninja) 08:40, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
Lulz
And I'm too lazy to make a wandalism page right now. But, user:Nwo added a new intro:
"Adam was the first biologist. Biologists are little more sophisticated than librarians. In Genesis, God gave the task of naming the animals to Adam. This is Baraminology, also known as biology"
Which I thunk was pretty funny, even acceptable to keep, perhaps. Btw, I noticed that "baraminology" contains all the letters of "biology" in the correct order. Liberal anti-God hating, or just coinkydink? human
17:56, 6 November 2007 (EST)
Baramin and DNA
I added this section as I have been recently bothered by the thought experiment implied in the section. --Edgerunner76Save me Jebus! 12:36, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
- Looking through some baraminology "literature" online, it seems baraminologists do not make distinctions on the basis of DNA but on the basis of whether two kinds of animals can successfully interbreed. I can;t see how this section is relevant to the topic. [1] [2] Rational Edthink! 15:11, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
- What was the thought experiment, by the way? ħuman
19:03, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
- What was the thought experiment, by the way? ħuman
Amirite?
Baraminology, also known as Barmyology, is a branch of biology pseudoscience that attempts to...
Lead sentence - Linnean taxonomy
I'm reluctant to change the lead sentence, but I don't think it's accurate. I'm no expert on baraminology, but I don't think it's intended as an "alternative to Linnaen taxonomy". Alternative to phylogenetics/cladistics/phenetics/systematics, yes. Linnaeus was pre-Darwinian, so his work shouldn't be incompatible with a creationist world view.
- Linnaean taxonomy is the name given to the modern system, though, not just the one used by good ole Linnaeus himself. Right? ħuman
18:34, 17 February 2009 (EST)
This text is hidden in the article:
“”Creationists will agree upon and cite often in that the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) and the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) comprise a single "kind". Analysis of their comparative genetics suggests that the two species diverged over 100,000 years ago.[3] Because the populations would be vastly different merely measuring the times the genetic diversification occurred would not be accurate, instead the cumulative number of creatures must be analyzed.
There were roughly 150,000 Grey wolves in 1999.[4] The wolf generation is approximately five years[5] so there should have been something like 3 × 109
|
What's with this? Sterile leek 02:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- At least tell us which section... Extreme rates is the one to check. ħuman
04:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- As badly written as that section was, why expect a commented out part to be much more than gibberish? I'd say, uncomment it and see how it flies? Actually, I'll uncomment it now. ħuman
04:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Along the way, I read it again and tried to make it make sense, and then accidentally deleted it. I wonder what the edit comment was when it was added? ħuman
04:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Along the way, I read it again and tried to make it make sense, and then accidentally deleted it. I wonder what the edit comment was when it was added? ħuman
- As badly written as that section was, why expect a commented out part to be much more than gibberish? I'd say, uncomment it and see how it flies? Actually, I'll uncomment it now. ħuman
Also, this article is a mess, and I don't think it's our fault, I think it's the subject/target's fault. Since they have no idea what they are saying (other than Goddidit), how can we find the clear explanation of this stupidity to refute it? ħuman
07:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Being Intellectually Honest
Yes, I freely admit, I made the Proconsul video I linked too, but I thought it was relevant to this discussion.--Mustex 17:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt it will last long - it's not a "reference", and also, sadly, I found it unlistenable. You need to practice pacing your speech a bit, I think. ħuman
21:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I thought this site was supposed to be informal? Also, is it not a relevant point (technically, I think saying "all anthropoids are descended from Noah" would be more accurate, but I decided to keep it simple)?--Mustex 02:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Pimping your utube work directly on articles is poor form. Let's say you made a really good one. Post link on talk page, if other people think it is as good as you do, they'll add it to the article. Or they might just say, "oh, that's cool". Adding an unlistenable (do you prooflisten these things?) "ref" isn't an issue of formality or informality, it's just making the article worse. You really need to work on your presentation. I'll cut the link to here so it's not gone, and try to listen again... ħuman
03:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Here is Mustex' youtube self-pimping: [1] for posterity. This time I listened for even less time, since the production values are so low (distorted audio fershrissake?) I was in pain within 30 seconds. ħuman
03:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, this has been duly noted, and I will remember to do that in the future. (btw, yes I did proof-listen, but I grew up with a father who's deaf in one ear, so my idea of a reasonable volume level is different from most people's. I intend to work on it in future videos. I know that doesn't change the poor form of posting it, but thought I'd let you know).--Mustex 17:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry, once you master this craft I'm sure something you point to on a talk page will end up as an external link somewhere. I'd suggest writing out your script, editing it til it's a pretty good essay, then figuring out how to pace and phrase your speaking - tough stuff more slowly, easy things a little quicker, perhaps? Not sure why the sound quality was poor - crappy microphone? Overloaded preamp perhaps? It's not that it was "too loud" (although at some stage of production it might have been, to overload something), it's just that it was distorted. ħuman
00:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, another possibility would be too much digital compression, like a 4-bit mp3 sounds. ħuman
00:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry, once you master this craft I'm sure something you point to on a talk page will end up as an external link somewhere. I'd suggest writing out your script, editing it til it's a pretty good essay, then figuring out how to pace and phrase your speaking - tough stuff more slowly, easy things a little quicker, perhaps? Not sure why the sound quality was poor - crappy microphone? Overloaded preamp perhaps? It's not that it was "too loud" (although at some stage of production it might have been, to overload something), it's just that it was distorted. ħuman
- Ok, this has been duly noted, and I will remember to do that in the future. (btw, yes I did proof-listen, but I grew up with a father who's deaf in one ear, so my idea of a reasonable volume level is different from most people's. I intend to work on it in future videos. I know that doesn't change the poor form of posting it, but thought I'd let you know).--Mustex 17:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Here is Mustex' youtube self-pimping: [1] for posterity. This time I listened for even less time, since the production values are so low (distorted audio fershrissake?) I was in pain within 30 seconds. ħuman
- Pimping your utube work directly on articles is poor form. Let's say you made a really good one. Post link on talk page, if other people think it is as good as you do, they'll add it to the article. Or they might just say, "oh, that's cool". Adding an unlistenable (do you prooflisten these things?) "ref" isn't an issue of formality or informality, it's just making the article worse. You really need to work on your presentation. I'll cut the link to here so it's not gone, and try to listen again... ħuman
- I thought this site was supposed to be informal? Also, is it not a relevant point (technically, I think saying "all anthropoids are descended from Noah" would be more accurate, but I decided to keep it simple)?--Mustex 02:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
AIG
I'd like to stick this in the article ...
"...you can see how a trip to the zoo can be used to glorify God and teach others about Him. Don’t miss this special opportunity the next time you visit the zoo!"
“”More Amazing Designs
The elephant’s trunk has over 40,000 muscles, while the entire human has only a few hundred muscles. The same trunk can pick up tiny peanuts or hurl a full-grown lion against a tree to break its back. The giraffe’s heart is the largest of any land animal because it must pump blood all the way to its head. Its neck also has special muscles in its blood vessels that slow down the rush of blood when it lowers its head. Without this design, the sudden jump in blood pressure would kill the giraffe. The snapping turtle’s tongue is specially designed with a lure, so that the turtle can remain still underwater and wiggle the worm-like lure until a curious fish swims up. The polar bear’s fur is made of clear hollow tubes, for trapping the sun’s heat. Its skin is actually black, which helps absorb heat from the sun. The cheetah’s claws are the only partially retractable claws among cats. This design gives it extra traction for speed. It also has an enlarged heart and lungs, which fill its blood with extra oxygen for bursts of speed. |
| —Fair use? |
What do you think, folk? 22:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
ContribsTalk
- Isn't that more appropriate for an evolution vs. intelligent design type article? Anyway the turtle's adaption and cheetah's three adaptions are easily explained by stepwise refinement. The others are slightly harder. CS Miller (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- The whole article's basically about "kinds" - the above's an excerpt. 22:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
ContribsTalk
- Yup, the article does seem to mix baraminology and intelligent design. On a related note, hasn't Sheila Richardson noticed that foxes and dogs look like each other, and cats are somewhat like them, and other carnivoria a bit like them, etc... CS Miller (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- The whole article's basically about "kinds" - the above's an excerpt. 22:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
(unident) So sue me, I assumed that Wikipedia has article on everything. CS Miller (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Cite error:
<ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found