Talk:Baraminology/Archive1

Import?
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)
 * If you need a goat for that, let me know.DocSock 10:32, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
 * No reference to Caucasians, Negros, and Mongoloids, like the original article had until someone pointed out just how racist it was? Stile4aly 15:06, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

pseudoscience
In order to be a psuedoscience, shouldn't you establish that somebody is claiming that it is science? 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 &mdash; 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?- 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?- 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. 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.  Rational Ed think! 15:11, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
 * What was the thought experiment, by the way?  ħ uman  19:03, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

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?  ħ uman  18:34, 17 February 2009 (EST)

The hidden text
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. 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. The wolf generation is approximately five years so there should have been something like 3 × 109

What's with this? Sterile 02:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At least tell us which section... Extreme rates is the one to check. 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.  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?  04:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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? 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.  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...  03:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is Mustex' youtube self-pimping: 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.  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.  00:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, another possibility would be too much digital compression, like a 4-bit mp3 sounds. 00:31, 29 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. What do you think, folk? 22:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Dead link! 23:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So sue me, I assumed that Wikipedia has article on everything. CS Miller (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is she? 23:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Err. the author of the article you linked to. CS Miller (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * D'oh. Oops. Ain't I the eejit? 23:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Silver?
yuh think? - David Gerard (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I do...Acei9 22:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thirded! 22:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I bang my head against Wikipedia
wp:Baraminology is marked "NPOV dispute." The dispute? Baraminology is part of Intelligent Design, which is a renaming of Creation Science, which is pseudoscience; but someone dared call baraminology a pseudoscience without a reference directly saying just that. AAAAIEEEE. Anyone got one? - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Gap between this and gold
What's missing for this being a cover story? Anything else?- David Gerard (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could do with a summary of recent work in baraminological science. Lulz aplenty.
 * I would like to see a discussion on statistical baraminology actually, as it is the latest "research". 11:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cover story nomination (please do not archive)
Actually, I think this is gold material as is. The additional material listed above would be nice, but is not IMO a barrier to cover featuring it. Is there anything that fails the criteria for a gold brain? - David Gerard (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A tentative yes, but let me give it a scrub first. 17:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While I think the whole section on defining a baramin is good and extensive, I'm thinking that perhaps the rest of it needs more - for instance, WP has a "theological criticism" section that I think could be worth transferring over here. Yes, I know it's a not rationalist refutation of it, but it's good to point out how even religious apologists think the idea is a bit crackpot. 17:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "history" section is a bit thin, and its second sentence doesn't flow very well. I also had to capitalize Biblical and Earth in the lead, so I suspect it still needs more work.  Does anyone have an idea for images that could be used here?  Noah's Ark?  18:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Added the image from wp:Baraminology, the pathetic and scraggly creationist twigs of life - David Gerard (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I also added two fact tags for some creationist claims just avoid any straw-man stuff. Still, I think it's a very good candidate and the work for it probably isn't as much as Human may be thinking. 18:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, by "work" I mostly meant careful proofreading and polishing. Thanks for the picture, glad you found one!  Can we reword the second sentence in history section?  01:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Trouble is that there's not a lot of past rationalist refutations I could find - no-one's done a particularly vicious skewering of baraminology in particular. (Hence the trouble finding something reputably branding it as pseudoscience to Wikipedia standards.) - David Gerard (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The 2000/8000 was added by Icewedge. Apparently a source exists in apologetics. Anyone want to risk their intelligence on Answers Research Journal? - David Gerard (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The literature! The literature!
I just risked my brain on ARJ. Latest research suggests magical chromosome dances over hundreds of years rather than millions, and God steered it personally. So that must explain it, then. OH GOD I'D NEED TO READ MORE OF THIS TRIPE - David Gerard (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully there aren't actually very many publishing baraminologists. Further written equivalents of solvent abuse:
 * Wood, T. C. 2006. The current status of baraminology. Creation Research Society Quarterly 43(3):149–158. Retrieved December 19, 2007, from http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/2006v43n3p149.pdf - this could be great for this article, actually. If you can cope with the crappy PDF layout.
 * Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship? by Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070
 * A Refined Baramin Concept, Occas. Papers of the BSG No. 3, pp. 1-14
 * http://www.creationbiology.org/ in general

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My recommendation for ARJ: a little at a time. It's like radiation.  A little's OK, but a lot will fry you.  Sterile 21:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And Todd Wood's blog might have something, too. Sterile 21:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Nice to see they've acknowledged the bloody obvious ancestors of humans as being in the human baramin, though. (But then, this has been a consistent creationist position.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Todd Wodd is a bizarre case who admits that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and then says he's a creationist anyway. (my ASK article on this.)  Really bizzare.... Another source is this article in the Reports of the National Center for Science Education.  Sterile 22:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest you make your stuff from that article (and any other missiony articles you've written for ASK) into RW articles as well - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm short on time at the moment, but I'll see what I can do. Sterile 23:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Theological criticism
The WP religious criticism section appears to be just Christians saying YEC isn't theologically necessary; Human, is there anything you were thinking of that addressed baraminology more specifically? - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, I refuse to touch the stuff. I only can mild skin burns by the time things have been RWified, the original material is like kryptonite to me.  01:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please re-review
I've given it a top-to-bottom beating and tried to make it a quality "we destroy valuable braincells huffing this creationist glue so you don't have to." I think it's in excellent condition, but then, I've reduced my IQ to 85 through pseudoscientific solvent abuse. What does it need now? - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Get it down to 65 and we'll talk gold. 23:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * DUUUUUDE! FREEEEE BIIIIIIIIRD!! \m/ \m/ - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The thumbnail image borks for me. 02:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems ok on last load. 02:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

PS, for the summary thing when we approve this, can we use that cartoony Ark drawing that tops the creationism navbox? It's pretty. 02:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure beats the creationist Pathetic Bare Twigs Of Life - David Gerard (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean atop global flood. Speaking of which, should we use that instead of creationnav? - David Gerard (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's one of those grey areas as baraminology is creationism and global flood; but out of respect of the facts that A) the Global Flood category is smaller and B) baraminology developed as a response to Noah's ark and wasn't just dreamt up by ID advocates, I'd agree with the Global Flood template. 09:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've asked David Greig, a fellow BOFH who just happens to be the moderator of talk.origins and hence an expert to Citizendian standards, to review this article. (Let's see if it lures him to RW, though his current hobby probably destroys enough braincells through creationism huffing) - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Great idea. What's a BOFH?  02:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So who would be the PFY? Assuming my interpretation of BOFH is right. 12:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * At present I'm the PFY at my work! Despite having the title "Senior System Administrator". Oh well - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

nag nag nag
Any objections to cover status now? - David Gerard (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please keep all cover story discussion under the cover story header, thank you. I'll go read it again...  18:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Note that these mimic the concepts of monophyly, paraphyly and polyphyly as used in cladistics". These three words refer to four terms above this sentence.  Must be linked to one or more brief descriptive articles.  02:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Link to Cladistics perhaps? 02:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Baramins and DNA section - I guess creatinists wouldn't think chimps and humans are in the same baramin (we have our own special one), but I'd rather see humans compared, say, with a banana (allowing the awesome Ray Comfort link). I think this article still needs more outlinks to supporting articles (which may exist already).  Also those two (three?) guys in the history section should have brief linked articles.  02:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"Is there a Biblical concept of "kind"?" section. Seems to use a lot of words to say very little? Perhaps reduce and combine with etymology section? 04:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Quit nagging. This article still requires a lot of work.  Hell, I'm still extricating direct statements from weird, oh, what's the word, oh yeah, passive voice-ish things.  And fixing misspellings. Also, the structure doesn't seem very logical, but that might be because I am buried in copyediting rather than skimming the overall product.  04:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Misspellings? e.g.? Thought I'd gotten them all. Structure works for me - David Gerard (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I will note that despite your churlishness, this article is already way better than several existing cover articles. You could of course suggest that we just demote all those for consistency, but I suggest that getting the cover article promotion process going again is more likely to produce something worth having and a drive for quality that offers the reward of the article actually being featured. Y'know, some sort of incentive to bother that harnesses the way that people observably work in collaborative environments - David Gerard (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the "Biblical concept of a 'kind'" section because it firmly establishes that the basis of baraminology is bollocks even on its own terms - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: the Baraminological concepts table, we need to get rid of those WP links, at least moving them to footnotes, ideally making them go to RW articles that explain them well. Does cladistics cover it well?  Do we have clade yet?  Clade diagram?  00:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I left them as WP links because I figured we weren't here to duplicate WP and there's nothing RW could reasonably add to what WP says. We could write a lite article on the subject, but I don't see much point when WP does fine. I think they're fine, but you could move them to footnotes if you prefer - David Gerard (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At least move them to footnotes. We have a bit of a dislike for direct word links to WP, since we might have articles on the topic.  One thing we do, is write basic "science" articles to show we know what we are talking about. Otherwise, it's too easy to just turn into a WP linkfarm.  02:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just skimmed our cladistics article. I'm not sure what it offers over WP - David Gerard (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See above, mostly. I doubt our evolution article really has more than WP either, but we must have one.  02:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, and the point is to keep the site "sticky", rather than sending readers away to another site, if possible. So, yeah, "lite" articles, even if based on the WP ones, would be preferable IMHO.  Especially as link in a cover story, which this will, of course, soon be.  02:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Although my reasoning is that cover stories should have "support" articles. E.g., we have water memory as something separate to Homeopathy. So yeah, even if we do duplicate some stuff that WP covers more thoroughly (we can always copy it via the CC license anyway!) we should have them. 21:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Last call for shrubberies
RIGHT. Cladistics is now almost readable by mere humans and defines the terms nicked by baraminology.

Are there any other answerable objections? Considering this article is more comprehensive and better-written than many, if not the majority, of existing cover articles - David Gerard (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No objections to covering this. But I think the "Which baramin is it in?" section reads a little strangely and I can't quite grasp what is going on there. "Unfortunately, negative evidence cannot confirm discontinuities, merely show that the common ancestor is not immediate." makes little sense and I'd like to expand that sentence that says that some baraminologists say it supports evolution, specifically what does the source say and why it's important. 10:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That section is a combination of how-to and detailing the gross subjectivity of the process. The problem is mostly in Todd Wood's head - he's responsible for huge chunks of baraminology, he's seen the evidence, he thinks evolution is a successful scientific theory, he attends mainstream conferences on evolution, but he feels he must assume it false because his faith says to. I'm now looking up other stuff, e.g., to make the howto clearer - David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm reading that paper and going "what? what?" You may have more luck. I think if we're looking for something that isn't bollocks in it, we'll be looking a rather long time - David Gerard (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Here comes the science bit. Concentrate.
So, firstly. Damn you for linking to the BSG. Now I read some of their pages, and lost a few more precious brain cells. However, one particular part of this paper rather caught my eye. On page 10:

The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans.

Or to paraphrase, "We don't need no stinking data. We make this shit up, and we're proud of it." The science of baraminology basically boils down to "yep, that's a cow all right." -- 22:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's brilliant and perfect - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just added it to Wikipedia - cquote and all. Let's see how long it lasts - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That paper actually gets worse. It's like a Conservapedia parodist coming out. "Herein we define and apply the 'I knows it when I sees it' method of scientific classification." - David Gerard (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that Jesus does not want us relying on evidence. Jesus wants to bring us to the point described in John 10, "the sheep hear his voice.... The sheep follow him because they recognize his voice. ... I am the good shepherd. I know My own sheep, and they know Me" (verses 3, 4, 14). He does not want us to rely on the evidences that He graciously supplies but instead He wants us to have confidence in His voice alone. And from his reaction to the Pharisees and Sadducees, it would appear that any scoffer's demand for evidence will be rebuffed. If they will not believe Moses and the prophets (i.e. the Word of God), no amount of miracles will convince them. As a point of application, I think modern creationists would be much better served if we stopped coddling their every doubt and fear with new "evidence for creation" and instead helped to wean them off evidence altogether. A truly close Christian walk with Jesus should render evidence irrelevant. This is where we really want to be, not buffeted about by the wind and waves but confidently walking through the storm with our eyes fixed unwaveringly on Christ.
 * Yep, screw evidence. Sterile 03:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that is fucking scary. But he does have a (sort of) point. It's always quite sad for people to go on about "faith" and then have to try and dig up evidence for it. 07:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What about incest?
Hey, I'm not a creationist nutjob or anything, but something I've always wondered about the whole "all creatures evolved from one common ancestor" thing was... "what about all that incest?" I guess it's the same question I have about the Adam and Eve story. This "baramin" idea almost seems tempting, except it doesn't really answer the question anyways. But regardless, this article got me thinking about it again. Would somebody with a biology background please explain to me why when brothers and sisters have children today their kids get all the bad recessive genes and are born retarded, but when our common ancestors (or "Adam and Eve" for that matter) did it, there was no problem? Does it have something to do with retarded recessive genes not having been mutated into existance yet? Thank you. =) Künstlerin (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the claim that incest always produces bad genes is not true. If bad recessive genes are present (which is normally the case, but not necessarily always), then in-breeding will increase the likelihood of them becoming expressed. But, if one starts from a population which lacks bad recessive genes, then no amount of incest will produce genetic defects; and, even considering a population which has such genes, a single incidence of incest does not guarantee a negative outcome, only increase its likelihood - although, if incest becomes a multi-generational practice, then the expression of such genes if present becomes increasingly likely with every successive generation. 08:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a little more complicated than merely "one common ancestor therefore incest must have happened". There's a bit of a paradox about it which basically shows that our usual linear thinking about evolution and development is a bit too simple. Consider this: You have children, say, 2. They have two children each, so you have 4 grand children. Continue the cycle and you have 8 great-grandchildren, 16 great-great-grandchildren, 32, 64 128 and so on. Obviously this leads to the conclusion that all the population alive today must be, somehow, descended from one individual. But also consider this: You have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16, 32, 64 and so on. The conclusion is that you're descended from many individuals. The reason we can track down to a common individual ancestor is because some lineages eventually die off, like branches being pruned. But we're also constantly cross-breeding these branches making them into a more complex web, or perhaps ladder, of life rather than a tree with only common ancestors that branch out. At no point does incest need to occur. ADK ...I'll snap your eel! 11:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * that's really interesting, ADK. i'm wondering though, i COULD have 2 parents, 4 gparents, 8 ggparents, etc.; OR I could have 2 parents, 2 gparents, 2ggparents, 2gggparents, etc.; or I could even just have three if one generation mated with its own offspring. I guess I need to know how many lifes started at the beginning to mate in the first place (or just asexually reproduce when that was the case). Consider this: I do have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, and so on, but at some point up that line there must be some incest, otherwise we will have an infinate number of ancestors in generation one. ....or is that what happened? Did we evolve from an infinate number of first generation creatures? If so, and if we can probably evolve to an infinate number of offspring, then maybe our offspring will eventually be our ancestors! Or what? Does that sound totally retarded? Künstlerin (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the point. In the idealised model you expect it to go on forever in both directions, leading to a contradiction where everyone has a common ancestor and many ancestors - so the idealised model must be somehow wrong. But it only means that your population was large enough so that you have some cross over, and so family "trees" are kind of like family "ladders". This is not the same as incest and it doesn't mean that at one point in the past incest had to occur. For a current-ish affairs example, it can be shown that Prince William and Kate Middleton are related and are, link, 18th cousins or something like that, but that is not incest. ADK ...I'll shake your teabag! 12:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * hmmmm.... i'm going to be pondering that for a while now. Künstlerin (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Two reasons against the thesis
Which Habsburg Charles of Spain had more genetic overlap than if his parents were siblings (and suffered the consequences?

I read somewhere that English elms were the product of a single elm brought in by the Romans - and thus all were affected by Dutch Elm Disease (simplifying the argument).

The 'simplest argument' Goddidit and arranged for the species on board to have 'multiple strands of DNA' which were then parcelled out among the offspring (born in large quantities) in the present quantities sufficiently for genetic variation to occur.

Alternatively Noah had advanced technology and stored a wide range of fertilised eggs of different species which were then artificially grown; the full grown offspring were then taught Konrad Lorenz-wise to fend for themselves and ferried by little green men/Grey aliens on black helicopters round the world to appropriate locations. (Are there any SF stories which use this plot device?) 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Charles II. Peter mqzp 20:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I also recall reading something about the Egyptian Pharoahs and their version of inbreeding (with an input from secondary wives).

Most people 'not of the bar(a)minology persuasion' can accept that 'there were large floods in the past which led people then to believe the entire world was flooded'/'the flood in my grandparents' day must be the same as the one your grandparents told you about' (several small floods are conflated) and 'some species passed through genetic bottlenecks' 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Baraminology used by a -real- scientist
There's an article in the journal Science by a biologist called Phil Senter which describes how he took barminology as used by creationists and applied it to the numerous dinosaur species found. Turns out there's only 8 'kinds' of dinosaurs and at first glance seems the whole creationist arugment is getting a big boost.

You read it a bit more and it seems the rate of evolution required for those 8 'kinds' to have turned into the multitude of species seen today is a little less than realisitic.

The BBC blog 'Wonder Monkey' has a piece on it here.
 * It's in the article already, the idea of using baraminology techniques to disprove itself is slightly older than the BBC article seems to imply. ADK ...I'll waste your lowbrow! 10:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PZ also blogged on this the other day. Jaxe (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And in Swedish ...
I just found out that "bara min" in Swedish means "just mine" (or something like that). Therefore, "bara-min-ology" is creationists pushing their own ideas :-D source - David Gerard (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew and etymology
Just a note from a Hebrew-speaking linguist: "baramin" as verb+object isn't as silly as the article makes it out to be. "min baru" would indeed mean "[a] created kind/species", but although Ancient Hebrew has the subject following the verb (perfectly irrelevant if the subject isn't there) it also has the object following the verb (and the subject, if present) (e.g. "bereshit bara elohim [et ha-shamayim ve-et ha-aretz]", 'in the beginning god created [the sky and the earth]' - the object is the last part of speech). As such, "bara min", 'created a kind', might plausibly be something you might say in Ancient Hebrew (as well as Modern Hebrew) as a reply to the question "ma 'asa elohim?", 'what did god do?' - the order of parts of speech is not an issue. "Baramin" may not be the best name, but attacking it because the subject follows the verb (as though this implies that *only* the subject can follow the verb) is a tad weak. -Msappir (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's only being attacked on those grounds because it's funny. Scarlet A.pngpostate 21:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to hack the para in question to pieces - David Gerard (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Finally put this into the article, in a lumpy and disjointed manner. Needs work - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Microbes
Could somebody tell me where the creationists think microbes fit into baramins? I think I read online somewhere that they think that all bacteria fit into a single baramin (and presumably that would include archaebacteria), but what do they think about, say, the amoeba? I would go and ask AiG myself, but I'm afraid that if they get too used to logic coming from my e-mail address, they'll just put me in their spam folder or something. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * They don't creep or breathe, therefore they were preserved otherwise. (Presumably aerobic bacteria re-evolved quickly.) - David Gerard (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Kind begets kind (and other stuff they made up)
It seems to me that the essential idea underpinning this article is the claim that "kind begets kind". i.e. it is impossible for a creature to be an ancestor of a creature not of the same kind. While it is implicit in what is being said, nowhere in the article does it mention the 'claimed' primary motivation for this (which is not the Noah's ark stuff), but what YECs claim to be written in Genesis. AiG for example says: “According to the Genesis record of Creation, God created various kinds of things to reproduce their own kind. (my emphasis).(http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/kinds-natures-evolutionists). However, Genesis says nothing of the sort. It talks about animals being created "according to their kind" (NIV) or "after their kind" (KJV). When it comes to reproduction, the animals are simply told to “Be fruitful and increase in number…”(NIV G1:28); clearly this is just an invitation to spread all over the earth – it neither suggests that their offspring should be the same as them, nor denies the possibility that they would not. This means that the AiG account - and all others which suggest that Genesis actually claims that one "kind" cannot reproduce to give another "kind" are actually telling porkies. Without this biblical justification for their position, the only support that YECs can possibly muster can only be observational or scientific. [e.g. the "cats only give birth to cats" and "cows never give birth to sheep" stuff]. And note - this claim of "kind begets kind" is prohibitive and predictive. It completely rules out the possibility, no matter how remote that kind might lead to something else. To claim this they not only require observational evidence, but a bloody good explanation in terms of DNA why a deviation from kind could never happen, even as the remotest possibility of animals continuing to reproduce into the far future. [Now I come to write this, it really does seem to be an extraordinarily bold and extravagant claim they are making - perhaps someone should tell them!]

In terms of the interpretation of Genesis 1, I have found an an interesting analysis of the min = kinds issue by Richard Hess, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Denver Seminary http://biologos.org/blog/the-meaning-of-min-part-1 and http://biologos.org/blog/the-meaning-of-min-part-2. He argues that in the OT, mîn does not appear by itself, but forms part of the same prepositional phrase, normally translated in Genesis as created “according to their kinds,” where the phrase modifies the verb. However, he points out that this approach does not enable a meaningful understanding of the phrase in the floood story in Genesis 7:14 where the ark contained “wild animals according to their kind.” To make this meaningful, the phrase should read “every kind of wild animal”. Since the same construction is used in Genesis, these should read:
 * In Genesis 1:12 plants bearing seed and the trees bearing fruit are created in all their kinds;
 * and later on in Genesis 1:21, 24, and 25, God creates the sea creatures, the birds, the wild land animals, the domestic animals, and those animals that move along the ground in all their kinds. He creates all kinds of such animals.

--CatWatcher (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That last sounds fantastically useful as a reference, do feel free to fold it in, that section could do with polishing anyway - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence
This is an argument to insert a section into the article to expose it as an 'extraordinary claim', and attempt to examine the sort of evidence that might just be required in order to establish what could possibly support such a claim, and whether or not the evidence supplied by creationists goes any way at all to establishing the validity of the claim.

"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." — Marcello Truzzi, On the Extraordinary: An Attempt at Clarification, Zetetic Scholar, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 11, 1978

After writing the note above on "kind begets kind", it occurred to me that everyone - those supporting the idea of Baraminology, and those opposing it, have missed the really HUGE central claim here. The article, as do many others on Baraminology documents what baraminology is, and presents some critiques on why it is wrong. However, the point about Baraminology is not that it is a confused taxonomic mess, nor that it was invented simply to counter objections to the flood story, (or even as an anti-Darwinian challenge) but that in creating this monster, creationists have argued themselves into making an breathtakingly extraordinary claim. The central claim of Baraminology is not the (potentially unremarkable and even reasonable) claim that animals breed within specifically designed limits called "kinds", but that no pair of animals from a particular kind can ever give rise to offspring, or offspring of those offspring, which would not be identifiable as the same "kind", however many generations they breed for, and however far that lineage extends.

This is an extraordinary claim, because it involves a certainty; it denies that something is possible, such as Einstein claiming that nothing can exceed the speed of light, or that in closed systems entropy cannot must always increase and therefore can NEVER be observed to decrease. Such claims in science are very few and far between, and where they exist, form the cornerstone of science. If true, this central principle of baraminology, would succeed in overturning everything we know in a huge number of different disciplines. It would therefore, without doubt be fundamentally paradigm-shifting.

In order to make such a claim in science one must surely require 'Extraordinary Evidence' of the three types: (i) evidence as to why such a claim might be considered true in the first place - just to establish that it is reasonable, and that it just 'might' be true(ii) a mechanism which not only explains the claim, but provides some sort of theory as to why such a claim might be valid, and in particular why the claim involves a 'certainty' not just a 'high likelihood, and (iii) It should involve the 'working out of consequences' of the claim so as to (a)Ensure that its consequences are compatible with what we already know & observe, and (b) follow through these consequences to make predictions on 'never before observed' phenomena which can then be tested. [To imagine what we might need to satisfy (iiib), they would have to propose a DNA mechanism in which (1)Every 'kind' can be uniquely identified from every other kind by examining specific markers within the genome, and (2) having identified what those markers are, unambiguously demonstrate that no 'microevolutionary' process could ever transform one 'kind's set of markers into another 'kind' - whether that be through base-pair mutation, copying errors, viral insertions... by any process whatsoever]

I have not seen or read anything in creationist literature which goes beyond (i) and attempts to meet either the second or third criterion. All their evidence consists of naive observations and put-downs, like "cows always give birth to cows", however they are not claiming that the principle is correct most of the time, for which the cow-cow argument might generously be viewed as evidence, they are claiming that the principle works ALL the time, so no matter how many cow-cows they observe, that can never be sufficient proof that the opposite can never occur. We know that the issue is they can't do this, and there is no substantive theory underpinning it, but the point is that they don't seem to know that they need to do it, and I don't think anyone has pointed it out to them that they are making such a bold and almost unheard of claim. If you read the previous section above, the assertion that "it's in the bible", which they could possibly invoke (in ntheir terms) as a get out of jail free card, is a downright lie. It is not a matter of interpretation, or anything else; Genesis says no such thing, even though on almost every website purveying this nonsense, they claim that it does. The article here, should be pointing out vociferously the extraordinary boldness of this assertion, and pointing out that nowhere is there extraordinary evidence for the claim to match its audaciousness. (NB As an iside, I eonder whether evolutionists mought simply to backfoot them on this by accepting the principle, and saying "OK we agree you - but we think there is only one "kind" - LIFE. Our evidence for this is DNA & its mutations."

--CatWatcher (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Creative misinterpretation
The first four letters 'Bara' are the same as Barak. The word 'Obama' can be unscrambled from the name.

What can be deduced from this (apart from this article being featured on the main page and 'a certain topic likely to dominate the news-sources for some time to come')? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Apophenia is a hell of a thing. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Apophenia is not the same as creative misinterpretation the former sees 'sense' in what is found, the latter sees 'this is nonsense, how can it be scrambled further' - whether for amusment or to pretzel the topic out of existence. (Nothing against the sproglet, just the amount of 'news media' it will occupy) 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems tenuous. Has it yet been spotted in the wild? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Wider?
"It seeks to redefine the meaning of the word "kind" as used in Genesis to mean a much wider group" Wider than what? I am not sure that the word "kind" as used in Genesis 1 makes reference to any group, but even if it does, what sort of group does it refer to? Any taxonomic sense (such as "species") would be anachronistic, wouldn't it? But in any case, use of the comparative "wider" demands something to which it is being compared. TomS TDotO (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

False derivation
A mis-spelling of barmy-nology. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Fun:Barmyology - David Gerard (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This page needs...
A small screencap from Jaws with the caption, "We're going to need a bigger boat" ROPChain (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)