To this end, I need creationists to give us a model to work with.
I have wanted to do a thread on this and a related article for a while now but haven't had the time. So I'll throw this out there for you to play with.
Here is AIG's "model" for
Determining the Ark Kinds
A couple of fun facts and definitions
Cognitum
quote:
A cognitum is a group of organisms that are naturally grouped together through human cognitive senses.
quote:
One reason the cognitum is the preferred method after hybridization is that Adam would have recognized created kinds by sight. Presumably the same would have been true in Noah’s time.
Statistical baraminology
quote:
takes a collection of characteristics (character traits) and using several statistical tests attempts to discern significant holistic continuity (similarity) or discontinuity between species (Wood et al. 2003). Like the cognitum, it assumes that baramins retain their distinctiveness today. However, in contrast to the cognitum, it assumes that the baramin is the level where statistical tests will consistently point when a set of character traits are analyzed.
quote:
These methods have not been without their critics. The strongest reactions seem to be when the conclusions are at odds with how other creationists feel creatures naturally group.
Approach to Determining Ark Kinds
quote:
Due to the high value placed on such hybrid data, our research will include a literature search to identify documented hybrids. Emphasis will be placed on hybrids across higher taxonomic levels (for example, between genera, like the coyote, Canis latrans, and the red fox, Vulpes vulpes) since they are more informative than crosses within a genus.
quote:
Unfortunately, hybrid data is lacking for many creatures. In these cases, a cognitum approach will be used. More specifically, using the context of where taxonomists place the creatures, morphology will be examined to find where they most naturally group together. In addition to drawing on personal experience and training, published works describing and illustrating various taxa will be used. A valuable resource for this will be the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology’s Animal Diversity Web website (ADW 2008), which contains numerous photographs covering many animal species.
quote:
Sequence data is considered hard, objective data. The cognitum seems so subjective. Certainly, it would seem that it is more scientific to use hard data than the subjective cognitum. Besides, these other methods use such interesting mathematical analyses that they must be better, right? In reality, the really good math masks the fact that conclusions based on these other data have a highly subjective component.
How could you go wrong with this methodology?
quote:
Just as building the Ark was a monumental task, so our task to determine the Ark kinds is monumental as well ... When we are done, we will not have all the answers regarding created kinds ...
No kidding!
HBD
Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
™ Version 4.2
