Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8942 total)
27 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, Lammy, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Theodoric, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (8 members, 19 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,767 Year: 18,803/19,786 Month: 1,223/1,705 Week: 29/446 Day: 29/64 Hour: 7/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definition of Species
Coyote
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 42 of 450 (540157)
12-22-2009 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Blue Jay
12-22-2009 12:28 PM


Baraminology
“Baraminology” is actually just a new name for the oldest system of classification that exists. The concept is essentially identical to the concept used by Linnaeus: it groups things according to patterns in morphology, then groups those groups according to coarser patterns.

The only difference is that baraminology asserts that there will eventually be found a point beyond which groups cannot be combined together into larger groups, and the primary thrust of baraminology is to identify these points of distinction.


Actually baraminology seeks to justify the biblical concept of kinds, and to make it sound scientific at the same time.

It is not a field of research because no conclusions can be arrived at other than those specified in scripture. It is pure religious apologetics.

An example: From "Baraminology–Classification of Created Organisms," by Wayne Frair, which appeared in the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 82-91 (2000), and which appears on the christiananswers.net website.

quote:
Guidelines

In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:

1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible. Also, ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information. ...



Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Blue Jay, posted 12-22-2009 12:28 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by herebedragons, posted 12-22-2009 3:20 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 47 by Blue Jay, posted 12-22-2009 5:29 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 45 of 450 (540184)
12-22-2009 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by herebedragons
12-22-2009 3:20 PM


Re: Baraminology
Creationists are constantly being asked to define what a "kind" is. I personally am not sure it is really necessary or practical or maybe even possible, but if a group of creationists are attempting to come up with a definition, maybe their work should be based on the data, not on the fact they are trying to define "kind".

If creationists are trying to define "kind" they first need to determine whether they are trying to arrive at a scientific definition or one that must agree with scripture above all.

If it is the latter case, then they are doing religious apologetics, not science.

They can only claim to be doing science if they follow the scientific method and accept the results, whether or not those results agree with scripture.

The method determines which of these two fields of endeavor is being practiced.

When one is required to conform to scripture one is doing religious apologetics--the exact opposite of science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by herebedragons, posted 12-22-2009 3:20 PM herebedragons has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 53 of 450 (540324)
12-23-2009 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Blue Jay
12-23-2009 7:57 PM


Re: Off-handed dismissal
In replying to HBD, above, Bluejay writes:

quote:
This makes me a bit curious: what makes the dismissal of baraminology by mainstream science seem off-handed to you?

Well, there are a couple of reasons science might dismiss baraminology. You mentioned one in your post. But here's another, from my post #42, above:

Frair, a baraminologist, provides us with a series of taxonomic guidelines for polybaramins, apobaramins, monobaramins and holobaramins. And what is the most important guideline?

quote:
1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2).

This "guideline" shows clearly that this whole baraminology business is religion! It is designed to sound like science, presumably in hopes of fooling the unwary, and it is designed to provide a scientific-sounding bunch of names and a scientific guise for the biblical "kinds" -- but it is not designed to advance scientific knowledge. In fact, baraminology, creation "science," and creationism are all inherently anti-science.

So perhaps that has something to do with the "off-handed dismissal" of this entire endeavor by science.

Edited by Coyote, : Grammar


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Blue Jay, posted 12-23-2009 7:57 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 76 of 450 (544010)
01-22-2010 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by RAZD
01-22-2010 7:56 PM


Re: Speciation discussion, mutations, possibilities and opportunity
How many times do you need to throw 10 dice to get all 6's? The probability of it occurring increases with the number of throws. ...

Indeed. As I recall, the mutation at the 400th generation made use of a previous neutral mutation...


The analogy I prefer is throwing 10 dice and keeping those with sixes, while rolling only those that are not sixes. You will have sixes on all ten dice in minutes.

Your comment about a "previous neutral mutation" suggests that this is indeed closer to the way evolution works than having to roll all ten each time.

Most creationist calculations claiming that evolution is impossible because of the long odds use the "roll them all each time" method, and are clearly erroneous.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2010 7:56 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2010 8:36 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 84 of 450 (569722)
07-23-2010 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by barbara
07-23-2010 1:11 PM


Re: Speciation discussion, expectations and reality
There is no doubt that human influence caused all of the large mammals that once existed to become extinct or mutate to look like modern species of today.

Sorry, this is not correct. The causes of, for example, the megafaunal extinctions in North America are still hotly debated.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by barbara, posted 07-23-2010 1:11 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 96 of 450 (570223)
07-26-2010 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Big_Al35
07-26-2010 10:36 AM


Re: Complexity of an organism
Can anyone tell me what a fish-like creature is?

Why bother?

You have shown you have no interest in learning anything.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Big_Al35, posted 07-26-2010 10:36 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 433 of 450 (626084)
07-27-2011 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 432 by Robert Byers
07-27-2011 1:31 AM


Hyperspeciation?
I say bears, dogs, seals etc are from the same pair off the ark.

So these critters all evolved from a common ancestor in less than 4,350 years?

Or actually in less than 2,000, as we have decent records starting by then.

Creationists generally deny evolution occurs at all, now you are proposing evolution thousands of times faster than any scientist has ever done.

Do you see the inconsistency in this?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Robert Byers, posted 07-27-2011 1:31 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by Robert Byers, posted 07-27-2011 1:55 AM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 435 of 450 (626117)
07-27-2011 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 434 by Robert Byers
07-27-2011 1:55 AM


Re: Hyperspeciation?
This creationist sees rapid diversity as a option within biblical boundaries.
I don't see years being needed but rather triggers in the bodies allowing the kids to be quite different from the parents.
I see all post flood diversity, a great deal, as done within a few centuries at most.
people changed just as quick.

And you have some real-world evidence for these claims I presume?

What you are claiming is that species were static for thousands of years but suddenly underwent massive evolution for a short period, then became static again.

Surely you must have evidence for this hyperspeciation? Something in the fossil record maybe? In the genomes? And surely you can point to dating evidence to support this claim?

If not, remember that scientists can point to real-world evidence for their view of speciation and the change of species through time.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Robert Byers, posted 07-27-2011 1:55 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019