Seems to offer a fair and reasonable position?
The trouble is that baraminology is not scientific. The question of whether something is a âkindâ or not is arbitrary and depends on human value judgments, not science. If I say something is a kind and you say, âNo, dummy, thatâs two kinds, not oneâ⊠there is no way to judge which of us is right.
On this note, you might be interested in parts of this thread from just a couple of months ago. Definition of evolution and the distinction between micro/macro - #158 by AMWolfe
1 Like
Iâm actually pretty surprised there is so much discussion about âkindsâ when this page seems to include a rather decisive and persuasive definition for âBiblical Kindâ:
âDue to an improved understanding of speciation, it is now widely recognized by creationists that the process has been a regular part of the development of the created kinds. In contrast to the earlier views, today most creation scientists see the reverse comparison to Morris; equating the âfamilyâ level as most often identical to the kinds of the Bible, sometimes the âgenus,â and only possibly once in a while with the âspeciesâ.â
âIn 1941, creation biologist Frank L. Marsh proposed that the Biblical created kind could be defined in terms of reproduction. He argued that two creatures which can successfully mate must have descended from the same kind. This idea has been adopted to support the practice of baraminology, the attempt to identify the created kinds.â
âThe few creationists who work in baraminology have attempted to derive a consistent set of rules for establishing when this criteria is met. Microbiologist and creationist Siegfried Scherer refined the criteria to state that if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same âbasic typeâ. Thus all members of a ring species would be members of the same kind.â
The two paragraphs in BOLD are, frankly, perfectly adequate to our purposes as well as the purposes of most Evolutionists. Any definition that coherently deals with Ring Species is a step ahead of most anything we usually see.
Genesis 1:24-25 is the classic statement of âkindâ, even under 2 different contexts: 24 states that the âEarthâ will bring forth the kinds, with verse 25 forming a couplet, acknowledging that just because Earth and natural laws create something doesnât mean God isnât ultimately the creator!
¶
Genesis 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Genesis 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
It starts with a conclusion and then searches for evidence and methodology that end at the preferred conclusion. Thatâs not reasonable at all.
The only criteria they seem to put forward for defining kinds is the ability to interbreed, but even then they hedge heavily on that one criteria. They donât have any objective criteria for determining if two species are in the same kind or not. It still appears to be entirely arbitrary.
3 Likes
As soon as a YEC starts talking about âcategoriesâ of life forms ⊠I know they donât have a clue.
But the reproductive test for species is exactly how Ernst Mayr posed the question. Itâs as good as anything getsâŠ
Yes, Mr. T, I understand that this flies in the face of convention where species were defined by âappearanceâ or âphenotypeâ. But if that didnât bother Ernst⊠it wonât bother me.
It appears the writer in Genesis only divided animals into three kinds: domestic, creepy crawlers, and wild animals.
2 Likes
First, how do you determine if two fossils could interbreed? What about asexual species? What about geographically isolated species, or species who can interbreed but donât?
On top of that, the website in the opening post states:
" The classification is more difficult when reproductive compatibility is partial, as in the case of themule, a hybrid of the horse and the donkey which, although viable, is not fertile. While it is possible that the two species descend from a common ancestor due to their reproductive compatibility, it is also possible that they do not, but were created separately with reproductive systems similar enough to create viable offspring, but not similar enough to create fertile offspring."
The also state:
" It is very important not to confuse the âcreated kindâ with the modern use of the word species . Although animals like the fox and coyote might be considered different taxonomic species, they are still parts of the same âkindâ of animal."
Far as I know, the fox and coyote do not interbreed, and I have yet to hear if they are capable of producing fertile or infertile offspring. From what I have read, chromosome counts would be a problem:
âMembers of the dog genus Canis: wolves, dogs (both common dogs and dingoes), coyotes, and golden jackals cannot interbreed with members of the wider dog family: the Canidae, such as South American canids, foxes, African wild dogs, bat-eared foxes or raccoon dog; or, if they could, their offspring would be infertile.â
reference
On top of that, why couldnât species within a kind evolve so that they can no longer interbreed? That is certainly a question that YEC/OECâs need to address.
Genetic and physiological similarities are not seen as evidence of common ancestry, because there is no evidence available to refute the possibility that the genetic similarities are a result of a similar design being used on different âkinds.â
Has any baraminology expert proposed a solution for why different âkindsâ such as chimps and humans would have the same endogenous retrograde viruses inserted in their genomes in such a remarkably similar fashion?
2 Likes
Obviously, @T_aquaticus, fossils leave us no choice but to use appearance and/or phenotype to estimate whether something is a different species or not.
As for exotic questions like: are Foxes and Coyotes âpart of the same kindâ or not âŠ
Genesis 1:24-25 is of perfect use to us here. Unless you can find a 3rd creature that is reproductively compatible with both Foxes and Coyote, I donât see how anybody can apply Genesis 1:24-25 to the situation and come up with ONE kind.
As to your last statement:
I have brought this up earlier (though I canât remember which site I was in at the time). YECâs seem to have little appreciation for the fact populations start to change ⊠even the moment after God uses special creation to make them!
Some YEC groups are more up front about this than others.
You can throw a lot of âperfumed shadeâ at the wall over the Biblical term âkindâ - - but I really donât see much in the way of understanding the use of the term at least as well as we use the term âspeciesâ in the Evolutionary context of the word.
Humanity â Creationist Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer concluded that H. erectus/ergaster , Neanderthals and H. sapiens were members of the same basic type (which corresponds to a monobaramin) Homo; with the fossils called Australopithecus afarensis , A. anamensis , A. africanus , A. robustus , A. aethiopithecus , A. boisei and possibly Ardipithecus ramidus assigned to another basic type, Australopithecinae.
Iâm curious whether this creationist would suppose that Adam and Eve were the specially created founding members of Australopithecus. That seems to be the implication.
1 Like
The difference with evolution is that we donât expect a hard barrier between species groups. Because of evolution there is always going to be a hazy barrier between populations during the process of speciation. Any paraphyletic group (e.g. genus, family) is also going to be arbitrary due to evolution and common ancestry.
2 Likes
The haziness doesnât really affect the points we are making to YECâs regarding the âkindsâ that God created during the first 6 days.
The one thing that seems absolutely certain is that you canât make two populations that look vaguely similar into a single âkindâ - - if they canât reproduce a new generation. This is a strong limit on this kind of reasoning by the very vocabulary used in Genesis 1.
Letâs embrace it ⊠instead of disputing it for another decade!
Sounds to me like this issue reveals the link between creationism and racism.
This article seens to plays in this area from a creationist position, using the Vit C genome for discussion.
From your article:
So, did Adam and Eve have a gene to code for an enzyme that would synthesize vitamin C and was this information eventually lost as a result of the curse, or were they simply created without this information in their genomes? That question might not get answered until Christ returns. But in the meantime, humans require plenty of vitamin C in their diet â so have an orange!
It appears that the author seems to completely ignore how one actually establishes relationships between individuals/organisms utilizing genetics, proteins, and/or morphology. This primer I think could be helpful for getting us all on the same page:
https://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/signature-in-the-pseudogenes-part-1
Though this topic is a little different from âkinds,â I think it is helpful in that there is no evidence at all in either the fossil record or the genome or even in the structure and genomes of all eukaryotes cells that there were organisms that were created spontaneously without any common descent. It should be painfully obvious to every expert who has ever looked at any of these topics but yet with every chance to demonstrate kinds are anything realâthe evidence has not been there to support it.
2 Likes
@Joel_Duff has a great collection of articles on his blog critiquing the scientific claims of baraminology, including how these models even contradict Scriptural evidence of the diversity of species in Bible times.
3 Likes
Thanks for that, i wasnt aware of the link with YEC, but i guess thats normally associated as part of the creationist view (though most dont prescribe to it). Of interest, it seems proven that post dinosaur speciation was significantly faster so their is a level of agreement on thatâŠ
I havenât the time or desire to fully critique the linked article but this caught my eye.
of which Darwinâs finches are just 10 of 1200+ species! For a pair of finches to give rise to 1200 species of finches in 4500 years would necessitate that we should be able to witness species formation right before our eyes.
Darwinâs Finches interbreed in the wild so they are varieties of the one species. If this is typical there might be 120 species with multiple varieties. But even so, if each species splits into 2 then we could get over 1000 species in 11 doublings in 4500 years or 400 years to form each new species. Allowing for more rapid speciation immediately following the flood it is plausible to get 1000 species in 1000 years.
With larger animals and longer generation times speciation would be expected to take longer but it is still plausible that the horse kind could have produced 3 species; horse, donkey, and zebra; by biblical times.
Setting aside the dubious science and disregard for natural history, how would you explain from a YEC perspective that Abram already had donkeys as early as Genesis 12?
And for her sake he dealt well with Abram; and he had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male servants, female servants, female donkeys, and camels. (v. 15)
1 Like
With larger animals and longer generation times speciation would be expected to take longer but it is still plausible that the horse kind could have produced 3 species; horse, donkey, and zebra; by biblical times.