Talk:Created kind

message: 1) baraminology is analogous to taxonomy and cladistics -- the means of CLASSIFYING the kinds, while created kinds are analogous to evolution -- telling the "STORY" of the kinds.  the merge would be analogous to merging cladistics with evolution -- surely not appropriate or necessary.  Ungtss 17:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously baraminology is the most well-developed idea associated with kinds (it's the one supported by ICR, from what I've read). We might decide to include baraminology here rather than include kinds over there, but I think there isn't a real need for two separate articles. If Kinds is more "universal" then the merge direction should be switched. Baraminology could easily be included on this page, I'd say. Joshuaschroeder 06:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i repeat the point you ignored above: THIS article is analogous to "evolution" -- THAT article is analogous to cladistics.  it is no more appropriate to merge these two articles than to merge those two.  Ungtss 16:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The comparison is inapt. While there are tens of thousands of people who study mainstream cladistics and evolution in great detail, there are only a handful that make a distinction between created kinds and baraminology. Joshuaschroeder 01:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge inappropriate 

message: Please try to bear with me as I try to work out a better edit for this page. I tried to reincorporate all the material I could, but had to leave this out as I think it is not explicative (we already talked about the mechanisms creationists proposed) and the example given seems extremely ad hoc. I'm not averse to having material in here included in the article, however, on my first inspection I have not seen anything that indicates that these issues aren't well handled in the article.
:mr. schroeder, this is an example and slow breakdown to EXPLAIN the idea in a way that people can understand.  what exactly does "not explicative" mean?  why are you deleting good text?  provide BETTER text, but DO NOT DELETE GOOD TEXT.  Ungtss 02:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the new gene for "blue eyes" is a misnomer as there is no such thing as a singe gene for blue eyes. There is a level of homozygosity within the most basic model of blue eye inheritance, but to be perfectly in accord with what we know about modern biology, such is not the sum total of the story. So to talk about it forming with "low probability" is virtually meaningless. More than that, the concepts of genetic drift and inbreeding are not explicative of homozygous traits, for example. 
===Removed===
For example, a viable new gene for "blue eyes" would occur by mutation only at very low probability within the evolutionary model, and thus typically only occurs over a very large number of generations.  Within the creationist model, however, the original kinds already had the capacity for blue and brown eyes, so in the generations after the flood, some would be born with blue eyes, others with brown.  As populations spread over the earth and became reproductively isolated, those traits would become "set" within the populations.  Speciation is held to be rapid on this basis, with genetic drift and inbreeding causing these heterozygous traits to become homozygous.  The result is hypothesised to be speciation within the space of no more than one or two thousand years.  It remains an open question for creation biology to account for all of the observed variation among the the proposed kinds by such a mechanism within the limits of mainstream genetics, as several of the kinds hypothesised earlier correspond to a far greater degree of genetic variation.
Joshuaschroeder 01:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reworked this page

message: For example, a viable new gene for "blue eyes" would occur by mutation only at very low probability within the evolutionary model, and thus typically only occurs over a very large number of generations.  Within the creationist model, however, the original kinds already had the capacity for blue and brown eyes, so in the generations after the flood, some would be born with blue eyes, others with brown.  As populations spread over the earth and became reproductively isolated, those traits would become "set" within the populations.  Speciation is held to be rapid on this basis, with genetic drift and inbreeding causing these heterozygous traits to become homozygous.  The result is hypothesised to be speciation within the space of no more than one or two thousand years.  It remains an open question for creation biology to account for all of the observed variation among the the proposed kinds by such a mechanism within the limits of mainstream genetics, as several of the kinds hypothesised earlier correspond to a far greater degree of genetic variation.
Joshuaschroeder 01:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: The article doesn't really define the terms apobaramin and polybaramin, just gives a couple of examples (that I didn't find very illuminating).  What's the criteria for what's an apo-, what's a poly-, and what's neither?  (That they're both 'above' holo-s I got, so why is their 'baramin' status even interesting?)  Alai 07:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to my little greek knowledge apo- is "over" (not hyper- "above") and poly- "many". --Neigel von Teighen 21:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: apo (stress on the o) means "from"/away from, and a major meaning is the concept of separation.  So two creatures are apobaraminic if they not share common ancestry.  (Another meaning is "from" in the sense of giving the origin, but this is not the sense here, or in scientific terms in general.  E.g. the apogee is the point in an orbit furthest away (most separated) from the earth)   Anyway, I changed the definition to correspond with the Baraminology Study Group's paper Taxonomic Concepts and Methods 220.244.224.8 09:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: That helps...  somewhat.  So polybaramin have effectively nothing to do with either created kinds, or indeed conventional taxonomy?  Or at any rate, they (in theory) would be agreed to be misclassifications in both schemes, whereas apobaramins would generally correspond to higher taxons/clades?  Alai 23:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if baraminologists(?) would  agree with your words, though I think you are roughly correct in one direction in that your examples fit the definitions, but in the other direction they might say there are other examples where a polybaramin was a useful positive concept, and an apobaramin may involve several kinds which have no relationship at all.  Perhaps someone who actually uses the language might explain. --Henrygb 00:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The original definitions seemed garbled, and the new ones are at least from the horse's mouth.  I don't much like these hybrid Greek/Hebrew neologisms, I must admit. 203.213.77.138 07:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apobaramins and Polybaramins 

message: In most articles, the appelation "Dr." is unneccessary. It seems that it should also be here. Likewise, indicating the specialty someone is in is only useful if that speciality is worthy of inclusion by being an alternative viewpoint outside the area being discussed. Since everyone in the article is presumably a developer of the "kinds" idealizations, there is no reason to include what their specialized employments are. 
I understand that it is common in creationist literature to use the "Dr. So-and-so professor of thus-and-such and researcher in xyz at the University of Here-or-there", but that's not an excuse for including it here. Convention would dictate otherwise, I'd say. Joshuaschroeder 04:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All the same, it is fair to mention that Hartwig Scherer is a paleoanthropologist by profession, and that Batten is a botanist.  So these were fair appeals to authority, since their claims were in their fields.  203.213.77.138 07:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not respond to the above objection. Revert will remain. Joshuaschroeder 14:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Appeal to authority

message: I have reworked this article and will try to clean it up more in the future. It is in much better shape than it was in before. I am considering merging this article with creation biology. There may be objections to this, but I think article actually states nearly everything that is the details of creation biology. The only things missing are disbelief in abiogenesis (which is at least off-handedly mentioned), and complexity arguments (which are really more ID-related conceits than they are "creation biology", at least from the reading I'm doing on the subject at AiG, ICR, etc.) Thoughts anyone? Joshuaschroeder 08:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New working

message: I removed the two versions tag from the article. If Ungtss would go to the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and go to the Giving "equal time" section, he would note that minority views do not automatically get equal time just because someone expresses a differeing view. That same page also has a section on Pseudoscience that makes it clear that NPOV policy does not mean only being able to say things in favor of a view on an article about it, it necessities making it clear when minority views are minority vies and pointing out when fields of study are considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientists. Thus Ungtss' minority view that the article should hide the religious motivation behind this topic and only summarize the views of those who believe in it instead of providing critical and necessary context to let readers know how unaccepted this whole topic is from the vast majority of experts is counter to Wikipedia policies. We also know from the FACTS vote for deletion (as well as the recent speedy deletion of the Template:FACTS_Creationism_Template that Ungtss made to compete with Template:Creationism) that creating new replacement pages to replace current articles in an attempt to get around the normal editing process is not allowed. That is clearly all that this "two versions" tag is trying to do, so, along with the clearly policy-violating pro-Creationism content of the alternate version, I removed it. DreamGuy 21:39, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
:dreamguy.  you're dreaming.  this article is supposed to be ABOUT creation biology.  it is supposed to describe the ideas of the field.  what's this nonsense about not giving minority views equal space?  when the article is ABOUT an idea, that idea should have MOST of the space.  Ungtss 21:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's funny how you only put the tag on the version that you don't like; it's missing from your preferred version. I wonder why...? -- ChrisO 22:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not supposed to be on the other version.  the other version is in the page history.  Ungtss 22:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed the "two versions" tag

message: this article is about created kinds, not baraminology.  the information about created kinds should come first.  i've edited accordingly.  Ungtss 12:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  blind reverts. 

message: "The creationist challenge is even more difficult, as it is forced to prove a negative -- that is -- to provide evidence that all life is not related."
Why is either side of this any more difficult to prove in principle?  The "proving a negative" cliché frankly pales compared to more pertinent considerations like the state of the evidence (which certainly poses a difficulty, I'd think), and questions of falsifiability, as this whole "your guess is as good as ours" section rather illustrates.  Some evidence that creationists are even interested in addressing this issue would also be pertinent.  Alai 05:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: you're right.  i'm reading up on it right now -- found some baraminology papers that will provide a framework -- i'll put most of it on baraminology tho.  Ungtss 05:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proving a negative...

message: Though I have really no idea what it has to do with the article, isn't the caption on the Wolphin picturea bit misleading? As I understand it, the "wolphin" is a cross between a false killer whale and a dolphin, not a killer whale and a dolphin. The former is actually just another type of dolphin, not a true whale. Anyway, I am adding the "false" in there. --Fastfission 22:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wolphin

message: Rhaphanobrassica is an allopolyploid, not a hybrid.  There is a hybrid plant between the two genera, but it is sterile.  I debated whether to explain this in the text or just delete Rhaphanobrassica.  I decided that since it is not a true hybrid, it is best deleted. Ted 01:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Rhaphanobrassica''

message: Merged the two, but there was a copyvio in the definition of terms, (with http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/aboutconcepts.html) so I had to remove it. I also removed some single-source material apparently based on the same site. However, I can't guarantee that anything from that article actually makes a lick of sense, and, frankly, think that's probably the whole point - to wow with hard-too refute (as over-complicated) arguements. Adam Cuerden talk 01:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yes. And I'm afraid the merged material is terribly POV for the obfuscatory material. The scientific consensus scarcely gets a look in. Adam Cuerden talk 01:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baraminology merge 

message: Walter ReMine (1990 & 1993) argued that three conditions are each individually sufficient to place two organisms within the same monobaramin. (1) The hybridization criteria, (2) The ability to experimentally demonstrate (in comparable living organisms) a degree of biological change that approximately meets or exceeds the difference between the two organisms under inspection. For example, if the two organisms differ only by color, then they would be placed into the same monobaramin, because color-change is experimentally demonstrated (in many organisms), and (3) a clear-cut lineage linking the two organisms under inspection, where a clear-cut lineage is observed as: a long, narrow, trajectory (usually through morphology-space, since morphology is typically all that fossils provide), with a void (or absence of data) orthogonal to the trajectory.  If those three criteria fail, then that is sufficient to place the two organisms into separate apobaramins. 
ReMine proposed that a holobaramin be defined as "a complete set of organisms related by common descent."  This definition, together with the three above criteria, is sufficient to identify holobaramins.  ReMine 1993 argued that the classification of the actual "first created organisms" is needless and fruitless, because we cannot determine these even if we held its fossil in our hands.  He argued that the actual "first created organisms" are a theoretical idea, suitable for theorizing, but not suitable for observing or classifying. By his definition, two identical organisms that were the first created organisms of their kind would be classified together, without special status, within the same monobaramin.
Besides making no sense, this seems to come down entirely to summaries of two short articles published in Creaation Science journals. I think the main source is probably this one: http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/002.pdf Thoroghly non-notable, and barely literate writing to boot. 
This does leave the question: What SHOULD go in? Adam Cuerden talk 01:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ReMine 

message: Please vote on the relevance of this section on the article common descent. -- Pbarnes 03:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creationism and Common descent

message: I honestly don't think this is all that maintainable or encyclopedic, particularly as only one of them is referenced. Would anyone object if I made it more general, keeping mainly Humanity, and a little discussion elsewise. Adam Cuerden talk 16:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hypothesised kinds" section 

message: I don't think these two sections are salvagable - permeated with POV, a certain amount of cruft... I'm going to rewrite something on cthe view of Hybridisation from scratch.  Adam Cuerden talk 16:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsalvagable sections 

message: Creationists have proposed a handful of possibilities for the created "kinds":
*Humanity — Creationists reject any and all claims of evidence for a common ancestor between homo sapiens and other great apes.  Creationist Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer concluded that H. erectus/ergaster, Neandertals and H. sapiens were members of the same basic type (which corresponds to a monobaramin) Homininae 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.
*Felidae — Creationists from Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original kinds were comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.
*Canidae — Similar to the kind associated with cats, it is proposed that all canines had a common ancestor.
*Camelidae — Including both the camel and the llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas". 
*Crocodilia — Including all the varieties of alligator, crocodile, and gharial.
*Elephants: African elephant (Loxodonta africana) and Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) can mate and produce offspring, albeit short-lived, although they are officially classified as different genera.  
Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family, and possibly even the order with the notable exception of humanity.
Creationists also point to known examples of hybridization to argue that the kind is broader than the biological species, and sometimes even than the genus.  For example:
*Kekaimalu the wholphin is a fertile hybrid of two different types of dolphin, the false killer whale (actually a kind of dolphin), and bottlenose dolphin.  Kekaimalu herself gave birth to a calf, showing she was a fertile hybrid.  Thus these creatures classified as different genera are really a single polytypic (many-type) species.  
*Bos (true cattle) and Bison (American buffalo) can produce a fertile hybrid called a cattalo. Bos and Bison are thus likewise the same polytypic species although they classified as different genera.
*The creationist Don Batten helped create a hybrid of the fruit species lychee (Litchi chinensis) and longan (Dimocarpus longana), again classified as different genera.
A canonical list of kinds has not been constructed and such examples are extremely provisional (with the exception of humans, on which there is a strong creationist consensus).
Creation biology looks to the animals visible in the fossil record (which creationists interpret as having mostly been laid down during the flood) as evidence that antediluvian life was much more diverse than life today. They reject the dating methods of paleontologists and geologists that determine the age of fossils from the order of the fossil record and instead believe that almost all fossils were deposited in a single catastrophic flood event and were sorted out by processes associated with the flood. (See flood geology for more on this topic.)
:What are the POV issues you see in this section?  Ungtss 03:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should've been clearer: This section, as opposed to the other, is more unmaintainable than POV. There's no real agreement about kinds, except with a few groups, so this is effectively setting out to name anything anyone had ever called a kind. We can't really do that, so it's better to instead be a bit more general. Adam Cuerden talk 05:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hypothesized kinds

message: Syntax aside, "Bara" (ברא) does mean "Created" in Hebrew, but in the active verb sense of it. Passive "created" is "Nivra" (נברא), or "Nivre'u" (נבראו) in case you're referring to something in the plural, as the intent seems to be here.
"Bara min" literally means "(He) created a species". --AceMyth 14:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Baramin" Doesn't even get the basic Hebrew right 

message: As proposed by User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS at Talk:Baraminology, I've re-created this article and merged Baraminology into it, since created kinds are the primary topic. There are a few ways I'd like to try and improve this article, but before I do I'd like to make sure nobody objects to how I handled the merge itself. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Baraminology]] 

message: Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, so why does the link to the creation narrative page use the word "myth" instead? I propose changing it to "narrative" to retain some semblance of neutrality. In fact, the entire article has a very biased tone all around, aided by its word choices like "myth" vs "narrative." Tom Georges (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: From WordNet, Myth: "n : a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people".  —PaleoNeonate – 13:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth vs narrative