Baraminology: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
How does a picture of a liger demonstrate the concepts in this section? |
fix comment. |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{creationism2}} |
{{creationism2}} |
||
'''Baraminology''' is a [[creationist]] system for classifying life into posited original, created forms (called baramin), from which life is posited to have varied and speciated via variation and natural selection into the forms extant today. <ref name="rbc">{{cite journal | title=A Refined Baramin Concept | author=Wood TC et al. | journal=Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group | year=2003 | volume=3 | pages=1-14 | url=http://www.creationbiology.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=201240&module_id=36952}}</ref> |
|||
'''Baraminology''' is a [[creationist]] system for classifying life into groups having no common [[ancestry]], called "baramins".<!-- |
|||
<!-- |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 10: | ||
Classification is based on a literal creationist reading of "kinds" in [[Genesis]], especially the distinction between mankind and other animals. Other criteria include the ability of animals to interbreed and the similarity of their observable traits.-- From Ungtss -- these statements are uncited-->Baraminology is a sub-field of [[creation science]], and like all of creation science, is [[pseudoscience]] and is not related to [[science]].<ref name = "NAS"> |
|||
"creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes." (Note that baraminology is a type of creation science.) {{cite web | title=Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition | author=The National Academies | year=1999 | publisher=National Academy Press | url=http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=1 | accessmonthday=December 7 | accessyear=2008}} </ref><ref>"the NAS states unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level." http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/</ref><ref>[http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8408_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations.] National Center for Science Education. Retrieved on 04-01-2008.</ref> |
"creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes." (Note that baraminology is a type of creation science.) {{cite web | title=Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition | author=The National Academies | year=1999 | publisher=National Academy Press | url=http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=1 | accessmonthday=December 7 | accessyear=2008}} </ref><ref>"the NAS states unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level." http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/</ref><ref>[http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8408_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations.] National Center for Science Education. Retrieved on 04-01-2008.</ref> |
||
[[evidence for evolution|Biological facts]] show that all life has [[last common ancestor|common ancestry]]. The scientific alternative to baraminology is [[cladistics]], which classifies [[species]] based on evolutionary history. |
[[evidence for evolution|Biological facts]] show that all life has [[last common ancestor|common ancestry]]. The scientific alternative to baraminology is [[cladistics]], which classifies [[species]] based on evolutionary history. |
||
| Line 22: | Line 24: | ||
A typical interpretation of Genesis, with focus upon the kinds, is that all things were created, that the ordered multitude of creation is as God intended, and that the evolutionary model "is strongly animated by [a] fundamental feeling of solidarity with the whole of creation", the latter in reference to parallel concepts of common descent and common creator.<ref name="vienna"/> Others point out that, in Genesis, the manner in which the earth brings forth life is unspecified, which is compatible with evolution.<ref>{{cite web | title=Science and the Bible | publisher=Clarifying Christianity | year=2003 | url=http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml | accessmonthday=December 7 |year=2008}}</ref> |
A typical interpretation of Genesis, with focus upon the kinds, is that all things were created, that the ordered multitude of creation is as God intended, and that the evolutionary model "is strongly animated by [a] fundamental feeling of solidarity with the whole of creation", the latter in reference to parallel concepts of common descent and common creator.<ref name="vienna"/> Others point out that, in Genesis, the manner in which the earth brings forth life is unspecified, which is compatible with evolution.<ref>{{cite web | title=Science and the Bible | publisher=Clarifying Christianity | year=2003 | url=http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml | accessmonthday=December 7 |year=2008}}</ref> |
||
==Premises and methodology== <!-- Previous heading, "Overview", should be what the Lead is for --> |
|||
==Overview== |
|||
Baraminology is founded upon a [[Biblical literalism| literal interpretation]] of the Bible: that each kind was brought into direct physical existence by God and that therefore these kinds share no ancestry. Baraminology emerged from an effort by [[Young Earth Creationism|young earth creationists]] to make this Biblical interpretation scientifically appealing.<ref name="rbc"/> The idea of a baramin was proposed in 1941 by [[Frank Marsh]], but was criticized for a lack of formal definition. In 1990 [[Kurt Wise]] and Walter ReMine introduced baraminology in pursuit of an acceptable definition.<ref name="rbc">{{cite journal | title=A Refined Baramin Concept | author=Wood TC et al. | journal=Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group | year=2003 | volume=3 | pages=1-14 | url=http://www.creationbiology.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=201240&module_id=36952}}</ref> ReMine's work specifies four groupings: holobaramins, monobaramins, apobaramins, and polybaramins. These are, respectively, all things of one kind; some things of the same kind; groups of kinds; and any mixed grouping of things.<ref name=Frair>{{cite journal | title=Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms | author=Frair, Wayne | journal=Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal | year=2000 | volume=37 | issue=2 | pages=82-91 | url=http://web.archive.org/web/20030618153040/http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm}}</ref> These groups are similar in name to the concepts of [[monophyly]], [[paraphyly]], and [[polyphyly]] used in [[ |
<!--Baraminology is founded upon a [[Biblical literalism| literal interpretation]] of the Bible: that each kind was brought into direct physical existence by God and that therefore these kinds share no ancestry. Baraminology emerged from an effort by [[Young Earth Creationism|young earth creationists]] to make this Biblical interpretation scientifically appealing.<ref name="rbc"/> The idea of a baramin was proposed in 1941 by [[Frank Marsh]], but was criticized for a lack of formal definition. -- From Ungtss -- these claims are not cited. -->In 1990 [[Kurt Wise]] and Walter ReMine introduced baraminology in pursuit of an acceptable definition.<ref name="rbc">{{cite journal | title=A Refined Baramin Concept | author=Wood TC et al. | journal=Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group | year=2003 | volume=3 | pages=1-14 | url=http://www.creationbiology.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=201240&module_id=36952}}</ref> ReMine's work specifies four groupings: holobaramins, monobaramins, apobaramins, and polybaramins. These are, respectively, all things of one kind; some things of the same kind; groups of kinds; and any mixed grouping of things.<ref name=Frair>{{cite journal | title=Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms | author=Frair, Wayne | journal=Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal | year=2000 | volume=37 | issue=2 | pages=82-91 | url=http://web.archive.org/web/20030618153040/http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm}}</ref> These groups are similar in name to the concepts of [[monophyly]], [[paraphyly]], and [[polyphyly]] used in [[cladistics]] |
||
Conditions for membership in a (holo)baramin and methods of classification have changed over the years. These include the ability to create viable offspring, and [[morphology (biology)|morphological]] similarity.<ref>''Fundamental Biology'' (1941), ''Evolution, Creation, and Science'' (c. 1944), both by Frank Lewis Marsh</ref> Some creationists have suggested that kind refers to [[species]], while others believe it might mean any animal which may be distinguished in some way from another.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Payne |first=J. Barton |year=1958 |month= |title= The Concept of "Kinds" In Scyipture | journal=Journal of the American Science Affiliation | volume=10 |issue=December 1958 | pages=17–20 | url=http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1958/JASA6-58Payne.html |accessdate= 2007-11-26 |quote= }} [Note this version appears to have been OCR-scanned without proofreading]</ref><ref>Cracraft, Joel. "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism". Godfrey, Laurie R., ed. ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=bjYPs9siZzgC Scientists Confront Creationism]''. New York: W.W. Norton & Company: 1984.</ref> Another criterion is "baramin distance" which is calculated based on the similarity of |
Conditions for membership in a (holo)baramin and methods of classification have changed over the years. These include the ability to create viable offspring, and [[morphology (biology)|morphological]] similarity.<ref>''Fundamental Biology'' (1941), ''Evolution, Creation, and Science'' (c. 1944), both by Frank Lewis Marsh</ref> Some creationists have suggested that kind refers to [[species]], while others believe it might mean any animal which may be distinguished in some way from another.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Payne |first=J. Barton |year=1958 |month= |title= The Concept of "Kinds" In Scyipture | journal=Journal of the American Science Affiliation | volume=10 |issue=December 1958 | pages=17–20 | url=http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1958/JASA6-58Payne.html |accessdate= 2007-11-26 |quote= }} [Note this version appears to have been OCR-scanned without proofreading]</ref><ref>Cracraft, Joel. "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism". Godfrey, Laurie R., ed. ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=bjYPs9siZzgC Scientists Confront Creationism]''. New York: W.W. Norton & Company: 1984.</ref> Another criterion is "baramin distance" which is calculated based on the similarity of two of more organisms' [[Character (biology)| character]]s, using methods borrowed from [[phenetics]].<ref>{{cite journal | title=The Current Status of Baraminology | author=Wood, Todd Charles | journal=Creation Research Science Quarterly Journal | year=2006 | volume=43 | issue=3 | pages=149-158 | url=http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm}}</ref> In all cases, methods found to place humans and other primates into the same baramin have been discarded. <ref>{{cite web | title=About Us: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods | publisher=Baraminology Study Group | url=http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/aboutconcepts.html | acccessmonthday=December 7 | accessyear=2008}}</ref><ref>Robinson and Cavanaugh, [http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates]. ''...We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates.'' See also [http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/baraminology_ta.htm A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms.]</ref> |
||
Advocates of baraminology assert that while there is significant evidence for some degree of common descent (to the [[taxonomic]] somewhere of the family), there is insufficient evidence to support the conclusion of [[universal common descent]]. They argue that high degrees of genetic similarity, which is often used in [[cladistics]] as the primary evidence to infer common ancestry, is not sufficient evidence for showing [[common descent]]<!--, because the observed homology is equally consistent with common descent and a common designer. From Emw2012: this particular assertion (which you do not to qualify, against what seems to be requested by consensus for creationist claims) is not in the RBC paper. Please cite -->.<ref name="rbc"/> Baraminologists argue that [[morphology (biology)| morphological]]<!-- their morphology is not biological morphology From Emw2012: Based on your reading of the citation, what leads you to believe "their morphology" is something other than "outward appearance of an organism or taxon"? -->, [[ecology| ecological]], and [[Sequence alignment| molecular data]] form a more significant and holistic basis for [[Systematics| biological systematics]].<ref name="rbc"/><!-- how is this different from cladistics? Emw2012: cladistics is a type of biological systematics (see article) --> Baraminologists assert that for it to be possible for two organisms to have a common ancestor, they must be linked by a continuous ''potentiality region'' in biological character space.<!-- see pp. 6-7 of RBC paper --> This potentiality region is defined by baraminologists as "as any discrete region |
|||
===Premises and methodology=== |
|||
of biological character space within which organismal form is possible."<ref name="rbc"/> If there is a gap between the two organisms, represented by a discontinuity in the potentiality region, then a common ancestor would be infeasible. In such a case, baraminologists suggest that the two organisms should be seen as representing biological "kinds" that are not linked by common descent (i.e. polybaramins). |
|||
Advocates of baraminology assert that molecular [[Homology (biology) | homology]]<!-- what is this? a link is insufficient introduction -->, which is often used in [[phylogenetics]], is not sufficient evidence for grouping organisms into [[Taxonomy | taxonomic]] groups or for showing [[common descent]].<ref name="rbc"/> Baraminologists argue that [[morphology (biology) | morphological]]<!-- their morphology is not biological morphology -->, [[ecology | ecological]], and [[Sequence alignment | molecular data]] form a more significant and holistic basis for [[Systematics | biological systematics]].<ref name="rbc"/> <!-- how is this different from cladistics? -->Baraminologists assert that for it to be possible for two organisms to be related <!-- to have a common ancestor? -->the two biological character spaces must be linked<!-- how? --> by viable, hypothetical organisms. If there is a gap between the two organisms in which no organism could be viable, then they conclude that the two organisms should be seen as being in separate "kinds". |
|||
A key difference between the baraminological concept of common descent and the evolutionary model of common descent is that baraminology posits greater [[genetic diversity]] within the original kinds it assumes.{{Fact|Before citing the RBC paper, note that it the phrase "genetic diversity" is nowhere to be found in it.|date=December 2008}} For example, the original feline kind is seen as analogous to a [[liger]], containing genes for both [[tiger]] and [[lion]],<!-- it has to be pointed out immediately that this is nonsense, probably trivia not worth mentioning --> or a [[cama]], containing genes for both [[camel]] and [[llama]]. Baraminology views speciation as inbreeding{{Fact|date=December 2008}} and a loss of genetic diversity in particular populations, rather than an increase in genetic diversity per standard evolutionary theory. In other words, they argue that a primal [[liger]] kind may have spread into different subpopulations, and the [[lion]] genes were selected in a niche where they were advantageous, and the [[tiger]] genes were selected in a niche where they were advantageous. Consequently, after the [[population bottleneck]] that would have been entailed by [[Noah's_Ark#Narrative | Noah's Flood]], baraminologists claim that genetic drift and natural selection led to speciation not through the increase in genetic information,{{ambiguous}} but through the adaption of a species to its environment by the loss of other disadvantageous traits.{{Fact| Again, this assertion is not in the RBC paper|date=December 2008}} <!-- This is all extremely questionable. WP is not here to explain in detail every crazy theory. --> |
|||
==Criticism== |
==Criticism== |
||
Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data which does not fit desired findings.<ref> |
Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data which does not fit desired findings.<ref>[http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/baraminology_ta.htm A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms.] See also the last two sentences of the abstract of Robinson and Cavanaugh, [http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates]</ref> Baraminology is a [[pseudoscience]], and has not produced any [[peer-reviewed]] [[scientific]] research,<ref>An exhaustive search of the largest scientific publication [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed database] using the keyword ''Baraminology'' produces zero results</ref> nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of [[zoology]] and [[botany]] literature since 1924.<ref>February 2007 search of Biological Abstracts.</ref> [[Universal common descent]], which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is [[evidence of common descent|well-established]] and tested, and is a [[scientific theory|scientifically-verified fact]]<ref name="Theobold">{{cite web | title=29+ Evidences for Macroevolution | author=Theobald, Douglas | publisher=TalkOrigins | year=2007 | url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/}}</ref> However, neither [[cladistics]], the field devoted to investigating the ancestral relationships between living things, nor the [[scientific consensus]] on [[transitional fossils]] are accepted by baraminologists.<ref name="aboutBSG">[http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/aboutconcepts.html About the BSG: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods]. Phrases to note are: ''"The mere assumption that the transformation had to occur because [[cladistics|cladistic]] analysis places it at a hypothetical ancestral node does not constitute empirical evidence"'' and ''"A good example is [[Archaeopteryx]], which likely represents its own unique baramin, distinct from both dinosaurs and modern birds"''</ref> |
||
Despite voluminous [[evidence for evolution]] at and above the species level, baraminologists reject [[universal common descent]] and the emergence of new [[ |
Despite voluminous [[evidence for evolution]] at and above the species level, baraminologists reject [[universal common descent]] and the emergence of new [[Family (biology)| families]] and higher [[taxa]].<ref name="aboutBSG">{{cite web | title=About the BSG: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods | publisher=Baraminology Study Group | url=http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/aboutconcepts.html | accessmonthday=December 7 | accessyear=2008}}</ref> |
||
==References== |
==References== |
||
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}} |
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}} |
||
[[Category:Creation science]] |
[[Category:Creation science]] |
||
Revision as of 13:59, 10 December 2008
| Part of a series on | ||||
| Creationism | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||
| History | ||||
| Types | ||||
| Biblical cosmology | ||||
| Creation science | ||||
| Rejection of evolution by religious groups | ||||
| Religious views | ||||
|
||||
Baraminology is a creationist system for classifying life into posited original, created forms (called baramin), from which life is posited to have varied and speciated via variation and natural selection into the forms extant today. [1]
Baraminology is a sub-field of creation science, and like all of creation science, is pseudoscience and is not related to science.[2][3][4] Biological facts show that all life has common ancestry. The scientific alternative to baraminology is cladistics, which classifies species based on evolutionary history.
Interpretation of Biblical kinds
The Bible mentions kinds on several occasions. Genesis 1:12-25 gives an account of the creation of living things:
24: And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so.
25: And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 7:13-16 states that there are distinct kinds of cattle. In Deuteronomy 14:11-18 varieties of owl, raven, and hawk are presented as distinct kinds. The Hebrew word מִין min is used exclusively in a set phrase of the form לְ l+מִין min+possessive pronoun suffix, which is translated as after their/his/her kind. (A few other words are translated into English with the word kind, such as in Leviticus 19:19, which speaks of כִלְאַיֶם kila'im of cloth, cattle, and seeds. The word min is never used in relation to humans, but the Greek word γένος genos is used in 2 Maccabees 7:28 "... and so was mankind made likewise". ) Apart from what is implied by these passages, the Bible does not specify what a kind is. The fact that kind is used in this set phrase, among other reasons, has led to the hypothesis that it is not a referential noun in Biblical Hebrew, but derived from לְמִינֶה l'mineh = of him/herself, of themselves.[5][6]
Traditional interpretations, such as those of St. Augustine,[7] Thomas Aquinas,[8] John Calvin,[9] and the Vatican,[10] hold that the Bible makes theological and not scientific statements about reality, and that no conflict exists between science and the Bible. A typical interpretation of Genesis, with focus upon the kinds, is that all things were created, that the ordered multitude of creation is as God intended, and that the evolutionary model "is strongly animated by [a] fundamental feeling of solidarity with the whole of creation", the latter in reference to parallel concepts of common descent and common creator.[7] Others point out that, in Genesis, the manner in which the earth brings forth life is unspecified, which is compatible with evolution.[11]
Premises and methodology
In 1990 Kurt Wise and Walter ReMine introduced baraminology in pursuit of an acceptable definition.[1] ReMine's work specifies four groupings: holobaramins, monobaramins, apobaramins, and polybaramins. These are, respectively, all things of one kind; some things of the same kind; groups of kinds; and any mixed grouping of things.[12] These groups are similar in name to the concepts of monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly used in cladistics
Conditions for membership in a (holo)baramin and methods of classification have changed over the years. These include the ability to create viable offspring, and morphological similarity.[13] Some creationists have suggested that kind refers to species, while others believe it might mean any animal which may be distinguished in some way from another.[14][15] Another criterion is "baramin distance" which is calculated based on the similarity of two of more organisms' characters, using methods borrowed from phenetics.[16] In all cases, methods found to place humans and other primates into the same baramin have been discarded. [17][18]
Advocates of baraminology assert that while there is significant evidence for some degree of common descent (to the taxonomic somewhere of the family), there is insufficient evidence to support the conclusion of universal common descent. They argue that high degrees of genetic similarity, which is often used in cladistics as the primary evidence to infer common ancestry, is not sufficient evidence for showing common descent.[1] Baraminologists argue that morphological, ecological, and molecular data form a more significant and holistic basis for biological systematics.[1] Baraminologists assert that for it to be possible for two organisms to have a common ancestor, they must be linked by a continuous potentiality region in biological character space. This potentiality region is defined by baraminologists as "as any discrete region of biological character space within which organismal form is possible."[1] If there is a gap between the two organisms, represented by a discontinuity in the potentiality region, then a common ancestor would be infeasible. In such a case, baraminologists suggest that the two organisms should be seen as representing biological "kinds" that are not linked by common descent (i.e. polybaramins).
A key difference between the baraminological concept of common descent and the evolutionary model of common descent is that baraminology posits greater genetic diversity within the original kinds it assumes.[citation needed] For example, the original feline kind is seen as analogous to a liger, containing genes for both tiger and lion, or a cama, containing genes for both camel and llama. Baraminology views speciation as inbreeding[citation needed] and a loss of genetic diversity in particular populations, rather than an increase in genetic diversity per standard evolutionary theory. In other words, they argue that a primal liger kind may have spread into different subpopulations, and the lion genes were selected in a niche where they were advantageous, and the tiger genes were selected in a niche where they were advantageous. Consequently, after the population bottleneck that would have been entailed by Noah's Flood, baraminologists claim that genetic drift and natural selection led to speciation not through the increase in genetic information,[ambiguous] but through the adaption of a species to its environment by the loss of other disadvantageous traits.[citation needed]
Criticism
Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data which does not fit desired findings.[19] Baraminology is a pseudoscience, and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[20] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany literature since 1924.[21] Universal common descent, which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is well-established and tested, and is a scientifically-verified fact[22] However, neither cladistics, the field devoted to investigating the ancestral relationships between living things, nor the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are accepted by baraminologists.[23]
Despite voluminous evidence for evolution at and above the species level, baraminologists reject universal common descent and the emergence of new families and higher taxa.[23]
References
- ^ a b c d e Wood TC; et al. (2003). "A Refined Baramin Concept". Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group. 3: 1–14.
{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=(help) - ^
"creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes." (Note that baraminology is a type of creation science.) The National Academies (1999). "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition". National Academy Press.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|accessmonthday=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|accessyear=ignored (|access-date=suggested) (help) - ^ "the NAS states unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level." http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/
- ^ Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations. National Center for Science Education. Retrieved on 04-01-2008.
- ^ entry for מִין min, page 262. Clines , David J. A. (2001). The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Volume 5. Sheffield Academic Press. p. 262. ISBN 1-84127-217-5.
- ^ page 392 in Rabin, Chaim (1961). "Etymological Miscellanea". Scripta Hierosolymitana: Publications of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. 8 (Studies in the Bible, edited by Chaim Rabin). Jerusalem: Magnes Press: 384–400.
- ^ a b Schönborn, Christoph Cardinal (2005). "Third catechesis: He created each thing according to its kind".
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|accessmonthday=ignored (help) - ^ Tkacz, Michael W. (2005). "Thomas Aquinas vs. The Intelligent Designers". Gonzaga Socratic Club.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|accessmonthday=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|accessyear=ignored (|access-date=suggested) (help) - ^ Office of Theology and Worship (1969). "Evolution Statement". Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|accessmonthday=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|accessyear=ignored (|access-date=suggested) (help) - ^ Penner, Martin (2005-12-07). "Evolution in the bible, says Vatican". The Australian.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|accessmonthday=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|accessyear=ignored (|access-date=suggested) (help) - ^ "Science and the Bible". Clarifying Christianity. 2008.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|accessmonthday=ignored (help) - ^ Frair, Wayne (2000). "Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal. 37 (2): 82–91.
- ^ Fundamental Biology (1941), Evolution, Creation, and Science (c. 1944), both by Frank Lewis Marsh
- ^ Payne, J. Barton (1958). "The Concept of "Kinds" In Scyipture". Journal of the American Science Affiliation. 10 (December 1958): 17–20. Retrieved 2007-11-26.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|month=(help) [Note this version appears to have been OCR-scanned without proofreading] - ^ Cracraft, Joel. "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism". Godfrey, Laurie R., ed. Scientists Confront Creationism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company: 1984.
- ^ Wood, Todd Charles (2006). "The Current Status of Baraminology". Creation Research Science Quarterly Journal. 43 (3): 149–158.
- ^ "About Us: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods". Baraminology Study Group.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|acccessmonthday=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|accessyear=ignored (|access-date=suggested) (help) - ^ Robinson and Cavanaugh, A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates. ...We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates. See also A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms.
- ^ A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms. See also the last two sentences of the abstract of Robinson and Cavanaugh, A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates
- ^ An exhaustive search of the largest scientific publication database using the keyword Baraminology produces zero results
- ^ February 2007 search of Biological Abstracts.
- ^ Theobald, Douglas (2007). "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution". TalkOrigins.
- ^ a b About the BSG: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods. Phrases to note are: "The mere assumption that the transformation had to occur because cladistic analysis places it at a hypothetical ancestral node does not constitute empirical evidence" and "A good example is Archaeopteryx, which likely represents its own unique baramin, distinct from both dinosaurs and modern birds" Cite error: The named reference "aboutBSG" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).