Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms

                                                   Wayne Frair, Ph.D

                                CRSQ Vol 37 No 2 pp82-91 September 2000

                                                     Invited Paper
 

                  Abstract

                  For decades creationists have been using the word “kind,”
“type,” or “group” for their envisioned categories of genetically unrelated
organisms including all those formed by the Creator during Creation Week. Within
each of these categories the various species, subspecies, and varieties were
conceived to have diversified from common ancestral stock. However, until recent
years there has not been a serious comprehensive methodology of classification
focusing on characterizing each original category, which is separated by genetic
gaps from all other categories. Now baraminology (with discontinuity
systematics) has developed into a fruitful approach to classification within the
creation model. Terminology and methodology have been developed, and the first
scientific baraminology conference was held in the summer of 1999. An aggressive
future program is envisaged.
 
 

                  Introduction

                  Basic human attributes include classification and
identification. People do these so constantly that the practices are essential
to our way of living. Individuals have learned the classification of thoughts
and things, and as they interact with their environments they persistently
identify cognitions as smells, sights (sky, food, animal, plant, etc.), sounds
(honk of horn, bark of dog, music, etc.), savors (sweet, sour, etc.), and other
sensations such as rough and smooth. The complexity of all this is astounding.

                  Interestingly, the Bible includes an account of God’s bringing
to Adam all the terrestrial animals and birds (Genesis 2:19) so that Adam could
observe and name them. This story may have a deeper significance than a cursory
reading would reveal. In the process of naming the creatures Adam learned
something about himself. He realized his capacity to perceive and to discover
patterns. Some critters wore scales and others hair or feathers.

                  In addition, Adam would learn something about God—the
Designer. There in the creation was an expression of the Lord’s handiwork. After
Adam discovered nature he never would be the same again. The stars, the animals,
the plants—all were part of God’s creation. The stage now was set, and
subsequently billions of science students would play their part upon the stage
of life and during that time sense the excitement of discovering God’s message
in nature (Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:19,20; and see ReMine, 1993).
 

Taxonomy and Systematics

                  Pondering these matters makes it easier for us to realize the
basic importance of classification in biological studies of extinct and extant
forms of life. Taxonomy is the term used for the science of classifying living
things according to their natural groupings. Essentially, scientists of today
utilize a taxonomic system introduced by the Swedish botanist, Linnaeus, about
250 years ago.

                  However, there are different approaches used by scientists for
studying patterns of life and for classification. These are called systems of
taxonomy and they lie under the general heading of systematics. For studies of
nature’s patterns ReMine (1993, p. 444) has compared the diverse procedures to
the functions of different types of film (infrared, ultraviolet, and x-ray
film). For example there is phyletic or evolutionary systematics (or Darwinian
systematics) in which macroevolution (involving large changes) is assumed. See
Figure 1.

                  Systematic schemes which place less stress upon evolution may
be termed phenetic because they are based upon appearances of features of the
organisms and not necessarily their possible large scale evolutionary
relationships. Also there is the cladistic approach which focuses on common or
so-called “shared/derived” characters. Most importantly, popular methodology in
phyletic, phenetic and cladistic procedures all have been adapted to
macroevolutionary theorizing.

                  The earliest methods were phenetic which conferred the
distinct advantage of being objectively observable and most verifiable. Critics
of basic phenetics feel that its simplicity does not encourage adequate
consideration of historical causation. Nevertheless, those who employ
baraminology (with discontinuity systematics) as presented in this paper, can be
agnostic regarding popular phenetic and cladistic methodology, but at least they
do employ some phenetic methodology as one of their tools.
 

Discontinuity Systematics and Baraminology

                  Scientists who have preferred something other than a
macroevolutionary framework recently have developed what they believe to be a
more realistic systematics based upon the discontinuities or typology found in
nature. This methodology appropriately has been termed discontinuity systematics
(formally presented by Walter J. ReMine, 1990), or when combined with Biblical
revelation, baraminology (a term introduced by Kurt P. Wise, 1990). Baraminology
may be defined as a taxonomy based upon the created kinds (see Bartz, 1991;
Frair, 1991; 1999; and Figure 2). The word “baramin” was conceived by Frank L.
Marsh and first published in 1941; it is derived from the Hebrew verb bara,
create and min, kind (also see Marsh, 1969; Williams, 1997).

                  Since classification underlies all biological investigations,
it is quite significant that creationists now have an active focus on this
topic. Substantial progress has been made since 1990, and baraminologists have
developed their own terminology which at this time appears to be quite practical
for those doing systematic research. The major purpose of baraminology is to
determine which organisms share common ancestry.

                  Marsh employed the term baramin in an inclusive way for an
entire group of known, unknown, and possibly inferred organisms sharing genetic
relationship. But now the focus is more specific, and only those specimens which
can be studied as living or extinct (including fossil) specimens may be included
in the current four main baraminic groups. The terms employed as the four
primary baraminic categories are holobaramin, monobaramin, apobaramin, and
polybaramin.
 

Holobaramins

                  In baraminology the primary term is holobaramin from the Greek
holos for whole. The holobaramin is all and only those known living and/or
extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship. It is an entire
group believed to be related by common ancestry.

                  So now each natural group of related plants or of related
animals constitutes a holobaramin; or in more specific creationist terminology
the holobaramin consists of all known organisms in a group beginning after God
created the original organisms (see Wise, 1992). The holobaramin may be
represented as a branching tree, the nodes and tips of the branches representing
all the known members (subspecies, species, etc.) of the “kind”(“group”, or
“type”). See Figure 2. When individuals or groups of apparently related
specimens are being compared they may be designated as holobaraminic if they
constitute parts of one holobaramin.

                   During recent past decades the creationist researchers have
employed the terms “kind”, “group” and “type” generally interchangeably; or as
individuals the researchers have preferred one or another particular general
name for Marsh’s “baramin,” and also for what more specifically and currently
may be designated as holobaramins. Now systematists of particular taxons of
plants or animals may discard the older terminology and construct their trees
showing holobaraminic affinities, and thus the boundaries of common descent.

                  An important example of a holobaramin would be humans, Homo
sapiens. At the tips of the holobaraminic branches are
the various races (Caucasians, Ethiopians, Mongolians,
Amerindians [Amerinds or Native Americans], etc.). See Figure
3. A member of any of these races potentially would be
inter-fertile with a spouse of the opposite sex from any other
race.

                  It is not uncommon to find in the anthropological literature
reference to upward of eight human geographical races with
even additional intermediate populations. However, it is not
my intention in this paper to enter into discussions of the
different options for what is expressed here in the text or in
any of the figures, but merely to illustrate the taxonomic
principles involved.

                  Another holobaramin could consist of the sea turtles (see
Wise, 1992; Robinson, 1997). A diagram showing general
forms of living and fossil sea turtles may be found in Lutz
and Musick, 1997, p. 8. This diagram is called a “cladogram”
and is based upon studies by specialists Gaffney and Meylan,
but not all authorities agree with their assessment of
available data. See also Hirayama, 1998. Figure 4 is a very
generalized representation for all living and extinct marine
turtles. In all of these types of studies the actual goal of
discontinuity systematics is by means of empirical evidence to
determine the boundaries of common descent and thus to
converge on the holobaramins.

                  The different members of a holobaramin could have resulted
from a sorting out to the offspring of different genes
(DNA) from parental organisms. This is a common occurrence
today. Or, since the time of creation there could have
been some hereditary modifications of the DNA (mutations), and
these were passed on to the diverging offspring.
Selection in nature could have influenced the potential for
survival of the diverse siblings.

                                                   Monobaramins

                  The second term used in baraminology is monobaramin (mono,
from the Greek for single or one). The term
monobaramin is defined by ReMine (1993, p. 444) as:
a group containing only organisms related by common descent,
but not necessarily all of them. (A group comprising
one entire holobaramin or a portion thereof).

                  When a holobaramin is represented by a tree, one or more
branches of that tree would be a monobaramin. For example,
among humans, the caucasians would be a monobaramin (Figure
5). Or for the sea turtles, the five current types living
in oceans around the world constitute a monobaramin (Figure 6A
from Frair, 1982; and see Iverson, 1992, p. 80). Also,
the group of green turtles, Chelonia, or the branch containing
the ridley turtle, Lepidochelys, each would be a
monobaramin (Figure 6B). Individuals or groups may be referred
to as monobaraminic if they represent parts of a
holobaramin (Figures 5, 6A, 6B, and 7B).

                  In addition, systematic studies on particular monobaramins
where there has been diversification (as the appearance of
more recognizable species, subspecies, varieties, etc.) the
research on a monobaramin would not differ essentially
depending on the systematic philosophy of the investigators.
The difference between a (1) phyletic, in the sense of a
Darwinian macroevolutionary perspective, and a (2) baraminic
(creationist, “limited change”, or microevolutionary)
discontinuity systematics viewpoint mainly would be that the
former involves the use of empirical data for extrapolating
to some perceived earlier ancestors. But the baraminologist
maintains that thinking about phylogeny should not extend
beyond convincing evidence, and that scientists should be
relieved of their sense of obligation philosophically to
construct extensive phylogenies (evolutionary trees) in the
absence of compelling facts.

                                                    Apobaramins

                  A third baraminic term is apobaramin (Greek apo, away from),
which “is a group consisting of the entirety of at least
one holobaramin” (Wise, 1999–2000). It may contain a single
holobaramin or more than one holobaramins. “But it must
contain the entirety of each of the one or more holobaramins
within it”. No member organism of a holobaramin within an
apobaramin shares ancestry with any organism outside of its
own holobaramin ( this being based upon the definition of
holobaramin). See Figure 7A.

                  The adjective apobaraminic refers to the association between
or among distinctly unrelated groups (holobaramins). For
example all humans as a group would be apobaraminic because
none of its members shares ancestry with any other
organisms. The group of all humans and all turtles also would
be apobaraminic because no human or turtle shares
ancestry with any non-human or non-turtle organisms.

                  It is believed that the horses (horses, donkeys, and zebras)
all are related because they can hybridize, and therefore
they belong to a holobaramin. Additionally there is a “dog”
holobaramin with monobaraminic branches for the wolves,
another for the hyenas, another for the coyotes, for jackals,
and more for the hundreds of pet-dog breeds. “Cats”
constitute another holobaramin with monobaraminic branches for
the lion and the tiger, for the pumas, another for the
lynx, domestic cats, etc. (see O’Brien, 1997). A group of all
the horses (equids), all the dogs (canids), and all the cats
(felids) would be apobaraminic because no horse or dog or cat
shares a genetic relationship with any organism which is
not a horse, a dog, or a cat.

                  The turtle apobaramin may consist of one, two, three or four
holobaramins (see Wise, 1992). In this present paper I am
considering the sea turtles to constitute a holobaramin;
therefore a group containing the sea turtle holobaramin, all
equids, all canids, and all felids would be apobaraminic
because none of the members of any of these four holobaramins
shares genetic relationship with any specimens outside their
respective holobaramins.

                  The term apobaramin is a term useful especially during
evaluations of two types of organisms (pairwise comparisons).
Utilizing pairwise comparisons is the most common taxonomic
procedure.

                  For example the current Order Primates includes apes, humans,
lemurs, monkeys and tarsiers. All races of humans
belong to one holobaramin; whereas chimpanzees (chimps) along
with gorillas are members of another holobaramin. So
a group containing the human holobaramin and the chimp-gorilla
holobaramin would be apobaraminic (see Figure 7A).
Further, a collection of the human holobaramin with any or all
the other primate holobaramins would be apobaraminic.
No member of any of these holobaramins would share any
ancestry with a member of any of the other holobaramins
within or even outside this apobaramin. See Robinson and
Cavanaugh, 1998a for a baraminic study of Primates.

                  Conclusions regarding a holobaraminic chimp-gorilla
relationship (Figures 7A and 7B) are based upon Hartwig-
Scherer, 1998. Also Cavanaugh (1999–2000) has informed me that
a restudy of data from Robinson and Cavanaugh
(1998a) supports the holobaraminic status of chimps and
gorillas. However, as explained by Klein (1999, pp. 135–136)
the fossil record provides very little that is of any use in
understanding the history of chimps and gorillas. When
fossils convincingly have been determined to be related to
chimps and gorillas they should be added to their
holobaramin. Even possibly the chimp-gorilla group should be
divided into two separate holobaramins. Figure 7A
illustrates how the apobaraminic category can be useful
especially in cases where the included holobaramins possess
specimens with considerable similarity across holobaraminic
boundaries. So humans can be compared with the
organisms structurally and functionally most similar to them,
namely chimps and gorillas.

                                                    Polybaramins

                  The fourth term, polybaramin (poly, from Greek for many), is
employed for another mixture of unrelated organisms. It
has been defined as a group (two or more specimens) consisting
of part of at least two holobaramins. It may be any of
numerous hodgepodges which could contain holobaramins,
monobaramins, apobaramins, and individual specimens
(see Figure 8).

                  As an example, a polybaramin could contain representatives of
all human races, the two species of United States box
turtles, one dog, one lion, one tiger, and one sunflower
plant. The humans constitute a holobaramin. The box turtles
belong to a monobaramin in a turtle holobaramin, the dog to a
different monobaramin (in the canid holobaramin), the
lion and tiger to another monobaramin (in the felid
holobaramin), and the sunflower to a monobaramin within a plant
holobaramin.

                  The adjective polybaraminic refers to the association between
or among some or all parts of a polybaramin. For
example, the sunflower and the human holobaramin would be
polybaraminic, as would be the sunflower when compared
with a box turtle monobaramin and a dog.

                  If an investigator is dealing with a polybaramin his taxonomic
goal should be to separate its parts into the other three
categories as soon as possible. Each of the monobaramins would
need to be subtracted from this polybaramin and then
separately studied carefully in order to determine their place
in their respective holobaramins. The dog and the
sunflower each is part of its own different holobaramin, and
each of these holobaramins is unrelated to any other
holobaramin in this polybaramin. Also, the humans should be
analyzed individually to ascertain their proper relations
within a holobaramin.

                                                  Further Thoughts

                  To repeat and expand this somewhat further, the Darwinian
macroevolution model is represented by a single tree of
relationships, every form of life being related to every other
form of life (Figure 1). In the baraminic model there is a
forest of trees without connecting roots (Figure 2). One of
these rootless trees would have branches representing only
human diversification, another for canids, another for felids,
etc.

                  For people reared on an evolutionary diet the above menu can
be difficult to swallow and digest because students of
biology have been taught to think genetic relationship rather
than genetic discontinuity. But there is a lack of evidence
for connecting any holobaraminic group to any other
holobaraminic group. This is true for both extinct and extant
types of life.

                  It is common for scientists to utilize trees to depict
relationships, but baraminologist David Cavanaugh believes that
“trees” possibly may not be the best ways to portray
relationships, but “other structures, such as networks or lattices
may do a better job within many holobaramins. Tools of pattern
recognition, such as projection plots, may perhaps be
even better methods” (Cavanaugh, 1999–2000). So it remains to
be seen just how relationships popularly will be
represented in the future.

                                                Baraminic Terminology

                  The four terms, holobaramin, monobaramin, apobaramin,and
polybaramin formally and publicly were introduced by
Walter ReMine (1990) at the Second International Conference on
Creationism in Pittsburgh, PA 30 July 1990. Later in
the week of the same conference Kurt Wise (1990), who had had
extensive interchange with ReMine since 1983,
endorsed ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, wedded it to his
own young-earth creation position, and stated that the
name of this new systematic procedure was “baraminology.”

                  Wise also introduced a fifth term, namely archaebaramin, which
could be conceived as the originally-created
individual(s) of each holobaramin. For humans, Adam and Eve
would constitute the archaebaramin. Two other terms
which Wise has introduced are neobaramin which refers to
living forms of life and paleobaramin for the older
organisms. Archaebaramins are the most theoretical (Wise,
1990); whereas holo-, mono-, apo-, poly-, paleo- and
neobaramins are to be determined on the basis of observational
information.

                                                Baraminology in Action

                  It is important to emphasize that the strictly empirical
component of baraminology is discontinuity systematics which
can be utilized by itself without any reference to religious
literature. In fact, most of the sections in this present paper,
including the figures, actually are based on discontinuities
as observed in nature. ReMine (2000) has pointed out that
discontinuity systematics

                  is intentionally designed to be a neutral, scientific method
for studying some of nature’s patterns. We do not begin by
assuming discontinuity; rather we follow the data to identify
the discontinuities, wherever they may be. This
systematic method is an empirical, scientific enterprise—moved
by the data, not by theoretical presuppositions.

                  In the actual process of moving toward the goal of
characterizing holobaramins, the taxonomist needs to identify
apobaramins and partition them. Subtractive criteria need to
be used in dividing the apobaramins into separate
holobaramins. Then with the goal of characterizing
holobaramins, the taxonomist focuses on the monobaramins, and
additive criteria are employed to build these monobaramins.

                  An analogy for explaining this process has been proposed:

                  It is like there has been a huge snowfall covering the trees
to the top, and we are digging down into the snow to
identify the connections, the branches, limbs, and trunk. Is
there one tree below? Or is it an orchard of separate distinct
trees? As the data slowly come into view we will have
arguments about what is connected to what, or whether there is
discontinuity at a given place. Some researchers will
mis-identify various branches as connected, when these later are
seen as unconnected, and so forth. But this clears up as we
dig. We are not “cutting and pruning” the data. Rather, we
leave the data precisely where it is. We merely are cutting
and pruning our perceptions—particularly our temporarily
mistaken perceptions of the data (ReMine, 2000).

                  In other words the scientist is iterating tentative taxonomies
by increasing or decreasing sizes of the branches to arrive
at the best approximation of reality. This systematic
procedure is driven by observed facts rather than some
presupposed framework.

                  The goal of baraminology is to characterize holobaramins, but
baraminologists do not recognize holobaramins as
absolutely distinct from either apobaramins or monobaramins.
Apobaramins contain one or more holobaramins. So if an
apobaramin has been partitioned and only one holobaramin
remains is that holobaramin still an apobaramin? The
baraminologist says yes.

                  Also, if there is a portion (branch) of a holobaramin it is
termed a monobaramin. This monobaramin will grow in size and
complexity as more specimen branches are added. When a
taxonomist has added all the branches which can be found
among currently-living or extinct organisms, the taxonomist
may judge the tree to be complete according to all
currently-existing and applicable information. This means that
the “tree”, which could have one or more branches, has
all the forms of life believed to share genetic relationship,
that is to say that are related by descent. So this group now
by definition would be the holobaramin. Is it still a
monobaramin? The baraminologist says yes! So how can a group be
a monobaramin or an apobaramin and be a holobaramin at the
same time?

                  Remine (1993, p. 447) and Wise (1999–2000) explain that we can
think in terms of set theory. Consider a large circle, A
(apobaramin). An inner portion of it is a smaller circle B
(holobaramin), and this includes a still smaller inside region C
(monobaramin). See Figure 9. Both the apobaramin (A) and
monobaramin (C) are being changed in the direction of the
middle circle, holobaramin (B).

                                                     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.

                  2. Hybridization. Historically Marsh and others have placed
this criterion second only to the Bible; for if viable
offspring could be obtained from a cross between two different
forms, this would be definitive of their monobaraminic
status. However, we realize today that the lack of known
hybridization between two members from different populations
of organisms does not necessarily by itself mean that they are
unrelated. The hybridization criterion probably will retain
validity, but it is being reconsidered in the light of modern
genetics.

                  3. Ontogeny, namely the development of an individual from
embryo to adult. Hartwig-Scherer (1998) suggested that
comparative ontogeny followed hybridization in importance as a
criterion for membership in a particular type.

                  4. Lineage. Is there evidence of a clear-cut lineage between
and among either or both fossil and living forms.

                  5. Structure (morphology) and physiology (function).
Structures may be macroscopic (large entities such as body
organs), microscopic (small, and observed using
magnification), and molecular (chemical) configurations.

                  6. Fossils in rock layers. These studies can include locations
of fossil forms in the rock layers, and may entail
considerations of Flood sediments.

                  7. Ecology. It is important to comprehend an organism’s niche,
that is to say the region where it lives and how it
interacts with the environment including other living things.

                  In order to determine baraminic distances among types of
organisms it is important to utilize the most significant data.
For instance, molecular studies with mitochondrial DNA and RNA
were useful with some turtles, but the author
questioned the baraminic utility of ecologic criterions
(Robinson, 1997). In a baraminic study of human with non-human
primates, the morphological (form) features such as teeth and
bones as well as ecological characters including feeding
and habitats were more valuable than chromosomal or molecular
(hemoglobin and RNA) information (Robinson and
Cavanaugh, 1998a). Also see Garcia-Pozuelo-Ramos, 1997; 1998;
1999. However, baraminic research on a broad
spectrum of felids has revealed that ecological data were
least reliable, and chromosomal data of low reliability, The
morphological and molecular (protein and RNA) information were
most important (Robinson and Cavanaugh, 1998b).
For ongoing studies Cavanaugh (1999–2000) recently has
emphasized that:

                  In particular, proteins, and their DNA patterns, which are
part of fundamental cellular processes, have wide applicability
in baraminological research. For example, proteins associated
with cellular respiration like cytochrome C and
cytochrome B are excellent candidates. See for example, the
cytochrome C table in Denton (1986).

                  Statistics involving computer calculations are vital in the
above investigations. It is to be expected that when
baraminology is accepted widely the science of taxonomy will
be revolutionized. When systematists are dealing with a
“forest” of trees rather than one large evolutionary tree it
is possible that the categories of kingdom, phylum, division,
class and even orders will be less useful in classification.
However, among living things, groups of features within
other groups of characteristics can be observed. These so
called “nested patterns” (see ReMine, 1993; Wise, 1998) can
extend beyond baraminic categories; so phenetic and cladistic
methods may continue to be useful along with
discontinuity systematics.

                  For those who have been steeped in Linnaean taxonomy and
evolutionary thinking, discontinuity systematics may
appear to be a preposterous proposal. However, this admittedly
bold scheme should not be thought of as a departure
from reality. Interestingly, on the first of August during the
1999 International Botanical Congress in St. Louis an
overflow crowd heard a presentation promoting a so-called
PhyloCode, a systematic scheme which would lead to the
abolition of kingdoms, phylums, classes, orders, etc. (Milius,
1999). Also see papers by de Queiroz (1992; 1997a; 1997b).
The proposed uncomplicated systematic procedure focuses on
clades, each clade consisting of a single species and
descendants of that species. In other words, the clade would
be a holophyletic (genetically- united) group.

                  However, those utilizing a scheme such as this generally are
thinking of clades within clades within larger clades on a
macroevolutionary scale; whereas baraminology is more
microevolutionary (small changes) which is much less
speculative. For other taxonomic literature supporting
typology see Scherer, 1993.

                  How many holobaramins will there be—3,000, 5,000, 10,000,
15,000, or more? At this time the best very tentative answer
is, “probably in the low thousands”.
 

                                                Active Baraminologists

                  On 6 March 1996 graduate student Neal A. Doran sent an email
message to Kurt Wise suggesting a “baraminology
study group”. The following day he emailed two other graduate
students, Todd Wood and D. Ashley Robinson about
this. The responses all were positive, and by 26 March 1996
the group had added Paul Nelson and John Meyer making
a total of six. These men worked at identifying pertinent
literature and establishing guidelines for the future. In June
1997, Doran, Wise, Wood, and Robinson plus more recent
contacts David Cavanaugh and David Fouts met in Dayton,
TN where Wise worked, and together they established the
Baraminology Study Group (BSG).

                  In addition to the above-mentioned eight men, there were Pete
Williams, Jerry Kreps, and Jeff Tompkins who became
involved to varying degrees. In October 1998 Joe Dasso and I
accepted invitations to join the group, thus increasing
membership to 13.

                  A three-day conference with the auspicious title “Baraminology
‘99: Creation Biology for the 21st Century” was
organized and presented by the BSG in cooperation with the
Departments of Biology and Chemistry at Liberty
University in Lynchburg, VA, 5–7 August 1999. There were 24
invited participants.

                  Formal presentations were made by Todd C. Wood, D. Ashley
Robinson, Kurt P. Wise, Pete J. Williams, and Paul
Nelson. Topics related to baraminology included creation
biology, phylogenetic inference, Biblical studies, design
theory, the hybridization criterion, evolutionary webs, and
non-systematics fields. The final afternoon was devoted to a
workshop on baraminology of the family containing camels.
These presentations and discussions on camels included
an introduction, Biblical and linguistic studies, fossil
record, hybridization, molecular studies, phylogenetic distortion,
and conclusions. The final evening of the conference included
a moderated discussion of “The Future of the BSG and
Baraminology.”

                  Consideration was given to the establishment of a new society
and a new journal. Participants volunteered for
responsibilities centering on a second conference on the west
coast in early 2001.

                  In spite of some differences of opinion, it was my impression
that the group as a whole was very excited about progress
made so far and prospects for the future of baraminology. Some
of the scientists preferred to believe in an old earth
(billions of years), but the leadership and most of the
attendees were united in maintaining a young earth (thousands of
years old) perspective. An introduction to baraminology and
report on the 1999 conference has been written by an
attendee, botanist Margaret Helder, 1999.

                                                Concluding Comments

                  Baraminology may be thought of as a typological approach to
classifying forms of life, both living and fossilized. In
former centuries scientists theorized typologically more
commonly than they do at the present time. However, because
of the many difficulties (for example, convergences and
reversals) which plague the macroevolutionary thinker, there is
a growing receptivity to typology.

                  Baraminologists believe that they are at the forefront of
modern progressive thinking. Those interested in learning more
about the ten-year-old field of baraminology should consult
the references.

                                                  Acknowledgments

                  David Cavanaugh, Kurt Wise and Walter ReMine read earlier
drafts of this manuscript and contributed much
invaluable information. Other aid came from John W. Cuozzo,
Neal Doran, Scott A. Mahathey, Todd Wood, and D.
Ashley Robinson. Help with mechanical details has been
rendered by Lane P. Lester, CRSQ Managing Editor. The
paper was written in response to patient encouragement from
the CRSQ Editor, Emmett L. Williams.
 

                                                     References

                  CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quarterly
                  Bartz, Paul A. 1991. A refinement of biosystematics which
reflects baraminic variation. CRSQ 28(1):18–20.
                  Cavanaugh, David P. 1999–2000. Personal communications.
                  Cuozzo, Jack. 1998. Buried alive: the startling truth about
Neanderthal Man. Master Books, PO Box 727, Green Forest,
AR 72638.
                     . 2000. Personal communications.
                  Denton, Michael. 1986. Evolution: a theory in crisis. Woodbine
House, Rockville, MD.
                  de Queiroz, Kevin. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annual Review
of Ecology and Systematics 23:449–480.
                     . 1997a. Misunderstandings about the phylogenetic approach
to biological nomenclature: a reply to Liden and
                  Oxelman. Zoologica Scripta 26(1):67–70.
                     . 1997b. The Linnaean hierarchy and the evolutionization of
taxonomy, with emphasis on the problem of
nomenclature. Aliso (The Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden,
Claremont, CA 91711–3157) 15(2):125–144.
                  Frair, Wayne. 1982. Serum electrophoresis and sea turtle
classification. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology
72B:1–4.
                     . 1991. Original kinds and turtle phylogeny. CRSQ 28(1):21–24.
                     . 1999. Creationist classification—an update. Creation
Matters 4(1):1,5.
                  Garcia-Pozuelo-Ramos, Celedonio. 1997. Taxonomy of primates.
CRSQ 34(2):93–102.
                     . 1998. Dental variability in the domestic dog (Canis
familiaris): implications for the variability of primates. CRSQ
35(2):66–75.
                     . 1999. Craniodental variability in the domestic dog (Canis
familiaris) and its implications for the variability in
primates. CRSQ 36(3):116–123.
                  Hartwig-Scherer, Sigrid. 1998. Apes or ancestors?:
interpretations of the hominid fossil record within evolutionary and
basic type biology. In William A. Dembski, editor. Mere
creation: science, faith and intelligent design, pp. 212–235.
Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
                  Helder, Margaret. 1999. Introducing baramins. Creation
Dialogue (5328 Calgary Trail South, Suite 1136, Edmonton,
Alberta T6H 4J8) 26(3):6–7.
                  Hirayama, Ren. 1998. Oldest known sea turtle. Nature
392:705–708.
                  Iverson, John B. 1992. A revised checklist with distribution
maps of the turtles of the world. Privately printed,
Richmond, IN.
                  Klein, Richard G. 1999. The human career : human biological
and cultural origins. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL.
                  Lutz, Peter L., and John A. Musick. 1997. The biology of sea
turtles. CRC Press, New York.
                  Marsh, Frank L. 1941. Fundamental biology. Published by the
author, Lincoln, NE.
                     . 1969. The form and structure of living things. CRSQ
6(1):13–25.
                  Milius, Susan. 1999. Should we junk Linnaeus? Science News
156(17):268–270.
                  O’Brien, Stephen J. 1997 (June). The human-cat connection.
National Geographic 191(6):77–85.
                  ReMine, Walter J. 1990. Discontinuity systematics: a new
methodology of biosystematics relevant to the creation
model. In R. E. Walsh, editor, Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Creationism. Volume II,
                  Technical Symposium, pp. 207–216. Creation Science Fellowship,
PO Box 99303, Pittsburgh, PA 15233-4303.
                     . 1993. The biotic message: evolution versus message
theory. St. Paul Science, PO Box 28006, Saint Paul, MN 55128.
                     . 2000. Personal communications.
                  Robinson, D. Ashley. 1997. A mitochondrial DNA analysis of the
testudine apobaramin. CRSQ 33(4):262–272.
                  Robinson, D. Ashley, and David P. Cavanaugh. 1998a. A
quantitative approach to baraminology with examples from
the catarrhine primates. CRSQ 34(4):196–208.
                     . 1998b. Evidence for a holobaraminic origin of the cats.
CRSQ 35(1):2–14.
                  Scherer, Siegfried. 1993. Typen des Lebens. Pascal Verlag,
Berlin.
                  Williams, Pete J. 1997. What does min mean? Creation Ex Nihilo
Technical Journal 11(3):344–352.
                  Wise, Kurt P. 1990. Baraminology: a young-earth creation
biosystematic method. In R. E. Walsh, editor, Proceedings of
the Second International Conference on Creationism. Volume II,
Technical Symposium, pp. 345–360. Creation Science
Fellowship, PO Box 99303, Pittsburgh, PA 15233-4303.
                     . 1992. Practical baraminology. Creation Ex Nihilo
Technical Journal 6(2):122–137.
                     . 1998. Is life singularly nested or not? In R. E. Walsh,
editor, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Creationism. Technical Symposium Sessions, pp. 619–631.
Creation Science Fellowship, PO Box 99303, Pittsburgh, PA
15233-4303.
                     . 1999–2000. Personal communications.

Copyright Š 2000 by Creation Research Society. All rights reserved.

Oryginal:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm