Created Kinds
From SkepticWiki
Contents |
[edit] Definition
A baramin or created kind or more briefly kind is a group of species which a creationist will admit are related to each other. For enthusiasts for the baramin concept, this is often around the taxonomic level of a family, though this may vary. The most common examples given are the "dog kind" (Canidae: dogs, wolves, jackals, coyotes and so on) and the "cat kind" (Felidae: lions, cheetahs, domestic cats and so on).
The purpose of the baramin concept seems to be to solve the problem of overcrowding on Noah's Ark. The Bible, after all, does not speak of God creating "species" in particular; he creates "kinds" of animals. Now if a "kind" is a higher taxonomic class than a species, then Noah only needs to take two of each "kind" of animal into the Ark, and the modern species can be descended from those ancestral forms by production of new species, genera, and so forth in the post-Flood world.
[edit] Evolution-but-not-really
If they mean that the radiation was not adaptive, then this would indeed not be evolution as we understand it: it would be contrary to the law of natural selection, and would require a series of miracles. Instead, they talk vaguely of "loss of genetic information" (a concept they cannot quantify: see our main article on Mutations and Information for more details), or in general try to speak of the event in negative terms; as one creationist explains, animals "adapt to their environment by the loss of capacity to adapt to other environments." [1] That's one way of describing evolution, we suppose, but it doesn't stop it from being evolution.
We have never seen a creationist reconstruction of the super-cat from which the Felidae are descended, but from the study of its degenerate ancestors we might deduce that it had stripes, spots, and a mane; that it could run at seventy miles an hour, climb trees, kill buffalo, catch mice, and was good with small children. No evidence has come to light of such a form.
In general, the intermediate forms required by creationists have not come to light. There are, of course, plenty of intermediate forms, but they are in the fossil record, which in most creationist views was laid down during Noah's Flood. What creationists need is unfossilised post-diluvian bones testifying to rapid evolution-but-not-really. The intermediate forms required are also not recorded in ancient art.
Another problem that the fossil record makes for evolution-but-not-really is that modern species are found in fossil form. The most recent fossils contain (at the last count) 4631 mammal species alone still living today.[2] Since they were evidently not drowned in the Flood, they must have survived on the Ark. Take, for example, the "cat kind" (Felidae) so often used as an example by creationists. In the genus Panthera alone, all four member species, the lion (P. leo), jaguar (P. onca), leopard (P. pardus), and tiger (P. tigris) are all known from the fossil record. Among the "dog kind" (Canidae) in the genus Canis alone we can distinguish between fossils of various species of modern wolves, jackals and coyotes.
[edit] Redefinition
[edit] The original definition: interfertility
The baramin concept was originally defined by interfertility:
- The ability to reproduce is the keystone characteristic which indicates that plants or animals have descended from the same baramin. [3]
That would actually be an objective criterion: indeed, if the creationists added "to reproduce offspring which are themselves fertile", this would be the Biological Species Concept. (Curiously, many creationists deny this by claiming that the Biological Species Concept includes geographical separation, which of course it does not.)
The interfertility criterion is precise enough to distinguish between chimpanzees and humans. However, what it does not do is what the whole baramin scheme was designed to do in the first place --- that is, to significantly reduce the crowding in Noah's Ark. This has led to some backtracking:
- 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. [4]
[edit] The modern definition: "because I say so"
- Creation scientists posit that the defining element of kinds is approved by bariminologists of creation science through evidence for common lines of ancestry among the organisms. The few creationists who work to make such classifications have not so far come up with a consistent set of rules for establishing when this criteria is met within evolutionary taxonomy. [5]
This leaves creationists free to pick and choose how much of the morphological and genetic data they will accept, and how much to reject: they can go on lumping taxa together based on the data --- until this practice makes them feel uncomfortable, and then stop. They can also cherry-pick among classes of data:
- 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) [6]
If you want to unite the turtles, it is indeed a good idea to look at genetic data; and if you want to argue that chimps and humans are not related, then looking at genetic data is indeed as much use as a hole in the head.
The problem faced by baraminologists is that they have two entirely conflicting needs. They need criteria which will lump dissimilar creatures together, so as to save room on the Ark, and they also need criteria which will separate creatures as close as humans and chimps, which have entirely homologous parts (see diagram) and are very similar genetically. [7]
Fitting intermediate forms into "created kinds" also requires splitting taxa apart rather than lumping them together, since otherwise creationists would end up with two species in different baramins which were more similar to one another than to some of the other members of their respective baramins. So, for example, one creationist who is happy to lump together all the non-hominid apes and Old World monkeys puts the Australopithicines in a kind of their own.[8]
The necessity both to lump taxa together and to split them apart means that creationists will never be able to present a single non-arbitrary set of genetic and/or morphological criteria for a baramin which will achieve their purpose.
[edit] Examples of kinds
We give some examples of creationists identifying created kinds
[edit] Genera as kinds
Example:
- Among the apes, the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas would each be included in a different basic kind. (Gish, 1978, p 35.)
This is splitting taxa rather fine: but we suppose it's necessary in the case of apes, since there are no consistent criteria which would allow Gish to unite gorillas and chimps while not putting humans in the same baramin.
[edit] Families as kinds
Example:
- Thus the genera Panthera, Felis and Acinonyx may represent descendants of three original created cat kinds, or maybe two: Panthera-Felis and Acinonyx, or even one cat kind. (Answers in Genesis[9].)
As we have pointed out, the problem with this is that, amongst other things, all four species of Panthera are known from fossil forms.
[edit] Suborders as kinds
Example: this website does what creationists very rarely do, and provides a list of "kinds". The general rule seems to be that a kind is the next taxonomic level up from family, i.e. a suborder or infraorder, although this is not completely systematic (mammal-like reptiles --- therapsids --- are lumped into one "kind", although they consistute an order). The same creationist excludes humans from the Catarrhini while lumping together oppossums, numbats, bandicoots, and the marsuipial tiger. [10]
[edit] Orders as kinds
Example:
- Some organisms seem to have more available diversity in their baramins than do others. Orchids and beetles each have thousands of named species. [11]
Now, if "beetles" are a baramin, then a baramin can be a whole taxonomic order. To put that into perspective, Carnivora (cats, dogs, bears, seals, skunks, weasels, badgers and so forth) is also a taxonomic order. The beetles, however, contain far more species than Carnivora: about 300,000 species are known so far, so for that many to evolve-but-not-really since the Flood (4500 years ago: see the main article on Biblical Chronology for further details) we need to average 66 new species not-really-evolving per year.
[edit] Superorders as kinds
Example:
- Among the reptiles the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs (flying reptiles), and ichthyosaurs (aquatic reptiles) would be placed in different kinds. (Duane Gish: Evolution: The Fossils Say No!)
Dinosaurs are a superorder. To put that into perspective, there are only four mammalian superorders: Laurasiatheria, for example, includes hedgehogs, gymnures, moles, shrews, solenodons, whales, dolphins and porpoises, pigs, hippopotamus, camels, giraffe, deer, antelope, cattle, sheep, goats, pangolins, bats, carnivores and odd-toed ungulates.
[edit] Phyla as kinds
Example:
- There are over seven thousand species of segmented worms, the worm kind. [12]
The segmented worms (Annelida) are an entire phylum. To put that into perspective, Chordata is also a phylum, which includes mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians, fish, hagfish, lampreys, lancelets and tunicates.
