Comments for The New Creationism

Comment on Musings on loopy laryngeal nerves by paulgarner

paulgarner — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:31:33 +0000

Actually I think that discontinuity is a pretty pervasive feature of the fossil record. Yes, there are morphological intermediates both in the fossil record and in the living world – although most of them cannot easily be interpreted as evolutionary intermediates. More challenging are the stratomorphic intermediates in the fossil record that seem to connect ancestral and descendant groups, but there are far fewer of them than one might expect from evolutionary theory. Of those, some are intrabaraminic (e.g. horses) and probably document post-Flood diversification, while others may represent ecological intermediates between adjacent pre-Flood communities that were buried sequentially during the Flood. This article by Kurt Wise is a good introduction to the ‘transitional forms’ problem from a creationist perspective. It doesn’t shy away from the difficult questions, while offering encouragement to creationists in their search for understanding.

Comment on Musings on loopy laryngeal nerves by Jordan

Jordan — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:23:00 +0000

I guess my point is that we DON’T see discontinuity in the fossil record, though, Paul. There are excellent examples of intermediate morphologies in the fossil record, including those that span currently identified baramins. I asked Todd Wood about these intermediate forms a while ago (http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-about-transitional-forms.html) and he admitted that he could not account for them within a baraminological framework. Perhaps the best evidence for continuity can be seen in the ape-human transition, as Todd has admitted in print (http://www.creationbiology.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=201240&module_id=36954). This is the basis on which common ancestry is inferred (as is the objective nested hierarchy into which life is arranged) — it isn’t simply an assumption, as you say.
So we DO have excellent evidence for inter-baraminic continuity in the fossil record (it’s the same kind of evidence that you used to link modern giraffes with their short-necked ancestors), which I would think should cast serious doubt on the biological reality of “kinds” for all of us. The fact that baraminologists continue to insist that baramins are objective and real is what makes me think the field is ultimately untestable since the evidence isn’t allowed to challenge its basic assumptions.

Comment on Musings on loopy laryngeal nerves by paulgarner

paulgarner — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:00:21 +0000

The assumption that biological discontinuity is a real phenomenon is basic to baraminology, just as the assumption of universal common ancestry is basic to evolutionary systematics. However, specific baraminological hypotheses are falsifiable and can be tested against the evidence. I suppose it’s possible that our search for discontinuity might reveal only continuity, although that doesn’t seem to reflect what we actually see. Rather, when we look for discontinuity we do seem to find evidence of it.

Comment on Musings on loopy laryngeal nerves by Jordan

Jordan — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:47:52 +0000

Thanks again, Paul. Just one last question, then: Is baraminology falsifiable? If we’re unwilling reexamine our initial assumption that Genesis “kinds” are real biological units in light of new evidence, it strikes me that it is not. Again, if I’m wrong, please correct me. I’m still trying to wrap my head around this stuff.

Comment on Musings on loopy laryngeal nerves by paulgarner

paulgarner — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:11:56 +0000

[Note: This is in response to Jordan's comment above] Well, baraminology is an explicitly young-age creationist systematic method and thus it takes into account relevant biblical data where it is available. However, baraminologists are interested in applying as wide a range of criteria as possible in determining the membership of baramins – hybridisation, morphological, molecular and palaeontological evidence, in addition to biblical information. In the case of giraffids, I’m pretty sure the Bible won’t tell us whether Samotherium and Giraffa belong to the same baramin, and so we’ll have to decide that based on other evidence.

Comment on Musings on loopy laryngeal nerves by paulgarner

paulgarner — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:49:58 +0000

Did you take a look at the comments that I linked to on Todd Wood’s blog? I also addressed these kinds of issues, with some references to relevant published papers, in an earlier response to Kevin N. See the bottom of this post.

Comment on Musings on loopy laryngeal nerves by Jordan

Jordan — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:09:23 +0000

Thanks again for the response, Paul. I checked out the link you provided me with regards to the criteria used to infer baramins, but unfortunately, I found it more confusing than anything. As I understand it, the search for baramins starts with a particular assumption that the Genesis “kind” is a real, discrete unit of biology. It strikes me that in order to test such an assumption, we must develop a means of distinguishing between supposed baramins without referring back to the Bible (lest the search for baramins becomes a circular argument). But on the link you provided, one of the criteria for distinguishing baramins is “scriptural claims to discontinuity” (e.g., humans do not belong to the same baramin as apes because the Bible says they are a separate creation). This strikes me as being completely circular (baramins exist because the Bible says so; evidence for this interpretation can be found in the Bible). If I’m confusing the issue, please let me know where. But in the meantime, the question still rattling around in my head is this: How can we objectively test for the existence of biblical “kinds” in the first place?

[Note: See PG's reply below.]

Comment on Musings on loopy laryngeal nerves by paulgarner

paulgarner — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:10:44 +0000

Various additive and subtractive criteria are applied to establish membership of baramins, including but not limited to hybridisation. Palaeontological and morphological evidence also play a role. You may find this introduction to baraminology useful.

Comment on Musings on loopy laryngeal nerves by WebMonk

WebMonk — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:57:16 +0000

About that tight window, how do you explain that the various horse fossils are found in places like North America in the Eocene layers, and still show impressive speciation?

If the Miocene was laid down 90-260 years after the Flood, and the Eocene is earlier, that gives the horses less than 100 years to go from those original two on the Ark thousands of miles to wind up buried in North America in places like Wyoming. How is that even remotely possible?

Those two had to populate into tens of thousands in that 100 years, while …

they were migrating thousands of miles, across mountains, across ice sheets, across an ocean, while residual flooding is laying down soil hundreds of feet deep. (remember – they’re migrating trying to find the easiest food, not purposefully setting out to cross as much land as possible)

And while they were doing all that, their bodies were changing all over the place – ribs coming and going, feet changing all around, teeth adjusting, size varying, vertebrae, skull shape, etc.

And you’re saying all this took place in LESS than 100 years???

Comment on Musings on loopy laryngeal nerves by Jordan

Jordan — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:47:41 +0000

I’m curious to know how baraminologists come to accept that giraffes are descended from short-necked fossil species to begin with. My understanding of baraminology is that baramins are inferred on the basis of breeding experiments. Fossils don’t breed, so how can fossils be incorporated into baraminology in the first place?