From: LARRY SITES                                      Posted:  9 Sep 94  21:40
To  : ARTHUR BIELE
Subj: Baramin? saramin!

ARTHUR BIELE to MARTY LEIPZIG on 09-05-94 01:01 re: "COLLAPSE OF MARTY L.

AB>If there is no Creator, then baramins do not exist. Since the existence
AB>of a Creator who created all living things, each according to their
AB>kind, is axiomatic to the creation model I proposed, baramin is simply
AB>working definition. Creation scientists are working on determining the
AB>exact nature of the original baramins, which is similar to evolutionist
AB>tracing species back to their distant ancestry.

Is a "baramin" any different from creationist "kind"? How do you know that
humans are a different "baramin" from apes? Do you have any scientific
evidence? Even one of the great creationists, Gish shoots himself on this
one. Read it and weep:

Area # 256  ORIGINS *(Talk)         07-04-94 23:43      Message # 730
From    : KEN SMITH
To      : ALL
Subj    : RE: EVOLUTION AS FACT/TH

In article <2v9vhl$fkn@search01.news.aol.com> newman700@aol.com (New
Man700)
 writes:
>In article <2v9edv$qf2@news.iastate.edu>, kv07@iastate.edu (Warren
>vonRoeschlaub) writes:
>
>>Certainly...but first, would you please provide a detailed
>scientific
>>definition of a species?
>
>::If you cannot look up this definition in a high-school level
>::biology book why do you feel confident about knowing the "problems"
>::with evolution?
>
>Leave it to the evolutionists to come off with a patronizing remark
>like that. Typical evolutionists' tactic.  But, my dear man, you're
>evading the point.  The point is not my ability to read a high school
>textbook.  The point is that evolutionists have a lesser grasp on
>what constitutes a species in a SCIENTIFIC sense than Creationists
>have on what constitutes a "kind."  You see, I maintain that there
>Besides, I could always return tit-for-tat and say that you should
>have the ability to consult Duane Gish on the definition of a "kind,"
>or else, leave the discussion.

Ah, so now we are enlightened.
You are a relative newcomer to t.o Rich, and are probably not aware
that various people have archives or snippets of stuff on creationism
which we refer to or dig out as appropriate.  I think it was last year
sometime that I posted some extracts from Gish himself about *his*
ideas on kinds.

So that you don't miss out, here are the relevant (well, some
of the relevant) paragraphs from _Evolution: The Fossils Say No!_.
They are on pages 18 and 20 - page 19 is occupied by what Gish labels
"A hypothetical phylogenetic tree".  I scanned the book rather than
typing it in, so species names are not shown in italics, and
end-of-line hyphenation is as in the original.

Have fun reaqding it, Rich.

     Equally important to our discussion is an understand-
     ing of just what we are not talking about when we use the
     term evolution. We are not referring to the limited vari-
     ations that can be seen to occur, or which can be inferred
     to have occurred in the past, but which do not give rise to a
     new basic kind.

     We must here attempt to define what we mean by a
     basic kind. A basic animal or plant kind would include all
     animals or plants which were truly derived from a single
     stock. In present-day terms, it would be said that they
     have shared a common gene pool. All humans, for exam-
     ple, are within a single basic kind, Homo sapiens. In this
     case, the basic kind is a single species.

     In other cases, the basic kind may be at the genus level.
     It may be, for instance, that the various species of the
     coyote, such as the Oklahoma Coyote (Canis frustor), the
     Mountain Coyote (C. Lestes), the Desert Coyote (C.
     estor), and others, are of the same basic kind. It is possi-
     ble, even likely, that this basic kind (which we may call the
     dog kind) includes not only all coyote species, but also the
     wolf (Canis lupus) and the dog (Canis familiaris).

     The Galapagos Island finches provide another exam-
     ple of species, and even genera, which are probably of one
     basic kind. Lammerts has pointed out that these finches,
     which include various "species" within the "genera,"
     Geospiza, Camarhynchus, and Cactospiza, intergrade
     completely and should probably be included within a
     single species, certainly within a single genus, at the very
     least. These finches apparently have been derived from a
     parent finch stock, the basic kind having been broken up
     into various forms as a result of chance arrangement of
     their original variability potential. The warbler finches, or
     Certhidea, on the other hand, are distinctive, and may
     have been derived from a basic stock separate from that
     which includes the other three finch "genera."

     Another example which may be cited, this one from
     the plant kingdom, is that of the various varieties of corn.
     These include sweet corn, popcorn, dent corn, starch
     corn, pod corn, and flint corn, all of which are probably
     merely varieties of the corn kind.

     In the above discussion, we have defined a basic kind
     as including all of those variants which have been derived
     from a single stock. We have cited some examples of
     varieties which we believe should be included within a
     single basic kind. We cannot always be sure, however,
     what constitutes a separate kind. The division into kinds is
     easier the more the divergence observed. It is obvious, for
     example, that among invertebrates the protozoa, sponges,
     jellyfish, worms, snails, trilobites, lobsters, and bees are
     all different kinds. Among the vertebrates, the fishes,
     amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are obviously
     different basic kinds.

     Among the reptiles, the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs,
     pterosaurs (flying reptiles) and ichthyosaurs (aquatic rep-
     tiles) would be placed in different kinds. Each one of these
     major groups of reptiles could be further subdivided into
     the basic kinds within each.

     Within the mammalian class, duckbilled platypuses,
     opposums, bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs, cats,
     lemurs, monkeys, apes, and men are easily assignable to
     different basic kinds. Among the apes, the gibbons,
     orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas would each be in-
     cluded in a different basic kind.

I particularly like his phrase "The division into kinds is easier the
more the divergence observed."  It must take a very special type of
mental gymnastics to observe more divergence between chimpanzees and
gorillas, than between chihuahuas, great danes, coyotes and wolves.

>--Rich

Ken Smith
--
Dr. Ken Smith                | snailmail: Department of Mathematics,
email: kgs@maths.uq.oz.au    |            The University of Queensland,

Mathematician by profession; |            St Lucia, Qld. 4072.
reason sometimes rules.      |            Australia.
--- Courtesy of Silver Xpress
 ! Origin: E & S Systems fido <-> unix gateway (1:202/217)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


 Peace, Larry
___
 * WR  # 398 * Purgamentum Init, Exit Pergamentum
--- FMail/386 0.98a
 * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924  (1:202/212)