Baraminology

For decades the evolutionary biology has made efforts to understand the meaning of "species" and explain the training process. Currently, there are over twenty different concepts of species. The use of different concepts leads to improper and misleading comparisons. On the other hand, catastrophic biologists for decades used the term "type" or "group" for what they consider categories of organisms not genetically related. Thus, each of the various categories of species, subspecies and varieties seen today were designed to diversify a basic common ancestor type. Morphological patterns around the genus taxon was identified with ancestral fossils buried in a catastrophic recent basic; this model tells us a story of a period of: 1) rapid speciation, 2) stay with high number of species in a stable environment (fossil replay without environmental evolutionary pressures), 3) disaster followed by massive burial of population alive evidenced by the repetition of the same fossil species (which detracts punctuality), 4) presence of several different species together in the fossil record, lots of vertebrate fossils (which features disaster of great magnitude and high rates of sedimentation), and 5) drastic environmental changes causing radiation of species in samples of recent layers and in millions of species in the current biodiversity.

According to evolutionary theory, the origin of tetrapods (or limbed vertebrates) from a fish-like ancestor during the Devonian Period was one of the major events in the history of life. Devonian sediments have yielded several families of tetrapod-like fishes, including the elpistostegids which range from the Givetian to Frasnian of the Middle to Upper Devonian and are regarded as close to the evolutionary ancestry of tetrapods. Two of the best-known ‘early’ tetrapods are Ichthyostega and Acanthostega, first described from fossil material discovered in the Famennian (uppermost Upper Devonian) sediments of East Greenland. These taxa (and others subsequently described) display mosaic combinations of fish-like and tetrapod-like characters, along with some unique traits (such as polydactyly) not found in more ‘derived’ tetrapods. Creationists have claimed that these organisms are not evolutionary intermediates, but were rather the inhabitants of aquatic environments associated with a pre-Flood floating forest biome, with morphologically intermediate traits that equipped them for life in an environment that was itself intermediate between the sea and the land. This paper evaluates the baraminic status of a range of Devonian and Carboniferous fishes and tetrapods using the techniques of statistical baraminology. Baraminic distance correlation (BDC) and three-dimensional multidimensional scaling (MDS) are applied to six previously published character-taxon matrices. The results reveal little evidence of continuity, and significant evidence of discontinuity, between the elpistostegids and tetrapods such as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega, consistent with the creationist claim of separate ancestry. However, further work will be required to elucidate the baraminic relationships within these presumably apobaraminic groups.

There is fossil evidence interpreted as transitional forms which can be understood to strongly support macroevolutionary theory. Creationist palaeontology is an immature field, the resources of creationists are severely limited, and the 'transitional form' issue has a low priority in the creation model. It is thus premature to engage in a rigorous evaluation of transitional form claims. It is suggested that creationists not divert resources or concern in the direction of 'transitional form' arguments. As a creationist response to evolutionary claims of transitional forms is developed, a new vocabulary should be adopted. It is suggested that distinctions be made among morphological, stratigraphic and stratomorphic intermediates, and among inter-specific, species, higher-taxon and series stratomorphic intermediates. Even at this early stage of development and with such significant challenges as the early whale series, the creation model appears to have potential for developing a creationist explanation of stratomorphic intermediates which is superior to that of evolutionary theory.

Senter’s strategy of arguing against creationism using their own methodology focused on demonstrating a morphological continuum between birds and nonavian dinosaurs using classical multidimensional scaling (CMDS), a method used by some creationists to assign species to assist in the detection of phylogenetic ‘discontinuities.’ Because creationists do not typically use CMDS in the manner Senter used it, his results were re-examined using ‘distance correlation,’ a method used to assign species to ‘created kinds.’ Distance correlation using Senter’s set of taxa and characters supports his conclusion of morphological continuity, but other sets of taxa with more characters do not. These results lessen the potential impact that Senter’s strategy might have on creationism; however, it is possible that future fossil discoveries will provide stronger support for morphological continuity between dinosaurs and birds.

An ongoing debate about the baraminic status of H. naledi has taken place in a series of recent articles in the creationist literature, which was first determined to be a part of the human holobaramin. Subsequent analyses have tried both to refute and support this idea. As a response to my previous rebuttal to the critique of my previous work suggesting that H. naledi is not a part of the human holobaramin, two papers have been presented arguing that the H. naledi remains could not have been deposited in the Dinaledi Chamber due to the Genesis Flood, but were intentionally buried, that the fossils were not mixed, that the cranial capacity of H. naledi falls within that of human variation, and that an analysis of cranial characters from 24 species including H. naledi show that it is part of the human holobaramin. On closer examination, the argument for intentional burial and homogeneity of fossils does not hold up. The cave system is much too convoluted and narrow to support regular burials of H. naledi individuals when burial in more easily accessible parts of the cave was possible. The three H. naledi skulls are also different in shape, and thus heterogenous. Compared to other known burial sites of modern humans, both remains of macrofauna and human artifacts are missing from the Dinaledi Chamber. Remains in these other sites are much more complete and articulated. H. floresiensis might well be another example of a fossil ape, based on both cranial and post-cranial characteristics (similar to H. naledi), mistaken to be a diminutive archaic human. Therefore, the cranial capacity of H. naledi still remains outside the range of modern humans. Baraminic analyses of one cranial data set and two post-cranial data sets suggest that both H. naledi and H. floresiensis are not part of the human holobaramin, but are rather australopiths.

Homo naledi is a sensational fossil find. To estimate its relationship to other human species from a creation
perspective, two statistical baraminological analyses of craniodental characteristics were conducted using data
from a published evolutionary study. In the first analysis, four Australopithecus and seven Homo species were
included, resulted in weak separation into three clusters and two isolated species. In the second analysis, three
Paranthropus species were added, but lack of matching data required removal of one species of Australpithecus
and two of Homo; results were less resolved than in the first analysis. Neither data set was sufficient to demonstrate discontinuity among clusters conclusively. However, in both analyses Homo naledi appears continuous with and fits well within the cluster of Homo species, despite some Australopithecus-like characteristics. Comparison of postcranial traits further supports the results, as 8 out of 15 characteristics show exclusive similarity to humans compared with only three characteristics shared exclusively with australopithecines. Placement of H. naledi in the human baramin is supported. Since this is one of the first morphological dataset available for H. naledi and it
includes only craniodental characteristics, further baraminological analysis is warranted.

The baraminic status of fossil hominids was tested using statistical baraminology techniques. Eight previously published cladistic studies of fossil and extant hominids were reexamined with baraminic distance correlation (BDC) and multidimensional scaling (MDS). Results indicate that hominins may be divided into as many as four different holobaramins: (1) the genus Homo (including Australopithecus sediba), (2) the genus Paranthropus, (3) Australopithecus africanus, and (4) Gorilla, Pan, Australopithecus afarensis, and Australopithecus garhi.
These results tentatively confirm the common creationist claim that fossil hominids can be divided into human and non-human categories. In contrast to many creationist claims, however, the present results
indicate that Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and—most surprisingly—Australopithecus sediba belong in the human holobaramin. Future studies should focus on including postcranial characters in baraminic
distance calculations and developing a model for understanding biological similarity and the significance of human-like australopiths and the ape-like humans.

Previous research in hominid baraminology has been sharply criticized by other creationists, especially concerning the proposal to include Au. sediba in the human holobaramin.  These criticisms can be summarized as concerns over methodology, theological objections, and rejection of speciation among human lineages.  Methodological concerns, though reasonable, can be recognized and at least partially overcome.  Theological objections regarding the image of God or the doctrine of salvation simply fail as valid reasons to reject human baraminology.  Concerns over human speciation similarly are not adequate refutations of human baraminology.  To advance creationist understanding of baraminology, a new way of explaining the research program of statistical baraminology is introduced: testing the discontinuity hypothesis, the idea that God created organisms in discrete, recognizable groups.

Australopithecus sediba emerged a few days ago out of an obviously coordinated propaganda campaign or, for those less cynically inclined, a media frenzy. Allegedly nearly two million years old, Australopithecus
sediba was hailed by some media outlets as the “Missing link found in ascent of man”, which experts say “could rewrite the story of human evolution”.1 If it sounds like you have heard these headlines before, you probably have. The announcement of missing links or apemen that “rewrite the story of human evolution” is the evolutionist’s version of the movie Groundhog Day.

Recent articles have questioned the validity of hominin baraminology studies that place Homo naledi in the human holobaramin. Despite questions about the fossil discoveries, the skeletal remains of Homo naledi were intentionally placed within the cave chamber and represent a single species. Holistic considerations of burial behavior and statistical baraminology support recognizing Homo naledi as human, despite a smaller cranial capacity than modern humans. Theoretical concerns about morphological discontinuity as an indicator of holobaramins remain important questions for future study, but recent analyses reveal the presence discontinuity around the human holobaramin. New statistical baraminology analysis of a recently published character matrix continues to show a clear separation between a cluster of taxa that includes modern humans and other taxa clearly not human (e.g. chimpanzee). Consequently, worries about baraminology supporting the inclusion of nonhumans within the human holobaramin appear to be unwarranted.

Previous research in hominid baraminology has been sharply criticized by other creationists, especially concerning the proposal to include A. sediba in the human holobaramin. These criticisms can be summarized as concerns over methodology, theological objections, and rejection of speciation among human lineages. Methodological concerns, though reasonable, can be recognized and at least partially overcome. Theological objections regarding the image of God or the doctrine of salvation simply fail as valid reasons to reject human baraminology. Concerns over human speciation similarly are not adequate refutations of human baraminology. To advance creationist understanding of baraminology, a new way of explaining the research program of statistical baraminology is introduced: testing the discontinuity hypothesis, the idea that God created organisms in discrete, recognizable groups.