• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Finally - Hominid Baraminological Analysis

UnrepentantSinner

A post by Alan Smithee
UnrepentantSinner
Joined
Aug 26, 2001
Messages
26,984
Location
Dallas, Texas

Attachments

  • Homoholobaramins.gif
    Homoholobaramins.gif
    39.7 KB · Views: 378
I had to google "Baramin".
Complete nonsense.
This guy doesn't read like someone who would accept complete nonsense though.

I wonder when he's going to cross over to the dark side with us evil types?
 
Soapy Sam said:
I had to google "Baramin".
Complete nonsense.
This guy doesn't read like someone who would accept complete nonsense though.

I wonder when he's going to cross over to the dark side with us evil types?
Click to expand...

Same here. My undergrad and pending grad degree are in anthropology and I've never heard this term before, and I've read a LOT of physical anthropology texts.

It sounds like this Mr Wood comes from Camelot, which I'm told is a very silly place.
 
Soapy Sam said:
I had to google "Baramin".
Complete nonsense.
This guy doesn't read like someone who would accept complete nonsense though.

I wonder when he's going to cross over to the dark side with us evil types?
Click to expand...

He remains a committed Creationist, but I can't help seeing him have some Eureka moment in the future and switching to TE. It took Glenn Morton himself many years to exercise Morton's Demon.

Schrodinger's Cat said:
Same here. My undergrad and pending grad degree are in anthropology and I've never heard this term before, and I've read a LOT of physical anthropology texts.

It sounds like this Mr Wood comes from Camelot, which I'm told is a very silly place.
Click to expand...

It's a made up concept by Creationists trying to appear all sciency. Basically a holobaramin (or baramin for short) is a discrete group of plant or animal types that are descended from a created kind (or bara in Hebrew) without any relationship to other groups or individual species. That's what makes Wood's results so ironic. If you ask any Creationist who is vaguely familiar with ICR/AIG/etc. arguments, they claim that erectus, neanderthal, antecessor, etc. are "fully human" and fits with Wood's "Homo" baramin. Similarly they would claim that habilus and Au. sediba were "fully ape". But that's not Wood's analysis shows.

If you check out his blog entry he alludes to a study he did on horse fossils - which Creationists claim are all seperate kinds - and his results couldn't justify any conclusion other than lumping them all into one baramin. It's got to be Morton's Demon that's preventing him from realizing that is evidence they evolved!
 
I found this awesome press release from Bryan college about the paper.
http://www.bryan.edu/9451.html

“Creationists always have been very conservative about what they group with humans. They say that things like Neanderthals are human, and my research confirms that.

“But creationists will not like my conclusion that sediba is human. He’s an oddball. He’s relatively short; his skull is quite small so his brain is quite small. His arms hang way down, like an orangutan’s, but he could walk upright. When you count up the characteristics in common with humans and apes, there are way more characteristics in common with humans than with apes. So, statistically, it is a human.”

I can't wait to see what AIG, ICR, etc. have to say about this.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
He remains a committed Creationist, but I can't help seeing him have some Eureka moment in the future and switching to TE. It took Glenn Morton himself many years to exercise Morton's Demon.

It's a made up concept by Creationists trying to appear all sciency. Basically a holobaramin (or baramin for short) is a discrete group of plant or animal types that are descended from a created kind (or bara in Hebrew) without any relationship to other groups or individual species. That's what makes Wood's results so ironic. If you ask any Creationist who is vaguely familiar with ICR/AIG/etc. arguments, they claim that erectus, neanderthal, antecessor, etc. are "fully human" and fits with Wood's "Homo" baramin. Similarly they would claim that habilus and Au. sediba were "fully ape". But that's not Wood's analysis shows.

If you check out his blog entry he alludes to a study he did on horse fossils - which Creationists claim are all seperate kinds - and his results couldn't justify any conclusion other than lumping them all into one baramin. It's got to be Morton's Demon that's preventing him from realizing that is evidence they evolved!
Click to expand...

It sounds like he is doing straight-forward phylogeny/systematics research. There are computer programs which take established genomes and compare specific genes to see who is more closely related to whom, allowing a phylogeny (tree of life) to be created. In the absence of genomes, you can do the same thing with morphological data - measurements of bones and proportions of those measurements, mainly. That being the case, his research would be regarded as valid systematics, except he wants to draw hard lines where we would see deep branching in the tree. It could, easily, represent a slippery slope for him, particularly if he gets a glitch (as with sedaba) that can't be explained by severing the groups. And then there's all the pressure from the creationists for support of their pet theories, he being their flag bearer and all. He appears to be honest; it would be neat if we could get him on the forum to explain how he thinks of some of these cases.
 
Last edited:
Bump - just to see if anyone else has an opinion on this subject.
 
shadron said:
That being the case, his research would be regarded as valid systematics, except he wants to draw hard lines where we would see deep branching in the tree.
Click to expand...

(My emphasis).

The divergence between himself as a scientist and himself as a believer. He ends up pleasing neither. I'm glad I don't have to live in his head.

In a wider sense he'll probably get a harder time from believers (for whom he's a potential heretic) than from scientists (who'll react more in sorrow than in anger, if at all).
 
shadron said:
It sounds like he is doing straight-forward phylogeny/systematics research. There are computer programs which take established genomes and compare specific genes to see who is more closely related to whom, allowing a phylogeny (tree of life) to be created. In the absence of genomes, you can do the same thing with morphological data - measurements of bones and proportions of those measurements, mainly. That being the case, his research would be regarded as valid systematics, except he wants to draw hard lines where we would see deep branching in the tree. It could, easily, represent a slippery slope for him, particularly if he gets a glitch (as with sedaba) that can't be explained by severing the groups. And then there's all the pressure from the creationists for support of their pet theories, he being their flag bearer and all. He appears to be honest; it would be neat if we could get him on the forum to explain how he thinks of some of these cases.
Click to expand...

Wood is certainly an interesting fellow and his analyses are the closest thing to science Creationists have done since the RATE fiasco. As I mentioned above, what I find most interesting isn't his process, which seems pretty standand, it's the results. I know some Creationists (some lay, some "professional") that believe in hyperevolution occuring after the flood so results his his conclusion that all fossil horses are in one baramin wouldn't be too problematic for them, but for him to place what many claim are "ape" fossils in the Homo baramin must upset their orthodox apple carts.

I really wish I could find some statements from the big dogs on his results. As yet, all I'm finding are a few other blog entires.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
I really wish I could find some statements from the big dogs on his results. As yet, all I'm finding are a few other blog entires.
Click to expand...

Well, I could tell you what Dr Dino would say, or might in a few years. But first he'd have to learn to spell baramin.

But yes, I'd like to know what the DI says, and AiG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom