To Believers, Is This Evidence For Satan?

[jamesbond007]

Um, what? I use evolution in science because it explains and accurately predicts a wide range of data in very useful ways. Until somebody offers an alternative that does a better job, scientists will continue to use it.

Except it's not science nor is it fact. Many people disagree with it from creationists, ID people, to people who have started to find fraud and errors in evolution. I just happened to find Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings after Darwin became widely popular with his book. It fooled an entire generation. Thus, many people and I think you are fooled. You mention wide range of data in very useful ways. If you can demonstrate macroevolution, then convince me. Microevolution is very solid theory or variations within a species. We have experiments to show it.

 

[Brightmoon]

J

 

[Brightmoon]

Except it's not science nor is it fact. Many people disagree with it from creationists, ID people, to people who have started to find fraud and errors in evolution. I just happened to find Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings after Darwin became widely popular with his book. It fooled an entire generation. Thus, many people and I think you are fooled. You mention wide range of data in very useful ways. If you can demonstrate macroevolution, then convince me. Microevolution is very solid theory or variations within a species. We have experiments to show it.

James , James Bond! Polyploid speciation is macroevolution and it’s very very very very common in plants. Repeat since you don’t seem to pay attention when people tell you this . It’s OBSERVED MACROEVOLUTION!!!!!

 

[jamesbond007]

Um, what? I use evolution in science because it explains and accurately predicts a wide range of data in very useful ways. Until somebody offers an alternative that does a better job, scientists will continue to use it.

People have alternatives, but the creation scientists have been systematically eliminated from peer reviews. IDers do not believe in evolution either. Intelligent people who have found fraud, mistakes and lack of detail in evolution have questioned common ancestor and tree of life in ToE.

You said, "I use evolution in science because it explains and accurately predicts a wide range of data in very useful ways." Can you demonstrate? Can you use what you learned about evolution to predict what will be found in early September? I provided news from yesterday regarding Nessie and the use of DNA in post #55. I provided my predictions, findings, and criticisms there.

To be fair, here is the general news article -- Loch Ness monster theory ‘plausible,' scientist claims | Fox News. I found the other two news articles to make my case. This should be more than fair since he is one of your evolution scientists. What can you do with your evolution to predict their findings?

 

[jamesbond007]

James , James Bond! Polyploid speciation is macroevolution and it’s very very very very common in plants. Repeat since you don’t seem to pay attention when people tell you this . It’s OBSERVED MACROEVOLUTION!!!!!

Brightmoon, are you old? You're making a lot of mistakes just using this forum. I'm not young anymore either, but suspect I'm younger than you.

You mentioned limb formation and how evolution provides a toolbox from its explanation. I mentioned how Darwin explained how evolution works. However, we know he was wrong. Thus, we are back trying to explain how evolution works again.

Moreover Darwin said, "survival of the fittest," in his second book, and it led to socialDarwinism. His cousin created eugenics and it led to the Holocaust. One could say Darwin's brand of evolution was used for genocide and racism. It also led to Haeckel's fake embryo drawings.

Of course, you're just going to ignore my questions and points like you did in the other forum you inadvertently led me to.

Now, you want to discuss plants and make up macroevolution from it? Sorry, I'm not going to waste my time.

 

[Brightmoon]

Brightmoon, are you old? You're making a lot of mistakes just using this forum. I'm not young anymore either, but suspect I'm younger than you.

You mentioned limb formation and how evolution provides a toolbox from its explanation. I mentioned how Darwin explained how evolution works. However, we know he was wrong. Thus, we are back trying to explain how evolution works again.

Moreover Darwin said, "survival of the fittest," in his second book, and it led to socialDarwinism. His cousin created eugenics and it led to the Holocaust. One could say Darwin's brand of evolution was used for genocide and racism. It also led to Haeckel's fake embryo drawings.

Of course, you're just going to ignore my questions and points like you did in the other forum you inadvertently led me to.

Now, you want to discuss plants and make up macroevolution from it? Sorry, I'm not going to waste my time.

darwin didn’t know the nuts and bolts of how limbs formed. Modern scientists do know. So what’s your point ? Survival of the fittest meant ,to Darwin, that the organism best able to cope with a local environment was the one that left more offspring. Dalton misunderstood what Darwin meant and misused evolution to justify exploitation of the laboring classes by the upper classes. Haeckel’s drawing weren’t that incorrect and again since you ignored everyone. Haeckel’s drawings aren’t used to demonstrate the pharyngula stage of vertebrate fetal development ! Nor is his incorrect recapitulation idea held as valid by any modern scientists. Why do you keep beating this dead horse?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I've never seen anyone use it like that.

It happens all the time.

Cite from the literature?

Barbarian explains:
Evolution isn't a theory. Gravity isn't a theory. These are observed phenomena. Gravitational theory and evolutionary theory explain them.

That's sad. If people are using terms that way, it represents the deterioration of the rigorous language earlier scientists worked hard to define.

I would think making a distinction between the phenomenon, and the theory that explains it, would be more precise than conflating the two. Wouldn't you think so?

It's one step closer to accepting the circular statement that evolution explains evolution.

That's why creationists attempt to conflate the observed phenomenon with the theory that explains it. If you keep the distinction between them, that accusation falls apart. In science, one always must remember that the theory is not the phenomenon.

I'm sorry you were taught that.

It's really important. If you forget it, then you fall for nonsense like "evolution explains evolution." The explanation is evolutionary theory. A change in allele frequencies over time is evolution.

Do you have a reference on scientific method that supports your example?

Evolution

noun
plural: evolutions
evo‧lu‧tion, [ˈɛvəluːʃ(ə)n]
(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation
Evolution - Biology-Online Dictionary | Biology-Online Dictionary
...
Theory
noun, plural: theories
(science) A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
ibid

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
...
The scientific theory of evolution by natural selection was proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in the mid-19th century and was set out in detail in Darwin's book On the Origin of Species (1859).

A reference from a biology publication that speaks of evolution fact and evolution theory? Same question regarding gravity.

A phenomenon (plural, phenomena) is a general result that has been observed reliably in systematic empirical research.
...
A theory is a coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena.
Phenomena and Theories – Research Methods in Psychology

I will continue to maintain you've never seen gravity - only it's effects.

You could say the same for evolution, but that kind of pedantry is pointless.

Still, definition of terms is important.

It's why science makes such a big deal of it. As you have seen, creationists often conflate the two, and are much confused thereby.

I battle it all the time. People in my field often refer to a damper when they mean an absorber ... two completely different things.

For a biologist, laymen often refer to evolution, when they mean evolutionary theory; two completely different things.

 

[The Barbarian]

Moreover Darwin said, "survival of the fittest," in his second book, and it led to socialDarwinism.

No. In The Descent of Man, Darwin assailed "social Darwinism" as an "overwhelming evil." It existed long before Darwin. Later Darwinists like Morgan and Punnett showed that it was not only evil, it was scientifically wrong.

In 1917 Punnett again sought Hardy’s help over a similar problem, and this time Hardy himself calculated how slowly a recessive lethal is eliminated from a population, thus apparently discrediting the eugenicists’ claim that deleterious recessives could be eliminated in a few generations (Punnett 1917b).
Reginald Crundall Punnett: First Arthur Balfour Professor of Genetics, Cambridge, 1912

However, creationists were often enthusiastic about eugenics:
Even more problematic for the claim that “Darwinism” was critical and instrumental in the development of eugenics is the uncomfortable fact that eugenics was also openly embraced by opponents of evolution (the first eugenics sterilization laws in the world were passed in 1907 Indiana, hardly a hotbed of “Darwinists”). The most notable of these anti-evolution eugenics supporters was probably William J. Tinkle, geneticist and prominent Creationist. Tinkle taught at religious LaVerne College and Taylor University, and participated in the activities of the Deluge Society, the first “Creation Science” organization. He then joined forces with the “young lions” of Creationism, Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Walter Lammerts, and with them he was one of the 10 Founding Fathers of the Creation Research Society, which later became the Institute for Creation Research.


Tinkle opposed evolution and Darwinian theory, but was an enthusiastic proponent of eugenics, and published several articles on the subject. In his 1939 textbook “Fundamentals of Zoology” he devotes a section to “The Need of Human Betterment”, where he laments the existence of “defective families” who “give birth to offspring like themselves”, producing “persons of low mentality, paupers and criminals in much greater ratio than the general population”[8, p. 130]. Negative eugenics via institutionalization seems to have been his preferred eugenic solution:


It is an excellent plan to keep defective people in institutions for here they are not permitted to marry and bear children.[8, p. 131]
Dr. West, meet Dr. Tinkle, Creationist eugenicist

 

[The Barbarian]

Except it's not science nor is it fact.

It is directly observed. Remember what evolution is. You're conflating the phenomenon of evolution with the theory of evolution. The theory is science. A change in allele frequencies in a population over time, is just evolution; a phenomenon.

I just happened to find Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings after Darwin became widely popular with his book. It fooled an entire generation.

You were misled about that. Von Baer almost immediately showed that he was mistaken. Darwin rejected Haeckel's hypothesis of recapitulation about the same time. So no.

 

[jamesbond007]

Evolution isn't a theory. Gravity isn't a theory. These are observed phenomena. Gravitational theory and evolutionary theory explain them.

Based on what you stated, Satan is an observed phenomena. How can all of these be coincidences? C'mon, will you answer this? I predict that you're not going to answer this.

Be that it may, we still do not understand how gravity works. Does it work with a graviton (in which case it is a force)? Or does it work due to the curvature of spacetime due to mass (Einstein)? The same with evolution. I've stated this already, but it's gone over your heads. Darwin came up with an explanation and was wrong. Thus, how does evolution happen? If you can explain this, then you will be world famous and I would suggest you write a book and give me credit in the forward section.

What about you opposition -- creation? It is directly observed and fits what you claim. C'mon the facts which we reach our conclusions are the same. If one side discovers new facts, then the other side can use them, as well. We can all use facts. This, too, seems to have gone over your head.

It is directly observed. Remember what evolution is. You're conflating the phenomenon of evolution with the theory of evolution. The theory is science. A change in allele frequencies in a population over time, is just evolution; a phenomenon.

The ah-ha's keep coming. Look what I found. What you just stated sounds too much like monism. Wasn't Haeckel associated with monism? Is this another coincidence related to the topic?

"Scientific Pantheism condemns Haeckel's political views.
The Scientific Pantheist group wish to make it clear that we find Haeckel's views on race, nationalism, aristocracy, eugenics, euthanasia, and the powers of the state utterly abhorrent. These views are a travesty of true pantheism, which places all human beings of all races, genders, social classes and abilities on an equal footing as participants in, and reverent observers of, the Universe and nature.

Haeckel's views on these topics are not valid deductions from evolution theory, and they contradict Haeckel's own acceptance of the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would wish they should do unto you," and his criticism of Christianity for cruelty to animals. We condemn these views outright, and we condemn Haeckel for endorsing them.

Ernst Haeckel is a monstrous paradox. On the one hand he was a courageous critic of Christianity, who formulated one of the most complete versions of pantheism, fostered a deep aesthetic appreciation of nature, and made the first attempt at founding an organized pantheist religion. Yet his misguided interpretation of Darwinism led him to a brutal social ethic which influenced and gave spurious scientific legitimacy to the Nazi programme. This political side to Haeckel's thinking distorted and ultimately destroyed his religious efforts.

Haeckel's background helps to explain this bundle of contradictions. He was born in 1834 in Potsdam, Germany, the son of a senior civil servant. His formative adolescence occurred during the abortive 1848 revolutions in German principalities, when an early attempt to unify Germany failed. These experiences coloured his conservatism and his strong German nationalism.

Haeckel took a medical degree, but became interested in zoology after his professor took him on an expedition off the North Sea coast, to study marine creatures. After graduation he travelled to Italy, where he painted and even considered taking up art as a career. The dual interest in science and art stamped the nature of Haeckel's pantheism as a profound aesthetic response to the beauty of the world he investigated through science. In 1865 he became professor of zoology at the University of Jena, where he remained until his retirement, in 1909, after a long and distinguished scientific career. He died in 1919."

Haeckel and Monism.

You were misled about that. Von Baer almost immediately showed that he was mistaken. Darwin rejected Haeckel's hypothesis of recapitulation about the same time. So no.

Are you sure? Here's what I got from creation.com. 1997.

"For more than a century, one of the foremost bastions of Darwinian evolution has been that embryos of different animals pass through a similar stage in which they resemble one another very closely. Although embryologists had long known this to be false, a bomb exploded in 1997 when an embryologist actually published real photos of embryos, showing many more differences than previously thought. The embarrassment to the evolutionary community was severe. But now a historian has made a serious attempt to rehabilitate Haeckel by revising both the history and the science around his claims."

Haeckel fraud proven - creation.com

 

[jamesbond007]

No. In The Descent of Man, Darwin assailed "social Darwinism" as an "overwhelming evil." It existed long before Darwin. Later Darwinists like Morgan and Punnett showed that it was not only evil, it was scientifically wrong.

Hm... when did Darwin publish Origin of Species? When did he publish The Descent of Man?

"Social Darwinism is any of various theories of society which emerged in the United Kingdom, North America, and Western Europe in the 1870s, claiming to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology and politics"

Social Darwinism - Wikipedia

Evos are usually wrong. The term you want is scientific racism. That existed with Darwin's father and long before both. Darwin was racist in his beliefs and he supported eugenics. He was racist in The Descent of Man. Yes, it is wrong. It's pseudoscientific racism now.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
You were misled about that. Von Baer almost immediately showed that he was mistaken. Darwin rejected Haeckel's hypothesis of recapitulation about the same time. So no.

Are you sure?

Yes:
By 1866, von Baer's laws competed with the theory of a professor at the University of Jena in Jena, Germany. Ernst Haeckel proposed a theory of recapitulation called the biogenetic law, which states that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Unlike the Meckel Serres interpretation of recapitulation, Haeckel's form of recapitulation proposed that embryos pass through the chronological stages of their species' evolutionary ancestry rather than through the scala naturae. Haeckel said that stages during the ontogeny of organisms replay that organism's evolutionary ancestry.
...
Although von Baer was skeptical of common ancestry and natural selection, Charles Darwin's portrayal of development in The Origin of Species was the same as von Baer's: branching and epigenetic. Darwin also provided the same critiques of recapitulation as had von Baer; Darwin said that adult forms of one animal do not show themselves in other animal's development, and that only the embryos look similar to one another.
Karl Ernst von Baer's Laws of Embryology | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia

As you see, Darwin shot him down, too. Because his hypothesis was not consistent with Darwin's theory. Hence, the textbooks showing why Haeckel's ideas were unsound.

Here's what I got from creation.com. 1997.

But as I showed you earlier, they lie about this stuff.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evos are usually wrong. The term you want is scientific racism.

That's an oxymoron. You'll have to look pretty hard to find a racist biologist, since evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races. On the other hand, Henry Morris director of the Institute for Creation Research, was still blathering about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people in the 1990s:

"Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites."
Henry Morris, The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148

Darwin was racist in his beliefs and he supported eugenics.

Well, let's take a look...

"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered,
in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our
nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil."
Charles Darwin, Descent of Man
Chapter V - On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties

You were misled about that. On the other hand, as you learned, racism and eugenics were touted by creationists well into the 20th century. This is one of the major differences between science and creationism.

 

[The Barbarian]

Based on what you stated, Satan is an observed phenomena.

That's pretty odd for you to think. Show us that. Looks like you messed up one more time.

How can all of these be coincidences?

I just think it's what you do. But do explain how you came to the conclusion about Satan.

 

[Resha Caner]

Barbarian explains:

Well … maybe ...
We've never been particularly successful at conversing with each other.

 

[jamesbond007]

That's an oxymoron. You'll have to look pretty hard to find a racist biologist, since evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races. On the other hand, Henry Morris director of the Institute for Creation Research, was still blathering about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people in the 1990s:

Haeckel's drawings leave no doubt about the descent of man -- Haeckels Racist Evolutionary Theory by Wellcome Images. Why do you still have common ancestor and tree of life when Darwin was wrong about everything? The modern theory is bushes of life -- https://phys.org/news/2015-08-tree-life-bush.html.

This stuff just goes over your head . I've already named the racists. Haeckel was the worst.
Darwin is another big one. What was his cousin Galton? Darwin's thesis was that man, having evolved from apes had continued evolving as various races, with some races more developed than others. He wrote in "The Descent of Man such , "In it, he theorized that man, having evolved from apes, had continued evolving as various races, with some races more developed than others. Darwin classified his own white race as more advanced than those “lower organisms” such as pygmies, and he called different people groups “savage,” “low,” and “degraded.”"

Did Darwin Promote Racism?

I'm going to claim victory over you because there are too many lies, omissions, and obfuscations in your posts with personal blog links, lack of reference to your sources you quote, or no links at all. I'm not the academic here, but provided all of my links and quotes in a clear, cogent manner. For shame, The Barbarian.

 

[The Barbarian]

Haeckel's drawings leave no doubt about the descent of man

As you learned, Darwin and Von Baer both debunked Haeckel's ideas.

Why do you still have common ancestor and tree of life

Evidence. Linnaeus first demonstrated it. Darwin explained why it exists. Genetic analysis showed how it works.

when Darwin was wrong about everything?

As you learned, the four points of Darwinian theory remain true, and stronger than ever after the discoveries of genetics and molecular biology.

I've already named the racists. Haeckel was the worst.

And, as you now realize, Darwin debunked Haeckel's ideas. Darwin was, like almost all Europeans of this time, racist. He differed from most of his fellows by arguing that all men had equal rights, and by insisting that if you took people of other races to England, after a few generations, they'd be just like other Englishmen.

On the other hand, you now realize that even into the 1990s, creationists like the director of the ICR was writing stories about how black people are intellectually and spiritually inferior. And his fellow member was an enthusiastic eugenist. Few biologists are racists today, since evolutionary theory indicates that there are no biological races.

I'm going to claim victory over you because...

...you've lost the argument and feel the need to convince people otherwise.

there are too many lies, omissions, and obfuscations in your posts

That's the story every loser tells. But everyone sees what it is. Instead of getting angry and making accusations, try to find facts to support your arguments, and form a cogent case for your ideas. Your behavior now, is just reinforcing the impression that you have nothing.

I'm not the academic here

Clearly, not. You seem to have been entirely surprised that Darwin opposed Haeckel's ideas, that Darwinians debunked eugenic notions that are still held by many creationists, and that Darwin (as I showed you) called eugenic ideas an "overwhelming evil."

Instead of getting upset, get smart. Do some investigation and find whatever evidence you can, to support your ideas. But I'd like you to answer my question; why do you think:

Based on what you stated, Satan is an observed phenomena.

 

[jamesbond007]

Well … maybe ...
We've never been particularly successful at conversing with each other.

It's definitely better this way when one tries to be truthful and the other not. Don't you believe this guy. This is the type of shoes he wears .

 

[jamesbond007]

Creationists put a lot of effort into trying to invent an alternative. Unfortunately all those I'm aware of are barking up the wrong tree.

They have baraminology, but it's not accepted science.

Sorry, but this reply just sounds argumentative. I give no credence to any of the popular creationist tropes, so I'm not going to argue about them.

While neither quotes are addressed to me, that's fine. You sound like a bright, young man and will go far. Unfortunately, for creationists, they have been systematically eliminated from participating in peer reviews in science, so we do not have official standing anymore. They cannot get published in Nature and Science.

You learn everything you can at college and follow what the instructors teach. Forget about the creation vs. evolution arguments. "God did it" never counted in my HS biology nor university chemistry classes, either. I'm afraid that's as much HS college classes in life sciences I took. I became a computer scientist and business major as that's where my interests took me. I learned evolution from my alma mater -- Understanding Evolution, and believed in it up until 2007 - 2011 time frame. This is when you'll see articles challenging evolution. I became a born-again Christian in 2012. What I did was compare the two. You're not at that point yet. The Barbarian, Brightmoon, and I are probably crotchety old fools arguing with each other. I think I'm the youngest though .

sfs said, "I use evolution in science because it explains and accurately predicts a wide range of data in very useful ways." Can you demonstrate? Can you use what you learned about evolution and life sciences to predict what will be found in early September? I provided news from yesterday regarding Nessie and the use of DNA in post #55. I provided my predictions, findings, and criticisms there.

To be fair, here is the general news article -- Loch Ness monster theory ‘plausible,' scientist claims | Fox News. I found the other two news articles to make my case. What do you think they found using DNA evidence?

Here's what the leader of the research team said. So what do you think they found?

"The prof - an expert in genomics, ecology, population, conservation and evolutionary biology - now says the results were 'surprising'.

He says they tested the data against most of the main theories about the Loch Ness monster.

Prof. Gemmell says while the full details will be released at a later stage one of the theories 'might' be correct.

Two main theories about the monster are it is a long-necked plesiosaur that somehow survived the period when dinosaurs became extinct, or it is a sturgeon or giant catfish.

Prof Gemmell said he hoped to announce the full findings of the study in Scotland next month - but would not confirm which hypothesis might be right.

He said: "Is there anything deeply mysterious? Hmm. It depends what you believe. Is there anything startling? There are a few things that are a bit surprising."

Even if they do have DNA of a plesiosaur or dinosaur theories have been debunked, the researchers should have been open-minded to that thesis. It's the popular one for some time and I think people saw something.

How did they test if they didn't have its DNA. How extensive is their database?

Sorry, this post ended up so long.

 

[jamesbond007]

Here in a nutshell are the differences between baraminology and evolution. I used the opposition's link as most baraminology websites still are putting together the science and go into much detail. The most interesting are the comments of birds from dinosaurs and humans from monkeys. I'll leave it you to find and read. Birds and dinosaurs are in the same holobaramin (because God used the same basic parts to create).

"The term "baraminology" comes from baramin, which was constructed from the Hebrew root words bara (created) and min (kind) by creationist Frank L Marsh (1941). Baraminology has also been referred to as "discontinuity systematics" (ReMine 1990; Marsh 1941, 1976). Baraminologists consider the baramin to be a taxonomic rank corresponding to the "created kinds" of Genesis. "Intelligent design" creationists are interested in baraminology as a way of quantifying discontinuities in the tree of life (Scherer 1993, 1998; Hartwig-Scherer 1998) and as a boundary between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" (Scherer 1993, 1998), although they tend to shun the term baramin and prefer the term "basic type" (Scherer 1993; Hartwig-Scherer 1998), perhaps because it avoids religious implications. It is also used as a proof of the actions of a designer or special creator (ReMine 1993; Scherer 1998).

The basic idea behind discontinuity systematics is that there are boundaries in the history of life that cannot be crossed. The aim is to find the "discontinuities" in the history of life, or the limits of common ancestry (ReMine 1993). While Marsh may have originated discontinuity systematics in the 1940s, it has been updated and refined to a form that is rapidly becoming one of the most active areas of creationist "scientific" research, and some of its methodology has been applied in near-mainstream research (for example, Scherer 1993). This area of research is also one of the places where "intelligent design" creationist and young-earth creationist "research" overlap.

What is most amazing is the number of traditional systematic methods and terminology that are employed by baraminologists. While they use many of the same methods as most systematists, from cladistics to the Analysis of Pattern (ANOPA) method, they use these tools to identify the "gaps", rather than the connections in life as most systematists do. This is why baraminologists principally employ phenetic methods of Sokal and Sneath (1963) — which are based on overall similarities in appearance or general features — computing distance matrices for a group of taxa and producing character mismatch statistics based on the matching coefficient of Sokal and Michener (1958). They see phenetics as useful in determining the biological gaps.

In addition, baraminologists employ cladistics for determining intra-holobaraminic relationships, as well as homoplasy (similarity in form not attributed to common descent) for separate groups (Robinson and Cavanaugh 1998a). Baraminologists recognize synapomorphy (shared features that are attributed to common descent) as an example both of a feature that unites a holobaramin, and also of a "discontinuity" among groups. The synapomorphy that diagnoses a group suggests a creative event by God (Wood and others 2003). Baraminologists are very much concerned with having an accurate definition of "kind" because it is vague as commonly used (Awbrey 1981) and because a consistent definition will enable the discovery of the basic created kinds — and ultimately a calculation of the number of animals present on the ark, for young-earth creationists.

Baraminology has had deep roots, but more recently there has been an attempt to codify it into a working method of research for creationist biologists. This culminated in the formation of the Baraminology Study Group (BSG) based at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee. This group has hosted several conferences on baraminology starting in 1997, and has published a book on baraminological methodology called Understanding the Pattern of Life (Wood and others 2003). This book offers a concise and relatively complete explanation of baraminology and its practice."

Baraminology

It would've been nice if whoever wrote the article for NCSE provided their name(s).