A List and Bibliography of Baraminology Studies T.C
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
OPEN ACCESS Report A List and Bibliography of Baraminology Studies T.C. Wood Core Academy of Science, Dayton, TN 37321 Abstract A list and bibliography of baramins identified by creationists is presented. The list is updated from that presented in the appendix to Wood’s “Animal and Plant Baramins” (CORE Issues in Creation 3:1-258). The list contains 70 putative holobaramins and 72 putative monobaramins, based on studies of 153 taxonomic groups. Editor: J.W. Francis Received January 11, 2012; Accepted September 13, 2016; Published September 26, 2016 After Marsh’s proposal of the baramin in the 1940s, studies 225 angiosperm baramins. Wise (2015) also used the PFCC to related to the identification of baramins languished until the estimate the number of frog baramins at 13-15. Wood (2011a) 1970s. In the past 20 years, such studies have exploded in and Beech (2012) approximated terrestrial mammal baramins by popularity. The following list (Table 1) represents an up-to- assuming that baramins were equivalent to the taxonomic rank date bibliography of baramin studies as of September 2016. of family. An extended exchange between Senter and Wood The list is an amended version of earlier lists in Wood (2008) explored continuity and discontinuity among birds and dinosaurs and Wood (2006). The list includes baramins identified by (Senter 2010, 2011; Wood 2011b; Garner et al. 2013). Lightner traditional methods that examine individual taxonomic groups et al. (2011) initiated a project to estimate all the ark kinds (hybridization, statistical baraminology, etc.) and taxa which using a suite of data. Subsequently, Lightner assigned mammal were studied by baraminological methods even though no formal (2012) and bird species (2013) to potential baramins. Hennigan baraminic classification was proposed. also participated in the project and estimated the baramins of As in previous versions of this list, the concept of the basic salamanders and gymnophionans (2013a), frogs (2013b), turtles type is here taken to indicate a monobaramin. Since basic types and crocodiles (2014a), tuataras, amphisbaenans, and snakes are defined by hybridization (Scherer 1993b), without necessarily (2014b), and other lizards (2015). Ross (2014) also estimated the considering evidence of discontinuity, a basic type would therefore number of baramins among extinct “amphibia.” Finally, Jeanson be equivalent in baraminology terms to a group of taxa united by (2013, 2015) probed the limits of baramins and intrabaraminic continuity, or a monobaramin (Wood et al. 2003). diversification using molecular criteria. Since these estimates do A problem arose with this revised list as a result of contradictory not lend themselves to the sort of listing of individual studies that is baraminic classifications. For example, whereas Hartwig-Scherer the object of this brief article, I elected to note their existence here (1998) separates australopiths and chimpanzees into separate but not include them in the formal list. Such largescale estimates basic types, Wood (2010) separated the australopiths into three will no doubt be of great value in the future as a guide to additional holobaramins and included chimps in one. Rather than select research in creationist biology. This list and bibliography will be one classification over another, I chose to list both contradictory of value specifically to those interested in studying and refining classifications where relevant. the methodology of identifying created kinds. A new innovation since the last version of this list has been Finally, a brief explanation of the arrangement of taxa in the list efforts to estimate large groups of baramins. Several authors seems to be in order. I openly admit that I selected an extremely have developed such estimates. Wise (2009) introduced the eclectic and idiosyncratic ordering and that this classification is post-Flood continuity criterion (PFCC), by which he estimated not intended to be authoritative. I resisted including a great deal that there were likely fewer than 500 mammalian baramins that of phylogenetic or molecular classifications that have become needed to be preserved aboard Noah’s Ark. Sanders (2013) popular in the past thirty years. For example, I kept the old used the same technique to estimate that there could be less than mammal orders Cetacea and Artiodactyla rather than the currently ©2016 The author. This article is open access and distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows unrestricted use, distribution, and repro- duction in any medium as long as the original author and medium are credited. Citation: Wood. 2016. A list and bibliography of identified baramins. Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences 6:91-101. fashionable Cetartiodactyla. Following Linnaeus’ example, I In other cases, multiple studies using different methodologies placed humans first, then vaguely followed the order of McKenna seem to be converging on a single answer, as in the case of horses, and Bell (1997). For flowering plants, I adhered closely to which have been analyzed using statistical methods (Cavanaugh Cronquist (1981). In other cases, I followed the National Center et al. 2003) and by hybridization (Stein-Cadenbach 1993). In for Biotechnology Information’s non-authoritative Taxonomy other instances, multiple statistical analyses of different taxon Database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). In still other cases, I or character samples are converging on a consistent answer. For placed taxa wherever I thought them best placed. I believe the example, the holobaramin has been evaluated multiple times with ordering will make sense to most informed readers, and should different samples of fossils and characters, and the consistent result facilitate the browsing of baramins in well-known groups, such supports recognizing genus Homo (+ Australopithecus sediba) as amphibians or gymnosperms. To aid the reader in checking as the human holobaram (Wood 2010, 2016a; O’Micks 2016). for specific groups, I include here an alphabetical index (Table 2). Especially interesting is the case of Australopithecus sediba, which The current tally of created kinds listed here includes 70 was placed in the human holobaramin based on baraminological holobaramins and 72 monobaramins. We can also note studies analysis by Wood (2010), and recent phylogenetic analysis by such as Garner et al (2013) and Wood (2011b) that identified Dembo et al. (2015) confirms that classification. With regard to discontinuities between modern birds and dinosaurs. Since most the majority of baraminology studies, though, the humans and groups have been studied with only one analysis, most of these horses are an exception. Most do not have confirmation from monobaramins and holobaramins should be considered tentative. multiple studies. JCTS B: Life Sciences www.coresci.org/jcts Volume 6:92 Table 1. Baramins Listed according to Higher Taxa. (HB = holobaramin, MB = monobaramin, ? = uncertain) 1. Kingdom Animalia (ii) Family Talpidae ? (Wood 2008) a. Phylum Chordata (iii) Family Tenrecidae ? (Wood 2008) i. Subphylum Vertebrata (i) Order Chiroptera (1) Class Mammalia (i) Family Mormoopidae HB (Wood (a) Order Primates 2008) (i) Family Hominidae (ii) Family Phyllostomidae ? (Wood 1) Subfamily Homininae MB? 2008) (Hartwig-Scherer 1998) (j) Order Cetacea a) Tribe Hominini HB (i) Suborder Archaeoceti HB? (Mace and (O’Micks 2016; Wood 2010, Wood 2005) 2013a, 2013b, 2016a, 2016b) (ii) Suborder Mysticeti HB (Mace and 2) Subfamily Australopithecinae Wood 2005) MB? (Hartwig-Scherer 1998) (iii) Suborder Odontoceti a) Australopith 1 HB (Wood 1) Family Ziphiidae HB (Mace and 2010) Wood 2005) b) Australopith 2 HB (Wood 2) Superfamily Physeteroidea HB 2010) (Mace and Wood 2005) c) Genus Paranthropus HB 3) Other odontocetes HB (Mace and (Wood 2010) Wood 2005) 3) Subfamily Gorillinae MB? (k) Order Artiodactyla (Hartwig-Scherer 1998) (i) Family Bovidae 4) Subfamily Ponginae MB? 1) Subfamily Caprinae MB (Hartwig-Scherer 1998) (Lightner 2006a) (ii) Family Cercopithecidae 2) Subfamily Bovinae MB? 1) Subfamily Cercopithecinae MB (Lightner 2007) (Hartwig-Scherer 1993) (ii) Family Camelidae MB (Wood et al. (iii) Family Galagonidae HB (Wood 2008) 1999; Wolfrom 2003) (b) Order Didelphimorphia (iii) Family Cervidae (i) Family Didelphidae HB (Wood 1) Subfamilies Cervinae + 2014a) Odocoileinae MB (Lightner (c) Order Dasyuromorphia 2006b) (i) Family Dasyuridae HB (Wood 2014a) (iv) Family Hippopotamidae (+ (d) Order Xenarthra Anthracotheres) HB (Wood 2008) (i) Suborder Cingulata HB? (Wood (l) Order Perissodactyla 2008) (i) Family Brontotheriidae MB (Wood (e) Order Lagomorpha 2008) (i) Family Leporidae HB (Wood 2008) (ii) Family Equidae MB (Stein- (f) Order Carnivora Cadenbach 1993; Cavanaugh et al. (i) Family Canidae MB (Siegler 1974; 2003; Garner 2003, 2016) Crompton 1993; Pendragon 2011) (iii) Family Rhinocerotidae ? (Wood (ii) Family Felidae HB (Wood 2008; 2008) Robinson and Cavanaugh 1998; (2) Class Aves Crompton and Winkler 2006; (a) Order Pelecaniformes Pendragon and Winkler 2011) (i) Family Sulidae ? (Wood 2005a) (iii) Family Ursidae MB (Tyler 1997; (ii) Family Phalacrocoracidae ? (Wood Hennigan 2010) 2005a) (iv) Family Viverridae MB? (Wood 2008) (b) Order Anseriformes (v) Family Procyonidae MB? (Wood (i) Family Anatidae MB (Scherer 1993a; 2014a) Wood 2008) (g) Order Pinnipedia (ii) Family Anhimidae MB? (Scherer (i) Family Phocidae HB (Wood 2008) 1993a) (h) Order Lipotyphla (Erinaceomorpha) (c) Order Ciconiiformes (i) Family Erinaceidae