PAPERS || JOURNAL OF CREATION 33(3) 2019 Baraminology data filtering method based on entropy measurement and its application in dinosaur and cephalopod data sets Matthew Cserhati Several recent dinosaur baraminology studies show areas of large degrees of continuity between baramins in the BDC matrixes where there should be none. These results suggest that the baramins predicted by the BDIST method in these studies tend to over-cluster, resulting in a smaller number of baramins, with falsified, inflated species memberships. Also, evolutionists have used the BDIST method in an attempt to discredit baraminology, by trying to show that the number of dinosaur baramins gets smaller as more species are added to the analysis. This lumps dinosaur species together, showing the continuity of all life—which is the same as biological evolution. A potential problem was identified involving low-variability characters. Many such characters together tend to increase the correlation between any two given species and could possibly cause species lumping. A new algorithm was developed to filter out such low entropy characters, and species with a high proportion of missing characteristics. The algorithm was applied on several dinosaur and two cephalopod data sets. It significantly cleans up the data sets and increases the number of baramins reported in previous studies, but eliminates many of the species and characters. There is a trade-off between the amount of available data and data quality. This affects the outcome of morphological baraminology studies. araminology has a long publication record. In general, a single holobaramin.4 This is a clade in cluding organisms Bthe field attempts to lump species into baramins and as diverse as squids and cuttlefish. Even evolu tion ists have holobaramins. The holobaramin is the complete list of found that the number of dinosaur baramins decreased species, both living and extinct, belonging to a specific from 50 to only eight in two studies that used the BDIST kind. The basic tenet of baraminology is that species within method that was developed by creationists.5 Wood replied a baramin are related (continuous), whereas species from dif- in a subsequent analysis that selection of outliers, as well as ferent baramins do not intermix (i.e. they are discontinuous). a more holistic inclusion of all characters, may have given To reach the holobaramin, one can either keep on adding better results. Indeed, after applying these filters, his analysis species together based on different lines of evidence until no gave more clear results.6 more species can be added. Conversely, the holobaramin can Following this, two recent studies lumped dinosaurs into be defined by dividing a larger group until species cannot be a minimum of eight baramins,7,8 with the bold claim that not split any longer legitimately.1 only are birds dinosaurs, but also that birds can be fitted into The most common algorithm used is called BDIST.2 It is a morphological continuum with dinosaurs. Another study a phenetics-based algorithm, which calculates the pairwise by Wood 9 lumped Australopithecus sediba into the human correlation and baraminic distance between all possible holobaramin, although others have concluded that A. sediba species pairs in a study, based on a set of input characters is a mixed taxon and thus no analysis of this type can be with discrete values. The algorithm then creates a statistical performed before separating the ape and the human bones.10 graph (called a baraminic distance correlation matrix, or When Wood took postcranial characters into consideration, BDC), which shows how individual species relate to each he then changed his position, and stated that A. sediba was other. Optimally, species from a single baramin cluster an australopith.11 together on the graph. The designer has refused to share The question arises, how far can we go with continually the program with this author. However, it was possible to lumping species into a single holobaramin? How long can reconstruct several features of the algorithm from published we continue decreasing the number of holobaramins, which descriptions of BDIST.3 individually have an ever-growing membership? Does it Several recent morphology-based baraminology stud- seem that baraminology methods would even seem to support ies seeming ly tend to lump too many species into a single evolutionary theory and the interrelatedness of all species? baramin. Baramins sometimes even overlap with one another. Whereas baraminologists are lumpers at a certain level, For example, a study by O’Micks lumped all deca pods into lumping can incorrectly be taken to an extreme. Using our 55 JOURNAL OF CREATION 33(3) 2019 || PAPERS scientific intuition, we should be able to break down large, be imperfect. We simply have to accept this fact because we over-lumped species clusters into smaller groups. do not know everything. A recent review of baraminology methods by Cserhati On the other hand, what would happen if we were to and Tay 12 has indicated several problems with morphology- study the osprey, the hammerhead shark, the boll weevil, based baraminology methods, such as the BDIST method, the fruit fly, mouse, human, and the algaVolvox ? What if the and has also suggested possible solutions to improve these characters that we selected for study were these: does it have methods, some of which are described below. Basically, the DNA? Is it multicellular? Is it eukaryotic? Does it have a cell BDIST method is usable, although it should be refined and membrane? This way all seven species would be classified further developed. into the same group. Clearly, we have to get rid of general On a practical level, it is important to note that many characters (i.e. warm-bloodedness in a study of mammals). such data sets are messy, with many species having only For example, many bird species have air sacs which partial data. For example, approximately two thirds of the intrude into their bones, such as their femur. The femur of Brusatte et al.13 data set of dinosaur remains used in a recent birds is immobile, and located within the body, in contrast baraminological analysis by McLain et al.7 had undetermined with reptiles. Furthermore, the hip structure of birds differs character values. The other four data sets these authors used from that of dinosaurs, which can be classified into one of had between 54.2–69.8% undetermined character values. two main categories, either lizard-style hips (Saurischia) If a species has too many missing characters, its decreased or bird-style hips (Ornithischia). It is a paradox that birds information content may skew its relationship to other supposedly evolved from Saurischian dinosaurs, which species. Missing data at a low level might be tolerable to have a different hip structure.14 Birds have a closed, cup- some degree, but it’s an entirely different picture if more than shaped acetabulum, which serves as a joint between three half of the data is missing. This highlights the necessity of hip bones—the ilium, ischium, and pubis. In comparison, using more complete, quality data sets. dinosaurs all have an open, or perforated, acetabulum. The Furthermore, it is of utmost importance to select relevant centre of gravity in birds also lies closer to its forearms characteristics (whenever possible), which are diagnostic compared to dinosaurs. of one of several baramins under study. Such diagnostic Also, the brain structure of birds and reptiles is very characters have the following characteristics: 1. They clearly different. Reptiles have relatively larger olfactory bulbs differentiate between baramins, meaning that they are not compared to birds. Birds and reptiles occupy different uninformative or too general; 2. They have been measured curves on a log-log graph plotting encephalic (brain) volume for healthy adult individuals (and not juvenile or deformed according to adult body mass.14 Birds are endothermic as individuals); 3. The measured character is not broken or opposed to reptiles, which are ectothermic. Birds have a fragmentary; and, 4. The character can be assigned an integer four-chambered heart, whereas reptiles only have a three- value (e.g. 0 = sagittal crest absent, 1 = present). In the case chambered heart with poor separation between the two of continuous variables, character values can be put into ventricles. For a detailed discussion on the anatomical range bins, or given binary values (e.g. 0 = < 5 mm, 1 = > differences between birds and reptiles/dinosaurs, see Thomas 5 mm). and Sarfati, 2018.15 If we used these as diagnostic features, Selection of diagnostic character traits stems from the birds and dinosaurs would clearly form distinct groups. creationist presupposition that different kinds of plants and But there are other features birds and dinosaurs share in animals can be visibly and intuitively distinguished from common. For example, birds and reptiles are both oviparous. one another. For example, birds are clearly separate from They also have scales and claws on their feet. If we included reptiles, because they were both created on separate days these characters in a morphometric analysis it could cloud (Genesis 1:20–25). the results. However, there is a robust and long-standing discussion Due to these considerations, this paper presents a bara- about character trait selection in the field of taxonomy. minology data filtering method based on the mea surement of Character inclusion vs exclusion is a well-known problem. the entropy value of different characters. Entropy is a math­ Most taxonomists have given up on character selection ematical measure of the variety of a given data set. Other because observer bias so often influences it. Thus, most in authors describe it as the ‘surprisability’ of a given character. the field have adopted a ‘throw everything at the wall and see For example, if all of the specimens had the same value for what sticks’ approach and most modern taxonomical methods a certain character, this character would be too general, and can deal with uninformative traits easily.