Talk:Baramin

From EvoWiki

Is it just me or are ReMine's four terms (Polybaramin, Monobaramin, Apobaramin, & Holobaramin) extremely redundant? Is it even possible to define a monobaramin such that it isn't also an apobaramin and vice versa? Don't they just amount to "something smaller than a baramin"? And "polybaramin" seems to have no meaning at all. Couldn't you substitute "buncha" for any use of it? Or am I missing something? --Suttkus 20:52, 27 March 2006 (BST)

You got it. I was LOL when I saw this stuff (news to me) while researching organizations. Tom Cruise and his crowd aren't the only ones with bizarre notions. After all they are having to be talking about "kinds" and those Genesis references to that don't lay much of a scientific groundwork. --Dmill96 22:51, 27 March 2006 (BST)

Not being an expert on Hebrew, I'm hesitant to add hearsay to the article, but it is my understanding that "Baramin" is an invented conjunction that doesn't actually occur in the Bible. This should be mentioned in the article if true. --Suttkus 03:30, 28 March 2006 (BST)

The term "baramin" is never mentioned in any version of the Bible.--Mr A. 03:58, 28 March 2006 (BST)

In the reference I just added to the article A Refined Baramin Concept , under heading "Biblical Considerations" there is discussion of the biblical origin of 'min' (31 mentions). "Unfortunately, the word is poorly understood, and many scholars disagree on its meaning." --Dmill96 06:32, 28 March 2006 (BST)

Speaking of Tom Cruise, shouldn't this site have some pages on Scientology? While not strictly creationists, they do oppose rational science (such as believing humans evolved from clams). --Suttkus 06:11, 28 March 2006 (BST)

I don't think so. If they assume that Gorilla gorilla, Pan paniscus, and Pan troglodytes are a group with a common ancestor which was created separately from Homo sapiens, then the group consisting of Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, and Homo sapiens are:

• a polybaramin (group of species), but
• not a monobaramin since their ancestors were created separately (dropping Homo sapiens from the group would make it a monobaramin),
• not an apobaramin since the Pans are related to Gorilla gorilla (adding Gorilla gorilla to the group would make it an apobaramin),
• not a holobaramin since they are neither mono nor apo (dropping Homo sapiens and adding Gorilla gorilla would make it a holobaramin).

Within their belief system, it makes sense. Of course, it's all arbitrary guesswork. There is no way to decide which species have a common ancestor and which have not if you never accept evidence of things you don't believe yet. --tk (t) 09:05, 28 March 2006 (BST)

But the group containing Gorilla gorilla, Pan paniscus, and Pan troglodytes is also a polybaramin. Add Felis sylvestris and it's still a polybaramin. You haven't defended "polybaramin" from being equivalent to "buncha", even in their paradigm.

"Apobaramins" contain species unrelated to other species. Dropping G. gorilla from your grouping won't make it an apobaramin because the two Pan are related to other species, the dropped Gorilla. --Suttkus 13:11, 28 March 2006 (BST)

I agree to your first point: "polybaramin" seems to mean "buncha". It's like "taxon" in real taxonomy, which can be a monophyletic or polyphyletic taxon. Maybe they think that such a group as "apes" could well turn out to be neither apo nor mono, so they would need a term for that.

Every mono, apo, or holo is also poly. Every holo is mono and apo.

But I don't get the second point. I didn't say anything about dropping gorillas. An apobaramin can consist of several "created kinds", but has to contain every such kind as a whole, not parts of it. A monobaramin is a part of a created kind, or the whole of it, and must not contain any other created kinds. So, apo and mono are different concepts. --tk (t) 13:34, 28 March 2006 (BST)

I agree with Thomas. Markus Schmaus 14:29, 28 March 2006 (BST)

Forgive me, I apparently wasn't quite awake this morning. I'll reconsider when I get back from work. --Suttkus 18:38, 28 March 2006 (BST)

The way it's usually defined, a holobaramin is all species with the same common ancestor (an archaebaramin), a monobaramin is a subset of a holobaramin (that is, a monobaramin is at least a species and at most a holobaramin), an apobaramin is a set of holobaramins (that is, an apobaramin is one, two or more entire holobaramins), and a polybaramin consists of members of at least two different holobaramins (it need not contain entire holobaramins, though it may do that). Therefore, a holobaramin is a special case of a monobaramin and a special case of an apobaramin - any monobaramin can be enlarged to a holobaramin, and any apobaramin can be thinned to a holobaramin. An apobaramin with at least two holobaramins is a special case of a polybaramin, and a polybaramin that consists of two entire holobaramins is a special case of an apobaramin.

--FreezBee 16:32, 22 May 2006 (BST)

Eh, here. This is my best go at explaining it all. 86.132.7.241 18:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC) --back to basics- According to Prof. ReMine's original definition, baraminology proceeds by "successive refinement." Thus a holobaramin is the desired result- but a bit hard to find in one go. an apobaramin is an outer bound,(anything outside is "not our kind."),a monobaramin is an inner bound. When these converge, they are all the same thing. The more recent use of these terms, as larger and smaller clades, shows the inapplicability of the concept.

---

Fingal

Kinds in The Genesis Apocryphon

Interestingly, the Genesis Apocryphon of Dead Sea Scrolls hints that the number of created kinds is 22. If you read Gen 1:1-31, you’ll see that it matches the Genesis account very closely.

Day	Kinds made that day	List of the Kinds made on given day
1	7?	Several kinds of Heavenly spirits that make rain, snow, etc.  ?
2	1?	The Firmament?
3	4	1. Plants that make seeds, 2. sprouting plants, 3. fruiting plants, 4. forests
4	3	1. Sun, 2. Moon, and 3. Stars
5	3	1. Sea monsters, 2. Fish and swarming ocean life?, 3. Birds
6	4	1. Humans, 2. Land animals?, 3. Things that creep on the land?, 4. Cattle
Total	22

There are several places where the text is unclear or simply missing. I’ve indicated this with question marks.

I've moved this out of the article, because personally I don't think the DSS tries to name the number of kinds any more than Genesis does.--Doddy 07:54, 24 October 2007 (BST)