Testing Baramins Through Comparison of Genomes

What I would like to do in this thread is test the concept of baramins using genetic comparisons. I would also like to use humans and the great apes (chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans) as our two model baramins. What I plan to show is that the baramin model makes predictions that are falsified by the actual genome data while the evolutionary model makes accurate predictions.I am defining a baramin as a complete set of descendants that share a common ancestral gene pool.To this end, I need creationists to give us a model to work with. From my understanding, this is what the current baramin model looks like. We have the great apes in one baramin, an they share a single common ancestor. We also have humans who also share a common ancestor, but not the same ancestor as that shared by the great apes.Is this correct?Preferred forum: Biological EvolutionEdited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Only moderators and yourself can post to this thread, so if anyone wants to answer your question they're going to have to send you a PM.Could you add a definition of baramin?

Definition of baramin added to opening post.Added by edit: I am also asking creationists/IDer's to establish which species are in which baramin so that the goal posts do not get changed later on in the discussion. This is a very important requirement for this thread, IMHO. I have offered one possible scenario where the great apes are in one baramin and humans are in another. If there is agreement, or tacit agreement over a long period of time, then I can move on to how we can test these relationships using genetic comparisons.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Thread copied here from the Testing Baramins Through Comparison of Genomes thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

I have wanted to do a thread on this and a related article for a while now but haven't had the time. So I'll throw this out there for you to play with.Here is AIG's "model" for Determining the Ark Kinds A couple of fun facts and definitions Cognitum

quote:

---

A cognitum is a group of organisms that are naturally grouped together through human cognitive senses.

---

quote:

---

One reason the cognitum is the preferred method after hybridization is that Adam would have recognized created kinds by sight. Presumably the same would have been true in Noah’s time.

---

Statistical baraminology

quote:

---

takes a collection of characteristics (character traits) and using several statistical tests attempts to discern significant holistic continuity (similarity) or discontinuity between species (Wood et al. 2003). Like the cognitum, it assumes that baramins retain their distinctiveness today. However, in contrast to the cognitum, it assumes that the baramin is the level where statistical tests will consistently point when a set of character traits are analyzed.

---

quote:

---

These methods have not been without their critics. The strongest reactions seem to be when the conclusions are at odds with how other creationists feel creatures naturally group.

---

Approach to Determining Ark Kinds

quote:

---

Due to the high value placed on such hybrid data, our research will include a literature search to identify documented hybrids. Emphasis will be placed on hybrids across higher taxonomic levels (for example, between genera, like the coyote, Canis latrans, and the red fox, Vulpes vulpes) since they are more informative than crosses within a genus.

---

quote:

---

Unfortunately, hybrid data is lacking for many creatures. In these cases, a cognitum approach will be used. More specifically, using the context of where taxonomists place the creatures, morphology will be examined to find where they most naturally group together. In addition to drawing on personal experience and training, published works describing and illustrating various taxa will be used. A valuable resource for this will be the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology’s Animal Diversity Web website (ADW 2008), which contains numerous photographs covering many animal species.

---

quote:

---

Sequence data is considered hard, objective data. The cognitum seems so subjective. Certainly, it would seem that it is more scientific to use hard data than the subjective cognitum. Besides, these other methods use such interesting mathematical analyses that they must be better, right? In reality, the really good math masks the fact that conclusions based on these other data have a highly subjective component.

---

How could you go wrong with this methodology?

quote:

---

Just as building the Ark was a monumental task, so our task to determine the Ark kinds is monumental as well ... When we are done, we will not have all the answers regarding created kinds ...

---

No kidding! HBD

Hi, Taq. I agree with your choice of the human/ape example, because the "human baramin" is, as far as I know, the only baramin that all creationists/IDists agree on; and the rest of the ID worldview is, I would wager, less important to them than the special creation of humans.However, I did want to at least make sure one point was clear: it wouldn't be fair to require IDists to rigidly establish the boundaries of each and every baramin. I don't think any evolutionist would insist that IDists do that. That would be like requiring evolutionists to stick to a single phylogenetic tree. I would expect baramins to be a work in progress, just like phylogenetic trees are.But, anyway, I worried that this might become an issue, so I thought it was important to make sure it was clear from the beginning.

Don't both the creationists and evolutionists agree that man WAS a special "Act-of-God" in that he appeared after the mutqation of two fused chromosomes created a species that did not actually have its own gene pool initially???

Not sure. Does anyone know if they found this chromosome fusion in the neanderthal genome?Also, there are modern humans who have even fewer chromosomes. Fusions continue to happen in the human population, and I see no reason why the chromosomal fusion had to occur before or after the emergence of anatomically modern humans. For the comparisons I will be making it really won't be a factor anyway.

The only difference we ought look for should pertain to the elevated intelligence we observe in man as compared with the Ape, who had no mutation into 23 chromosomes."Recent studies suggest that genes on chromosome 2 may play an important role in human intelligence:"A Linkage Study of Academic Skills Defined by the Queensland
Core Skills TestMark A. Wainwright,1,2,3 Margaret J. Wright,1 Michelle Luciano,1 Grant W. Montgomery,1
Gina M. Geffen,2 and Nicholas G. Martin1
Received 18 Apr. 2005Final 15 Aug. 2005This study used genome-wide linkage analysis to detect Quantitative Trait Loci (QTLs) implicated in variation in general academic achievement as measured by the Queensland Core Skills Test (QCST) (Queensland Studies Authority, 2004).While no empirically derived significant or suggestive peaks for general academic achievement were indicated, a peak on chromosome 2 was observed in a region where Posthuma et al. reported significant linkage for Performance IQ (PIQ) and suggestive linkage for Full Scale IQ (FSIQ), and Luciano et al. (this issue) observed significant linkage for PIQ and word reading. In addition, on chromosomes 2 and 18 peaks for a number of specific academic skills, two of which were suggestive, coincided with the general academic achievement peaks. The findings suggest that variation in general academic achievement is influenced by genes on chromosome 2 which have broad influence on a variety of cognitive abilities.http://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/p/staff/CV453.pdfEdited by kofh2u, : No reason given.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

You are wrong on both counts, and I will show why when we have a consensus of the creationist baramin model as it applies to humans and great apes.Also, there are humans with 22 pairs of chromosomes and they are perfectly healthy and can have children of their own.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Well they don't have to put the great apes into one baramin. And since it would raise awkward questions, they probably wouldn't.I saw a website, I'll look it up if you like, where the usual rule the guy used was that a baramin was usually what a taxonomist would identify as a family. Except when it came to the apes; in that case genera (for example Australopithecus) got their own baramins. They need to split as much as possible when they get near to humans, and lump as much as possible everywhere else.This, of course, makes it difficult for them to come up with a consistent method. That and the whole "being wrong" thing.

In a thread someone said that they did it that way because it would an increase of information. I find that funny considering that a bipedal ape would also be considered an increase in information. Thats probably the reason they deny it so much.

Link?Note:Aneuploidy is an abnormal number of chromosomes, and is a type of chromosome abnormality. An extra or missing chromosome is a common cause of genetic disorders (birth defects).Different species have different numbers of normal chromosomes and thus the term "aneuploidy" refers to the chromosome number being different for that species.In most cases, an embryo with the wrong number of chromosomes does not survive. In such cases, the pregnant woman has a miscarriage. This often happens very early in pregnancy, before a woman may realize she’s pregnant. More than 50 percent of first-trimester miscarriages are caused by chromosomal abnormalities in the embryo (1).Most cases of aneuploidy result in termination of the developing fetus, but there can be cases of live birth; the most common extra chromosomes among live births are 21, 18 and 13.[2]Genetic and chromosomal conditionsAneuploidy - Wikipedia

Meaning...?
My second point was that geneticists have shown Intelliegence is what was effected by the fusion of Chromosome 2.Are you saying that is wrong, in spite I gave you the link???

Ask a Geneticist | The Tech Interactive In this case, the man is perfectly healthy and fertile. Humans can now have 44 or 46 chromosomes.