User:Ungtss/thread

1) Baraminologists believe that some, but not all organisms share common descent. Thus, one might conclude that all felines are a single "kind," and are descended from a single ancestral gene pool.
 * This is pretty basic.

2) One key difference between the baraminological concept of common descent and the evolutionary model of common descent is that baraminology posits greater genetic diversity within the original kinds.
 * this needs to be cited. Also presents "original kinds" as legitimate (cf. "do you still beat your wife?").
 * No, it "posits" them -- neither legit nor illegit. Just an explanation of the idea.  Ungtss (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

3) Baraminology views diversification and speciation as inbreeding and a loss of genetic diversity in particular populations, rather than an increase in genetic diversity posited by the theory of evolution.
 * I don't understand what baraminologists mean when they say "diversification" and "speciation", so that needs to be explained first. Also, increase in genetic diversity is not merely posited, but true/correct/right.
 * The example to explain it is immediately below. If the primal Kind was similar to a Liger or a Cama, different subpopulations moved into different niches and diverged into lions, tigers, camels, and llamas under the effects of variation, natural selection, and genetic drift.  Ungtss (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

4) The primal "feline" population may have included both tiger and lion genes that mixed freely. After the population bottleneck caused by  Noah's Flood, populations spread, and variation and natural selection led to speciation, not through the increase in genetic information, but through the adaption of a species to its environment by the loss of other disadvantageous traits through variation and natual selection. ref name="rbc"/
 * What feline population? Noah's flood wasn't real. These lasts to paragraphs would need to be put into the context of "how the heck is it that evolution can cause an increase in genetic information? It can't! So here's what actually happened". This whole discussion doesn't belong in baraminology, though we might mention something about how baraminology needs to explain it.
 * When you're explaining baraminology, you have to explain it in the context of its assumptions. It assumes a population bottleneck 6-10,000 years ago, and posits speciation via the stated mechanism.  Ungtss (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

5) For it to be possible for two organisms to be related, the two character spaces must be linked by viable, hypothetical organisms. If there is a gap between the two organisms in which no organism could be viable, then those two organisms should be seen as being in separate "kinds."
 * View presented as fact. This is interesting and concisely presented, though. Should be revised and reincluded.
 * Again, this is obviously within the context of explaining the view. Do you propose qualifying every clause in every sentence with "This is false!  Don't believe the fideists!?"

6) The Baraminology Study Group has put out a number of papers.ref {cite web | title=Occasional Papers of the BSG | publisher=Baraminology Study Group | url=http://www.creationbiology.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=201240&module_id=36813}/ref
 * This seems to be an excuse to link that page...
 * How so? The section is about the methodology, and the linked page links papers describing the methodology.  Ungtss (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The major problems with that new section was that it presented views as facts, had trivia, was disconnected, and brought up unrelated evolution-creation discussions. –MT 01:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as I understand it, Wikipedia is a group effort. I don't understand why the section was simply removed wholesale, since your objections are easily corrected in the text.  Ungtss (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Spotfixer wrote some time ago: I'm with –M on this one.  If we can state it as a fact, rather than a view, then it would be biased to downgrade it. Spotfixer (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's fascinating to me that attributing a claim to the National Academy of Sciences is a "downgrade" from attributing it to no one. If the NAS is really the authority, then why is it a downgrade to place their credibility behind it?  Ungtss (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)