A Surprising Set of Distinguishing Features Characterizing an Apobaramin, and its Larger Implications for Baraminology

Jonathan Bartlett, The Blyth Institute

Ruminantia is an apobaramin that is thought by some Creation taxonomists to be a holobaramin (Lightner, 2012).  Interestingly, Ruminantia holds a special place in scripture as being a "clean animal".  Creationist taxonomy has largely been focused on identifying what the taxonomical structure of the creation is.  The overlap of an apobaramin with both a functional and ceremonial role in scripture shows an additional mode of description available to Creation taxonomists.  Not only might we discover what the created order is, but what purposes the created order serves.  This overlap leads us to ask similar questions of purpose about other apobaramins and holobaramins as to what God's purpose was in creating them.

The key internal characteristic of Ruminantia that separates it apart from other taxonomic groups is the four-chambered stomach, which presumably relates to why God considered Ruminantia to be ceremonially clean.  Because the stomach is exactly coextensive with an apobaramin, this feature appears to be unevolvable in either direction (either to gain or lose as a feature).  This is, therefore, an essential feature of the group.  Features that are exactly coextensive with a taxonomic group and serve a unique purpose seem to be especially useful for classification in creation-oriented methodologies.

What is surprising, however, is that the Bible does not use the internal characteristics of Ruminantia to identify it.  Instead, the Bible uses two external characteristics to properly identify Ruminantia, and surprising characteristics at that.  Leviticus 11:3 identifies clean animals that have a split hoof and chew the cud.  There are many animals that, while not having a four-chambered stomach, perform a cud-chewing action.  There are also animals that have split hoofs, but do not chew the cud.  It is interesting that having a split hoof and chewing the cud uniquely identifies a branch of the Linnaean hierarchy.  It is also interesting that the number of characters needed to make this diagnosis is so small: only two (or three, if you count being a land animal).  This is made even more surprising if Ruminantia is discovered to be a holobaramin.

It is interesting to consider whether or not this pattern (apo- or holobaramins specified by a small number of specific traits) is specific to Ruminantia or is a larger feature of God's design.  Did God intend us to be able to identify the signal of His purposes through a few diagnostic features?  Many presumed apobaramins can be identified through a small number of features, such as Arachnida (8 legs), Hexapoda (3-segmented body, three sets of legs), Asteraceae (composite flowers), etc.  In addition, different groupings tend to have very different identifying characteristics, perhaps because of the nature of differences within their purpose.  The existence of a small number of identifying features comports well with the cognitum concept in baraminology (described in Sanders and Wise, 2003) as well as the "patterns" method of teaching taxonomy (described in Elpel, 2013).

If the pattern of Ruminantia is a global pattern instead of a local one, then this indicates the need for a shift in thinking for baraminology.  While the immediate goal would continue to be the identification of baraminic groupings, the ultimate goal, as a science, would be to identify the purposes for which God made them.  While the methodology for deriving purpose is still in an embryonic stage, it seems that the example of Ruminantia suggests that finding biological features that are exactly coextensive with an apobaramin or holobaramin is an important first step to discovering purpose within baraminic groupings.  Another possible method of discernment would be to discover the specific directions in which a baraminic grouping is evolvable, and look at how such adaptations allow for accomplishing certain purposes.  Also, baraminologists should attempt to discover whether a holobaramin or apobaramin has external, uniquely identifying combinations of features by which they can be easily identified.

Elpel, T. J.  2013.  Botany in a Day: The Patterns Method of Plant Identification, 6th ed.  Pony, MT: Hops Press.

Lightner, J. K. 2012.  Mammalian Ark Kinds.  Answers Research Journal 5:151-204.

Sanders, R. W. and K. P. Wise.  2003.  The cognitum.  A perception-dependent concept needed in baraminology.  In: Ivey, R. L., ed: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism.  Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 445-456.