The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

traditionally called a bird ( Archaeopteryx ), and various species traditionally called dinosaurs ( Deinonychus , Velociraptor , etc.), all of which are more similar to each other than to living birds or other dinosaurs. The biological reality—a spectrum of animals with varying features that would have been considered reptilian or avian a century ago—prevents both evolutionists and creationists from drawing clear semantic dividing lines between birds and dinosaurs. This new reality of paleontology raises the question whether existing taxonomic categories and terminology are adequate to describe the diversity of life.  Since we cannot clearly distinguish between theropod dinosaurs and birds, what do the terms dinosaur and bird even mean? How do we define different groups if they lack a clear boundary? How should creationists approach classification and taxonomy? To really understand what the absence of large- scale discontinuities means, it helps to take both a wide-scale and a narrow-scale look at nature. When viewed from a wide-scale, “zoomed out” perspective, the animals we traditionally call birds and the animals we traditionally call theropod dinosaurs blur together, as evidenced by the initial BDC andMDS plots for many of our analyses before we broke them into subsets (e.g., Figs. 17, 18, 19, 32, and 33). At a figuratively high level—too far away to see the “clusters” that represent the original created kinds—birds and theropod dinosaurs (especially coelurosaurs) are overlapping, continuous, and anatomically grade into one another. Any line drawn at this level is necessarily arbitrary, and a real, morphological feature that divides birds and dinosaurs is not apparent. Indeed, when viewing all of life from a broad perspective, we can understand why evolutionists believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs. If Darwinian evolution were true, then it would be reasonable to conclude that birds evolved from dinosaurs. From a creationist perspective, this pattern does not change; merely the interpretation. The groups we call birds and dinosaurs are not evolutionarily related; rather, birds are a cluster of similar created kinds that nests in another, larger cluster of similar created kinds called dinosaurs, much like the cluster of similar created kinds we call bats nests in the larger cluster of similar created kinds we call mammals . Our historical expectation as creationists—that the animals we call birds are a discrete group wholly separate anatomically from any member of the group we call reptiles—is not corroborated by the fossil record. Only when we use baraminological methods to “zoom in” for a narrow-scale, closer view of life—examining fewer genera or families without extensive outgroups—do patterns of discontinuity appear. The fossil record still shows discontinuity surrounding clusters of continuity that probably approximate created kinds. The findings of these statistical analyses fit very well with the expectations of creationist taxonomy, as illustrated by Wise’s idea of a “neo-creationist orchard” (Wise 1990). All of life is not related by common ancestry, but some groups of organisms are descended from common ancestors. Both birds and dinosaurs are categories of multiple holobaramins, grouped under the same name because of shared anatomical features, but not on the basis of common ancestry. The debate about whether birds evolved from dinosaurs becomes less important from this standpoint of baraminology because neither “birds” nor “dinosaurs” is a group of animals connected by common descent. While the words themselves are still meaningful, in a creationist way of thinking the terms “bird” or “dinosaur” can only describe shared characteristics among similar animals within a greater created pattern, not common ancestry. While an evolutionist would use both the terms birds and ducks to refer to common ancestry, creationists view the latter as a group that probably does share a common ancestor (an original created duck kind), while we decidedly reject the idea that all of the former group (birds) evolved from a common ancestor. So, we have three perspectives about taxonomic language. From an evolutionary perspective, taxonomic language ideally reflects common ancestry, hence the current drive for names to reflect monophyletic groups. From an outdated creationist perspective (when many creationists ascribed to species fixity and thought that “created kind” equaled “species”), the conclusion could be reached that all taxonomic language was merely utilitarian, since no two species were actually related. From a new creationist perspective, taxonomic language can--depending on the group of organisms addressed--describe either ancestral relationships (e.g. cats or penguins) or common design patterns (e.g. mammals, birds, or vertebrates). Hence, a truly creationist way of thinking about taxonomy, similarities, and relationships now requires us to carefully and clearly define our terms. We must ask what the terms birds and dinosaurs actually mean, rather than reflexively say that “birds” are--or are not--“dinosaurs.” Since the features that define mammals are present in bats , but bats also have certain unique features that no other mammals have, we classify bats as a subgroup of mammals, even though we are confident bats do not share a common ancestor with other mammals. Since the features that define theropod dinosaurs are present in birds, but birds also have certain unique features that no other theropod dinosaurs have, birds could be considered a type of dinosaur. To give a parallel example to that of dinosaurs and birds, this way of analyzing terminology from a baraminological, creationist perspective frees us when discussing human taxonomy. Some creationists feel uncomfortable using the scientific terms “primate” or even “mammal” to refer to humans. Viewed from an understanding of created kinds, though, these terms need cause no concern. We can fairly say that humans are both mammals and primates as long as we understand and clarify that these terms refer to common design patterns and features shared with all other creatures in these groups. While phrases such as “humans are primates” or “birds are dinosaurs” may make us feel uncomfortable, they are really no more or less problematic than, “monkeys are primates,” “stegosaurs are dinosaurs,” or “frogs are amphibians.” All these are valid as long as they reflect a real, observable pattern (i.e. the phrase, “humans are frogs” is not true). All these phrases legitimately refer to common design patterns, and none refer to common ancestry. None of these phrases necessarily represent compromise with or acceptance of evolution, because we use them in a distinctly different, clearly articulated sense. Interestingly, using broader-scale taxonomic terms (above the level of the created kind) to refer to common design instead of ancestry reclaims the sense in which many of these terms originated. Early naturalists who were creationists coined many of the taxonomic McLain et al. ◀ Feathered dinosaurs reconsidered ▶ 2018 ICC 505