Phylogenetic Character Traits
in Creation Biology

Creation biology supports a biblical understanding of the natural world. That means we do not accept a Universal Common Ancestor (as evolutionists believe). Rather, we posit separately created ‘kinds’ (baramin) that diversified (speciated) and spread across the globe after the Creation Week. The Fall, soon after Creation, introduced death, disease, and decay into the natural world, which significantly affected how organisms related to each other. The Flood, a couple thousand years or so after Creation, reset the natural world, forming a completely different continental landscape around the world and allowing different baraminic lineages to become dominant. A great deal of morphological change occurred after the Flood within these lineages as new ecological niches opened and were filled (with some lineages surviving to the present day while others disappeared).

One of the goals within creation biology is to distinguish and identify the boundaries of baraminic lineages. Often this can be done by tracing lineages through time, particularly with post-Flood lineages. Even as lineage morphologies change within the fossil record, there are clues within lineages to suggest relatedness. Sometimes, however, similarities do not necessarily mean two organisms are part of the same baraminic lineage.

Within an evolutionary phylogeny, phylogenetic character traits are defined on the basis of relatedness (or otherwise) within the framework of universal common ancestry. Some evolutionists will specify such ancestry in the definition, but it is not strictly necessary. These terms are just as viable for a baraminic framework within creation biology, if properly defined. We accept ancestral traits, and derived traits, within the bounds of baraminic lineages. We will look at the most commonly used terms and illustrate their use in understanding baraminic lineages.

Within this baraminic lineage model, the round condition is a plesiomorphic trait, while the gold condition [G, H], green condition [D, E], and square condition [C, D] are homologies.

Homology: A shared trait in different taxa, originally derived in a common ancestor. For a creationist, this would be a shared trait (in two or more taxa) derived within a baraminic lineage. (For shared ancestral traits within all members of a baraminic lineage, see Plesiomorphy.)

Analogy: A shared trait in different taxa independently derived. Within evolutionary biology, this would be in taxa that do not share a close common ancestor; within creation biology, this would be in taxa in separate baraminic lineages. For a creationist, there can be analogy by design (separate baraminic lineages share an intrinsically designed ancestral trait), or analogy by derivation (separate baraminic lineages have taxa with derived traits similar in form or function). Myrmecophagy (ant- and termite-feeding) is found in sloth bears, pangolins, and aardvarks, so a long, prehensile tongue is analogous between these animals. (See also Convergence below.)

Plesiomorphy: An ancestral trait shared by all or most members of a clade, but one that cannot be used to distinguish or define taxa. For a creationist, common design does not denote a plesiomorphic trait. All penguins have feathers, so feathers would be plesiomorphic within penguins, as all penguins share a common ancestor and that ancestor had feathers. But, though hummingbirds and penguins both have feathers, those two lineages do not share a common ancestor. For an evolutionist, feathers are plesiomorphic in hummingbirds and penguins; for a creationist, they are not—they would be analogous by design.

This latter point leads to a gap in creationist terminology. I have not encountered a specific creationist designation for an ancestral trait that would be considered plesiomorphic by evolutionists, but involving more than one baraminic lineage. After some brief discussion and input from Michael Belknap, schediomorphy is here suggested as a baraminic term denoting a designed form or feature of ancestral condition commonly found across multiple baramin.

Within this baraminic lineage model, non-blue colors, small sizes, and a square shape are apomorphic. The maroon color [F] is an autapomorphy, while the gold color [G, H], green color [D, E], and square shape [C, D] are each synapomorphies.

Apomorphy: A distinctive character trait within a clade derived from an ancestral form.

Autapomorphy (type of apomorphy): A derived trait unique to a specific taxon or monophyletic group. Not useful in determining baraminic lineage boundaries, but can demonstrate potential for morphological change within a baraminic lineage.

Synapomorphy (type of apomorphy): A new trait within a clade shared by two or more taxa, hypothetically derived in their most recent common ancestor. Evolutionists consider the turtle's shell to be a synapomorphy, as it is a unique trait within reptiles shared by a clade of multiple taxa (turtles and tortoises). For a creationist, turtle shells would be analogous by design (a schediomorphy, as proposed above), as more than one baraminic lineage is involved. A baraminic synapomorphy would be the rattlesnake's rattle: the ancestor of rattlesnakes, copperheads, and cottonmouths (all part of the same baramin) did not have a rattle, while multiple Crotalus and Sistrurus species now have one.

Underlying Synapomorphy: When a synapomorphy has been lost in most members of a given clade. This can sometimes be difficult to distinguish from an autapomorphy.

Within this baraminic lineage model, the appearance of a small condition [E, G] is a parallelism. The reversion from green to the ancestral blue state [C] is a secondary loss.

Homoplasy: A trait acquired or lost independently in separate lineages. This can be between different baraminic lineages or within a single, diverse baraminic lineage. For a creationist, analogous-by-design traits would not be homoplastic, as there is no derivation.

Parallelism (form of homoplasy): Where an ancestral condition of a variable trait is present in a common ancestor, but a derived trait independently appears in two or more separate descendant groups.

Convergence (form of homoplasy): A derived trait appearing in two groups or species that lack a common ancestor. For a creationist, this would involve separate baraminic lineages.

Reversion (Secondary Loss): A character state found in an ancestor but not in its direct descendants, that reappears in later descendants. Or, the loss of a derived trait in later descendants.

The marsupial thylacine (r) shares a remarkable resemblance to placental canines (l), demonstrating convergence of form.

It should be noted that resolving relationships within a clade requires interpretation. Some traits may have been originally treated as homoplasies by some researchers, but later reevaluated and treated as homologies by other researchers. The more traits that can be evaluated, the better. For creation biology, we should be evaluating potential lineages using both morphological and biostratigraphic data. (Molecular data can be useful insofar as recent species are involved.) Different possible lineages may need to be tested (for parsimonious relationships). Specific testing with statistical baraminology may also be useful for determining what species are likely to be within the same baramin.