Comment on Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism by Sean Pitman.
Phenotypic change is plastic and often influenced by the environment. Speciation can involve no phenotypic change whatsoever, such as polyploid versus diploid animals, of which there are many examples. Phenotypic change is NOT speciation. Darwinism is used by MANY to mean nothing more than natural selection regardless of the level of complexity.
Please do provide an example of “speciation” where there has been no phenotypic change. Most of the time different species are defined by their phenotypic differences. If two different animals are phenotypically identical in form and function, what is the point of classifying them in different species groups? I do understand that phylogeneticists do such things, classifying different groups according to phylogenetic differences without any regard to function, but this doesn’t help to explain functional differences – which is the real issue between Creationists and Evolutionists.
Darwinism is much more than simply “natural selection” (NS). Intelligent design theorists and even Creationists believe in NS. It is a real force of nature. No one argues this point. The disagreement between Darwinists and IDists/Creationists is over the creative potential of NS. IDists/Creationists consider NS to primarily function as a stabilizing or preserving force of nature, not a creative force beyond very low levels of functional complexity. Darwinists, on the other hand, claim that NS combined with random mutations (RM) is a mechanism that is capable of producing all the biodiversity that we see in all living things given enough time.
So, you see, there is a very big difference between IDists/creationists and Darwinists. It is a mistake, therefore, to suggest that IDists/creationists are really Darwinists who just believe in a more rapid form of Darwinian style evolution. Nothing could be farther from the truth since IDists/Creationists reject the creative potential for RM/NS that is assumed by Darwinists.
Is a horse a faster or more accomplished runner than a tortoise?
Obviously a horse is faster than a tortoise – your point?
I looked up “front-loaded information†at Web of Science to see if your phrase is used in peer-reviewed journals. Nothing showed up.
Is the concept too difficult for you to understand? Mendelian variation is based on front-loaded or pre-established information. I don’t care what other name you want to call it, that’s what it is. Mendelian variation is based on the concept of a pre-established static gene pool of options being able to produce a large but finite range of phenotypic variation. Do you really not understand this?
1. Are you suggesting that 1 species diversifying into 400 species is not evolution or Darwinian evolution?
If you want to call Mendelian variation “evolution”, as many people do, that’s fine I guess in the broadest and most useless sense of the word, but it isn’t Darwinian-style evolution and it isn’t the problem that Creationists have with evolution.
Processes such as Mendelian variation do produces “changes” over time but they aren’t “evolutionary” changes in the general understanding of the term because nothing qualitatively new (in a functional sense) is produced within the gene pool of options. In other words, the underlying gene pool doesn’t experience a functional change during Mendelian variations in the expressed phenotype of the gene pool. The pool remains “static”. In order to evolve or change the pool itself in some sort of functionally substantive way, qualitatively new mutations need to enter the pool – new functional elements.
You see then, it is the evolution of the gene pool itself, not the individual creatures (which are but mere focal reflections of the pool), that is the main point of contention between IDists/Creationists and Evolutionists. You seem to miss this point in your exchanges.
Also, you don’t seem to grasp the concept that the term “species” is rather subjectively defined. It isn’t usually based on the qualitative evaluation of functional differences in the respective gene pools of the different groups. Often different phenotypic reflections of the very same gene pool are given different species names.
Of course neutral phylogenetic differences, which you mention, can be realized extremely rapidly within a given gene pool; especially in population bottlenecks in small isolated groups via Kimura’s neutral evolution theory. For instance, the mutation rate for humans is around 200 per individual per generation. I guess you could call that very rapid “change” or “evolution” if you wanted to – 200 changes per individual per generation! Wow! Who would have thought?!
However, most of these mutational differences between isolated groups will not have any functional significance (since most will be functionally neutral or near neutral). The fixation rate of neutral mutations within a population can also be fairly rapid given a small population size. “Species” determinations based on such functionally neutral differences are worthless though when it comes to explaining the origin of high-level functional differences – as in what it would take to turn a lizard into a bird for example. These are the specific Darwinian ideas with which creationists take exception.
2. You have argued on probability that certain events can never happen over trillions upon trillions of years. Why are you saying now that arguments based on rates of change (millions versus tens of years) are moot?
As I’ve explained to you many times now, low level changes, Mendelian variations of pre-existing gene pool options, and non-functional changes can take place very very rapidly. In comparison, the types of changes that are very unlikely to happen, even given trillions of years of time, are changes that involve the production of qualitatively novel genetic information beyond very low levels of functional complexity – functional information that was not already in the gene pool to begin with.
3. Would I be more “properly informed†to conclude that creationists believe evolution happens more slowly than evolutionists say?
It depends upon the type of “evolution” or change you’re talking about. Some types of change can happen very rapidly while other types cannot happen at all via any mindless mechanism even given a practical eternity of years of time.
In using the very same term to describe all types of change you confuse the issue – the real distinction between creationists and evolutionists. Creationists are not simply more rapid evolutionists. Creationists do not accept the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS or any other mindless mechanism as an explanation for certain specific types of changes or differences between species.
In your comments you seem to confuse this difference. You don’t seem to understand or at least acknowledge the basic argument between creationists/IDists and evolutionists… and neither does Prof. Kent.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
@Ron Nielsen:
Sean, it seems to me that if you admit ANY functional change in the DNA the creation/evolution debate is lost in favor of evolution. All the rest, however you define species is just a matter of time and quantity.
Hardly. The vast majority of functional mutations are detrimental – based on a loss of qualitatively unique pre-established functionality. Most of the rare mutations that are functionally beneficial do not produce something that is qualitatively new within the gene pool of options, but produce only an increase or decrease in activity of the same type of functionality that was already there to begin with. And, the very rare beneficial mutations that actually produce something qualitatively unique as well as functionally beneficial never produce anything that requires a minimum of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues to work – not even close.
The reason for this is that evolution beyond this very low level of functional complexity would require trillions upon trillions of years to achieve – – on average.
This is why the constant demonstration of low-level examples of “evolution in action” do not remotely explain how higher levels of evolution are therefore reasonable – even given a few billion years. The extrapolation is not at all reasonable because of the exponential decline in evolutionary potential with each step up the ladder of functional complexity.
You say, “it’s just a matter of time and quantity”. What you don’t understanding is that the time required is simply not reasonable. The time required to get beyond even the 1000aa level is in the multiple trillions of years. Do you not see that as a problem?
That is why I think it is so dangerous to state that evolution is incompatible with belief in God and creation, because no one, not even you are willing to deny that that the mechanisms for evolution are in place.
The mechanism for evolution is not “in place” beyond extremely low levels of functional complexity. That’s the problem.
It’s similar to saying that because natural processes are known which can produce roughly cube shape granite blocks that obviously such mindless natural mechanisms could explain a highly symmetrical polished granite cube measuring exactly one meter on each side. Such a conclusion does not rationally follow since the higher level illustration requires exponentially more time for the natural mechanism to achieve relative to the lower level demonstration that does not require the same level of constraints…
Except out of wanton ignorance, it is not possible to deny evolution in this day of DNA mapping. If you insist on making evolution and belief in God mutually exclusive you will have to declare every single educated person in the church to be athiests and drive them out of the church. Your stance just isn’t reasonable.
Anyone who wishes to worship in our Church is welcome – even if he/she is an “atheists”. I would not drive anyone who wants to come out of our Church. However, this does not mean that such a one should ever expect to get a paycheck from the SDA Church for promoting his/her atheistic ideas from pulpit or classroom.
You see, attendance is not the same thing as paid representation. A paid representative must be held to a higher standard in any organization.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
@Michael Prewitt:
I agree with this general line of reasoning…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
@Geanna Dane:
In other words, you’d believe in the existence and love of God despite all physical evidence to the contrary? That is very similar to the faith of some LDS friends of mine. I suppose it works for some people, but my own relationship with God is based on the evidence that I think He has given me of His own existence and the reliability of his Word combined with personal experiences with answers to prayer, etc.
Now, I agree with you that theistic evolutionists can be saved even if they got the whole origins thing all wrong. God loves everyone and will save all who earnestly seek after Him and love Him in the person of “the least of these…†Salvation itself is not based on correct doctrinal knowledge, but on living according to the Royal Law of Love. However, correct doctrinal knowledge is not therefore worthless. It is very valuable in that it has the power to give us a clearer picture of God here and now and to provide a solid basis of hope here in now in the reality of God and of a bright and glorious future.
I’m sorry, but without correct doctrinal knowledge, without the Bible, you may have some sort of vague idea of God’s existence and maybe even His love for you through the features of nature, but you would have very little else upon which to base a solid hope in such notions. It is the evidence that the Bible is reliable in those things which can be tested and evaluated that gives solid confidence in those metaphysical statements that cannot be directed evaluated – at least for me.
This is why when you argue so strongly for the idea that science works against SDA doctrinal positions and offer nothing up but blind faith that the Bible is true that you undermine the basis of many people’s hope in the reality of the Good News. Your seeming suggestion is that science is quite clearly contrary to some very plain biblical statements and that the only way to overcome such evidence is through blind faith. That simply doesn’t do it for many many people. It certainly doesn’t do it for me.
I hope this helps you to at least understand why your ideas and comments are so strongly opposed by those who actually consider it important that the Bible be consistent with the physical evidence in order for its metaphysical statements to be considered trustworthy…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
