Comment on Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism by Sean Pitman.
“Based on your definitions of “species†various races of human beings should be given different species names – right?†– Sean Pitman
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG AT SO MANY LEVELS. I’m not making up definitions like you are. And the definitions I read from the literature would never identify various races of human beings as different species.
You’re not “making up definitions”, but you are choosing definitions based on your subjective opinions on the topic. The point is that there isn’t a single universally accepted definition of “species” in scientific literature – according to your own suggested references.
It is also interesting to me that you argue that different ethnic variations of humans would not qualify as different “cryptic species.” Please do explain this to me. As far as I’m aware cryptic species do not have to have any noticeable phenotypic differences at all – according to your own arguments and references. Different ethnic groups do have very noticeable phenotypic differences and even phylogenetic differences which were the result of being reproductively isolated for a period of time. Why then would you classify certain groups of animals as being in different cryptic species groups, but not do the same for humans? I’d like to hear your “objective” explanation.
Please do inform my ignorance here, but even according to your own referenced Kevin de Queiroz paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/suppl.1/6600.full
There are many different definitions of “species” in literature:
As a consequence of these differences, many alternative contemporary species concepts are incompatible in that they lead to the recognition of different species taxa depending on which concept is adopted. In other words, they lead to different species boundaries and different numbers of recognized species…
Some such groups argue passionately about the superiority of their preferred concept over the alternatives. However, other groups argue just as passionately in favor of different species concepts. In addition, the species problem seems to be getting worse rather than better, which is to say the number of alternative species concepts has been growing rather than diminishing…
Lineage separation and divergence can be conceptualized in terms of a few general evolutionary processes: mutation, natural selection, migration (or the lack thereof), and genetic drift. In contrast, the properties affected by those processes are highly diverse. They may be genetic or phenotypic, qualitative or quantitative, selectively advantageous, disadvantageous, or neutral, and they may involve many different aspects of biology, including genetics, development, morphology, physiology, and behavior…
This is the reason that the alternative species definitions, despite their general agreement regarding the conceptualization of species as metapopulation lineages, imply different conclusions concerning which lineages deserve to be recognized as species.
So, according to the article you referenced for me, there is still a great deal of subjectivity between different groups of scientists when it comes to the preferred definition of “species”. Depending upon what type of feature one wants to emphasize, a different definition of “species” can be chosen. This is why I’ve explained to you many times now that the concept of “species” has been and continues to be fairly subjective in mainstream science.
Of course, Queiroz proposes a rather unique resolution to this subjectivity. He simply broadens the definition of “species”, quite substantially, to essentially include all, or at least most, prior definitions:
Metapopulation lineages do not have to be phenetically distinguishable, or diagnosable, or monophyletic, or reproductively isolated, or ecologically divergent, to be species. They only have to be evolving separately from other such lineages…
The proposed resolution of the conflicts among alternative definitions of the species category described above is at odds with the common interpretation of Ernst Mayr’s popular species definition, which treats intrinsic reproductive isolation as a necessary property of species.
Based on de Queroz’s definition it does seem like different ethnic groups of humans could be classified as different species groups since they did, at one time anyway, form separately evolving metapopulation lineages. Please do explain how my thinking is clearly off base here…
Beyond this, not all who are considered experts on this topic in mainstream science agree with de Queiroz or share his optimism that the species concept can be unified under a single definition. So, there still seems to be a significant amount of fluidity and subjectivity in the species concept within mainstream science.
So, depending upon which definition of “species” you’re talking about the ability to produce a new “species” can be very easy to achieve in a very short amount of time, or it can be very difficult to achieve in this same amount of time – – It all depends on your chosen definition.
It is my argument that if a species is not defined based on qualitative functional differences that it is extremely easy to “evolve” new species in very short periods of time because there is no functional hurtle to overcome. Functionally speaking different “species” can be and often are part of the same gene pool of functional options. In other words, they can interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring. This ability indicates very close if not identical gene pools when it comes to functionality.
Yet, you write:
Sean, if speciation has no relevance to the contentions between creationists and evolutionists, I’ll eat my shorts, my shirt, my socks, my shoes, my jacket, my dog, my cat, my shower curtain, and your shower curtain.
The relevant basis of the contention between creationists and evolutionists is a functional basis. If your chosen definition of “species” does not deal with or is not based on differences in functionality, then it is essentially irrelevant to the contention between creationists and evolutionists. I’m very surprised that you don’t seem to recognize this concept given your claim of substantial exposure to this debate.
After all, creationists have always agreed that non-functional differences can and do happen all the time as well as low-level phenotypic differences. We creationists also agree that reproductive isolation and differences in environment play a role in establishing phenotypic differences over time. We have absolutely no problem with these ideas – no problem at all.
Again, the real difference between creationists and evolutionists is over functional differences – not over various definitions of “species” which do not depend upon functional differences. The origin of non-functional differences is very easy to explain over very short periods of time. The origin of functional differences is not so easy to explain and becomes exponentially harder and harder to explain as the qualitative functional differences increase in minimum structural threshold requirements.
So, try not to get hung up on various definitions of species available within the scientific community that do not specifically deal with qualitative functional differences in this creation-evolution debate because only qualitative functional differences are important in the debate between creationists and evolutionists…
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.
