Different ethnic groups do have very noticeable phenotypic differences and …

Comment on Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism by Geanna Dane.

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.

Human ethnic groups do not form unique lineages. Cryptic species within other animals do.

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.

Please give examples of “qualitative functional differences” that distinguish one closely related species from another. For example what would be the “qualitative functional difference” between a Baltimore Oriole that lives in the western U.S. and a Bullocks Oriole that lives in the eastern U.S.? They occasionally hybridize in a narrow, non-expanding hybridization zone but as it turns out they are not even each others closest relatives. If they were a single species what is keeping them from broadly exchanging genes (introgression) across an expanding region of their range? Your language is not in the literature for defining species limits. What the devil are you talking about? Who else is using your vague terminology?

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.

Got some examples? Professor Kent was asked for an example of macroevolution (speciation) taking place right now. If your claim is true, surely you have a number of good examples. Let’s see them.

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.

I don’t recognize the definition of “species” based on “differences in functionality” because in spite of reading considerable literature on the topic you are the only one I’ve read this terminology from. No one can have a sane discussion with you if you continue to speak a language foreign to everyone else.

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.

Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. Apparently mechanisms of reproductive isolation do not qualify as “qualitative functional differences” for defining species limits. At least you’ve narrowed the possibilities. Exactly what characters do?

Geanna Dane Also Commented

Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
Thank you everyone for sharing your views. Good bye.

Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
So tell me Sean, how would you go about showing that the Bullocks and Baltimore orioles are the same species? You reject what everyone else uses. Just saying that you would show “qualitatively functional differences” won’t cut it. Give us a data-based paradigm. What data would you collect and how would you analyze it? You’re the expert systematist after all.

Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism

Sean,Let’s set aside the issues related to speciation and deal more directly with your “qualitative functional differences”.Pleasse educate me. A rattlesnake has the following traits. Which would you say could be “qualitative functional differences”? Perhaps you could comment for each how difficutl they would be to evolve and whether any would exceed the 1000 fsaar threshold (your holy grail of insurmountable evolution).FangVenom glandVenomFacial pit (an eye for seeing infrared wavelengths)RattleRattling (a behavior)And assuming you believe that rattlesnakes evolved- that is GOd did not create them- perhaps you could tell me which of these traits was most likely to evolve first. The venom? The rattle? The facial pit?  (Quote)

Um…Sean…I have asked about “qualitative functional differences”. Are we going to get to these? I’d like to understand how you view these for obvious traits we can all wrap our minds around.

Recent Comments by Geanna Dane

Ravi Zacharias: Should Church Members be Held to a Higher Standard?
Professor Kent, thank you for defending me, but its not really necessary. You have been very kind to me and I have greatly appreciated the way you and your wife so generously share your faith. You have given me added confidence in the Bible and I have a better understanding of how to trust God’s word ahead of science. Thanks to your encouragement I now enjoy attending church more than ever. I have also learned that my personal experience with God is much stronger when I avoid contentious and negative websites like this one. After reading a few posts here I can’t bear the thought of reading more. Makes my stomach turn.

Your friend,

Ravi Zacharias: Should Church Members be Held to a Higher Standard?
Wow, a friend gave me a phone call and sure enough, my name has come up here again.

Ken, please understand that you are seeing some of the worst of Adventism at this website. I don’t understand the mean-spirited and snarkey posts that are so common here even from clergy like Pastor Constantinescu. I can forgive their treatment of me and others as I attribute their comments to the impersonal nature of the internet. I strongly suspect that if I were casually chatting with them in the foyer after church they would be very kind and gracious, much like most other church members that I sit down with in the pews each week. I prefer to assume these men are sincere upstanding Christians and so I don’t wish to respond in kind to their remarks.

I actually have family in Michigan and fully intend to sit in on a service by Pastor Constantinescu one day. I will make a point to visit with him personally after the service and he will not know who I am (unless I decide to publicy post my impression afterwards- which I think would be uncharitable of me). He will answer to God how he has treated me and others here, and how he treats people in person. I don’t care to defend myself further. Believe whatever you wish to believe, Ken, but know that Jesus loved his enemies and we should be willing to do the same.

Video show LSU undermining church doctrine
I don’t think there is anything any of you truly wish to hear from me. It doesn’t matter how nice or agreeable I am, everything gets interpreted from an extreme point of view that I am seldom able to anticipate. If I have misplaced anything, it has been my time spent here. I agree on many issues about the message, but I don’t share the personal vendetta and punitive approach that others articulate here.

I wrote a very nice, very sincere reply to Sean, thanking him for the many positive things he does for the church. There was no anger or sarcasm in the message. I don’t know why it has not been approved for posting yet, but he is welcome to treat and interpret the message as he wishes. I’ve made my peace and I am finished for good.


Video show LSU undermining church doctrine

Thank you for your concerns about the education of Adventist young people and for trying to find solutions to save them from losing their faith. We need them and they need us.

Thank you for attempting to share with Adventists your understanding of the overwhelming evidence that supports our belief in God, the Bible, Genesis, 6 days, 6,000 years, the spirit of prophecy, the nonexistance of the flying spaghetti monster, and the like. It’s refreshing to know that faith is not enough.

Thank you for bringing the importance of “transparency” and “on the church’s dime” to our attention. Your concepts are like manna to the faithful.

Thank you for pointing out individuals and institutions by name, and making clear to us how they continue to undermine the fundamental values and beliefs of our church and how our administrators have utterly failed to correct them. They must surely be a part of the much-anticipated omega apostasy.

Thank you for taking so much time to correct those of us who disagree with you. Perhaps there is hope for us after all.

Thank you for adhering so vigorously to what you believe to be God’s will for your life. We admire your fidelity to your stated positions and family and spiritual values.

Thank you for defending the faith of those who do not understand or agree with your views but still believe in many of the same spiritual truths that you do. We can only hope that they too can find their way to the kingdom of God.

Thank you for being so patient and respectful toward those who hold to different views than you do. Your example will perhaps inspire these individuals in ways that only God can understand.

May God bless you abundantly.

Video show LSU undermining church doctrine

So, no big deal right? Since most are not affected nothing needs to be done for those that are?

I didn’t say either, Sean. I respectfully pointed out that it was unnecessarily cruel, in my humble opinion, to shut down a university (as some have argued), ship it to Europe (as one individual suggested), or tell parents to send their children elsewhere when so many students have no exposure to the lies and theft that you have diligently brought to our attention and receive blessings from an Adventist college that are very difficult to get from a secular college.

Why is it that I can’t say even one acceptable thing here? No one should object to anything I’ve written in the past few posts above this one. Can’t you simply say, “Thank you Geanna for sharing your experiences and views. You raise some valid points.”