Comment on Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists” by pauluc.
Sean Pitman: Beyond this, if you and the many many other well-educated evolutionists have no idea how to respond in any meaningful way to observations that should be very very obvious
This is where your fundamentalism comes up agaisnt the realities of knowledge. You want it to be black or white, obvious and certain. It is not and there is great amounts of ignorance which motivates the scientific endeavour. Scientists admit ignorance and you then assume that your unsubstantiated views must be correct.
Where are we in terms of our agreements ?
1] You accept that most or the species that exist today arose by a process of natural selection from ancestral populations. We have been over humans, hogs and canines and largely agree on diversification mechanisms except in the pace. I accept long periods you do not.
2] You image that a population of 2 can generate sequence variation sufficient to generate species and genera in a period of 4000 years. In terms of the levels of diversity I am presuming that you do agree with David Catchpole of CMI who in Creation 2013 35(4):31 claims that 2 badgers went on the ark and generated a great diversity of species and genera within the Mustelidae family’
“Also likely descended from that same pair are these nine non-American badger species: the European badger [Meles meles). the Asian badger (Meles leucurus), the Japanese badger (Meles anakuma), the hog badger (Arctonyx collaris——which lives in central and southeast Asia), the Chinese ferret- badger (Melogale moschata). the Javan ferret-badger (Melogale orientata), the Bornean ferret-badger (Melogale everetti), the Burmese fcrret—badger (Melogale personata), and the Vietnam ferret-badger (Melogale cucphuongenesis).
These are ten different species but also four different genera.”
“But we haven’t exhausted the badger kind yet. The honey badger or ratel, Mellivora capensis, marks the 11th species and the 5th genus of badgers in the Mustelidae, which is sometimes referred to as the ‘weasel family’. Indeed, the honey badger itself is often described as ‘weasel-like’. In fact, it’s highly likely that weasels and other members of the Mustelidae are also descended from the same ancestral pair as the badgers. That includes not ‘ just the likes of polecats and stoats (ermine) but also otters—recent genetic studies point to American badgers having become reproductively isolated from Eurasian badgers before weasels, ferrets and otters….”
You image this diversity was by a process of mendelian inheritance where phenotype differences were selected by transmission of specific allelic variants from the gene pool present in 2 animals.
3] I have a much more conventional view of population genetics and think that a gene pool in a population of 2 dooms to failure levels of diversity required for the observed speciation cannot exist in 2 animals except by a miracle. You do not think that any miracle was involved. I think it highly unlikely that there was such a genetic bottleneck and then this level of speciation except by miracles. You agree that almost all the genetic allelic variation present across the derivative species came from new mutations not present in the original pair but I would say the new mutation occurred in a viable population of hundreds if not thousands of animals and that speciation occurs in populations not in individual pairs.
4] I think it likely that the same process that lead to speciation within genera or “kinds” also accounts for derivation of different families from common ancestors. You do not an propose there is an insurmountable barrier to that diversification at the level of families and above.
5] You have proposed that it is at the level of 1000FSAAR but have not given me any example derived from the comparison of genomic sequences for specific genes.
It is at this point that you would have a publishable paper if you compare genomic sequences between different mammalian species and document the 1000FSAAR systems that equate to the limits defining “Kinds” and the evolutionary limit. Statistical probability and islands of functional sequence as you admit is not novel or publishable. You have to have data and analysis that is novel and compelling.
Table of Contents
pauluc Also Commented
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
Having read through all the recent exchanges I have to confess I am absolutely wrong as you suggested repeatedly. I thought you were actually interested in education and truth as your site advertises. That you grock the process of science and had some desire to communicate your ideas in the forum of science. Reluctantly I have to admit it does not appear so. I offered some advice as I do have a committment to education and science. I am clearly wasting my time here and am increasingly confident that your “my way only” approach to communication means you will never ever publish your work in the scientific literature. I will go back to my graduate students who do appreciate any help I can provide and are actually interested in doing good research and publishing their work for the world to read.
Grace.
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
Sean Pitman: What experimental data would you suggest? A non-beneficial gap distance is the data. The implications of such a gap distance are obvious. No additional experimental data is needed to tell you that a mechanism of random mutations takes exponentially longer to get across such a gap distance (on average) with each linear increase in the gap distance. That conclusion, though very simple, completely undermines neo-Darwinism.
Unfortunately this sort of dogmatic ill thought out statement is not taken seriously as is evident from responses to you at pandas thumb, pharyngula scienceblog and other sites.
1] I have suggested the relevant experiments. Dont fixate on bacterial flagella and abstractions like sequence space. Most people dismiss it as a theoretical model disconnected from reality. Think mammalian evolution.
2] It does not at all undermine neo-Darwinian evolution eather for theistic evolutionist or for you who accept completely a neo-Darwinian basis for speciation in post-flood biology
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
Sean Pitman: However, I do appreciate your concern for my reputation 😉
Indeed I may well have been in error in underestimating your fame. The evolution crackpot index even has an entry for 100 points inspired by you.
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/11/11/the-evolution-crackpot-index/
As one commentator suggests in outing you.
“After spending zillions of moments wading through Sean Pitman’s neutral gaps before reaching the other side, I am very gratified that these Gaps are worth more than a full Pitman, 26^1.41345418475 = 100. ”
I do worry that your dogmatic statements and polemic do not help to pursuade like a published study with measured and reasoned arguments would.
Recent Comments by pauluc
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
Bob Helm: With that said, I find your views to be spiritually dangerous and often scientifically weak. I detect a lot of smoke in your posts, but very little light. I hope you will continue to ponder these issues and try to have an open mind.
You are most welcome to your opinion and I know you would like nothing better than that anyone who takes Christianity and the Bible seriously but not literally to just go away. It is much better not to know of any possible problems with one current views. It very hard to get to the science when we cannot even agree on what is science. What passes as science on this site is so completely dismissive of its methodological basis and history and is entrained in a specific supernatural world view that allows arbitrary acceptance of any observation as miraculous. I think Roger’s paper may well be relevant to Adventist that believe that Christianity has and must respond to a careful study of physical reality by reconsidering its interpretations of the word of the Lord, but as Sean has indicated you are exception to that characterization. I still do not really understand why you should be interested at all in any science. It seems a bit messy to worry about facts. It really seems an unnecessary bother to argue whether the precambrian/cambrian boundary or the upper cenzoic (is that really what you meant?) as the evidence of a divine intervention.
Dont worry I do have an open mind which is why I still peruse this site to see how more knowledgable fundamentalist Adventists think. I wont worry you further.
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
Sean Pitman: So, you do see the need for a police force and a military to maintain civil society, but somehow Christians should not provide what is an otherwise necessary part of that civil society? I’m with Abraham Lincoln on this one when he noted the inconsistency of such a position – like Orthodox Jews paying others to turn their lights on for them on Sabbath
On that logic you should not have any issue with working on Sabbath in any profession serving 24/7. Be that computer support, utilities firefighters. Those giving up those jobs because of inability to have sabbath observance were all deluded. They as Christians should be prepared to “provide what is otherwise a necessary part of civil society”
You cant have it both ways. You cant because of a moral postion claim that Adventists should have exception from working on Sabbath and at the same time deny me the right to consider immoral some occupations that may be very utilitarian in a world full of selfishness and the human acts of evil that comes from that.
Lets for a moment step back from lala land. Where are we and where did we come from on this thread?
1] You posted a rehash of all your usual arguments in response to an article about the more mainstream Adventist positions that may impact the way Adventism reacts to conventional science. All very straight forward.
2] The contention was that Adventism has accepted process for the orgin and evolution of the inanimate world. The birth and death of galaxys and stars and planets in black holes supernova and impacts of spiralling planets. This is where it gets really strange.
3] You contend that Adventism has always accepted the conclusions of that process but then expand on your view of the process which involves a little bit of order and natural law but large amounts of magic. God waited a few billions years until the interstellar material generated by the big band condensed into planets onto which God created life mature and complete. This included Heaven the place of his throne-room which he populated with physical being angels which it is implied have both mass and composition and metabolism.
4] When it was suggested that the same processes and natural law resulted in life on this planet this was claimed inconceivable and would never be done by any process involving life and death. Instead the life we see now is in reality designed to live for ever and has be chemically changed because it is deprived of a particular form of nutrient from a tree that existed on the Earth some 6000 years ago.
5] The inconguity of practicing medicine by the principles of process of natural law and the technology resulting from both the processes of the innanimate and the animate world rather than accepting the much more important process of divine intervention seems to be completely obsure.
6] When someone says that the process of life and death that gave us the physical substance of our universe is also the basis of the creation of life here he must be animal hating sadistic psychopath who cannot belieive in a God of love and grace and is lying when he says that non-violence characterizes the children of the heavenly father for one must always recognize that peace and freedom are only obtained over the bodies of 1/3 of the angels of heaven and the eternal physical and violent struggle against those who would practice violence.
I really cannot understand you Sean. Your ways are way beyond me. I am just sorry that Bob seems to be drawn into your twighlight zone.
Grace
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman: sorry but your curious amalgam of magic and biology is not really comprehensible to me as a biologist or as a Christian . it. is neither logical or biologically feasible
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
Sean Pitman: However, according to the Bible and Ellen White, before the Fall God specifically directed nature so that all sentient life was protected in a manner that there was no suffering or death. By eating from the “Tree of Life” God provided constant renewal and regeneration that worked against what would otherwise be inevitable entropic changes, decay, and death. It was by deliberately stepping away from the true Source of eternal life that mankind stepped away from God and into the full workings of mindless natural law alone – which does in fact inevitably lead to suffering and death.
And this interpretation is precisely why you need a theodicy. Where is the justice in killing all for the sake of the sins of one woman+man? It makes no sense logically. If they were conditionally immortal because of eating of the tree of life then did all the animals in all the world congregate around this tree like beasts around a water hole on the serengeti. how exactly do you as you are wont to do translate the account into a literal reality. And which beast had to come and eat. Or was it symbolic? Oh now that’s a thought.
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
Sean Pitman: Come on now. Even I can imagine limitations to reproduction or the turnover of sentient carbon-based life. Surely you can at least imagine something similar? I know God can since such a world is described in the Bible and in the writings of Ellen White. Think about it…
Of course I have. This is not simply about reproduction. That is trivial. This is about metabolic process. Show me a carbon based life form that does not grow or metabolize anything and I will show you an organism in stasis as a spore “living” millions of year in amber. That is; effectively dead.
Real life cannot exist without metabolic process in a carbon based world and God has sanctified all this by a process of making good out of evil from the death of one comes life for others. Just as in the biological world so in the spiritual. By his death we have life. Just as God sanctified the practice of sacrifice of appeasement practiced by most cultures for thousands of years before and showed that in the Judeo-Christian tradition these same acts of sacrifice were emblematic of a monotheistic God that would become incarnate and bring life from death. So also he took the preceding accounts of creation derived as they were of the mesopotamian valley and recast it as an account of the monotheistic God who is above all but comes and dwells among us to become one of us. Participating in our life and death but showing us the importance of the transcendent life of the spirit that supercedes carbon based life and its inherent death. It is no fairy tale of 6 impossible things before breakfast. It is not pie in the sky by and by. It is rooted in a real world and it is about the transcendence of love and grace that is acted out in a real physical world by the incarnate God and us as we follow as His disciples.
That is the message I get from the images and visions of the Canon and EG White. But of course I read it for the message that it conveys not as a scientific text. That is where we fundamentally differ.
