Comment on An apology to PUC by Sean Pitman.
@Eddie:
Sean, all of your predictions also apply to a planet covered 95% with water. You neglected to mention a crucial prediction that distinguishes between the competing hypotheses that 100% or <100% of the planet was covered with water. The hypothesis that 100% of the planet was covered with water predicts that all terrestrial organisms dispersed from Mt. Ararat after the flood. The hypothesis that <100% of the planet was covered with water predicts that terrestrial organisms dispersed from centers of diversification on each continent where certain taxonomic groups survived a global flood. Do you sincerely believe the weight of scientific evidence on the biogeographical distributions of terrestrial organisms favors the hypothesis that 100% of the planet was covered with water? If so, can you provide us with some emperical evidence? SDA biology professors need to know this information if they are expected to inform their students that the weight of the evidence supports the hypothesis that 100% of the planet was covered with water.
Given that the entire geologic column/fossil record was produced within recent history by a large Flood or very closely spaced series of very large watery catastrophes, what’s your point in suggesting that the entire planet may not have been covered by water? Where is your countering evidence to suggest that certain areas were not covered by water during this period of catastrophe?
Oh, yeah, the biogeographical distribution of organisms doesn’t favor a common starting point within recent history. That’s all you have? You don’t think that the obvious lack of fossils in areas that are known to have harbored millions of a particular type of organism for extended periods of time isn’t problematic to this argument? Current biogeographical distributions of animals says very little as to how the animals got to their current locations and certain doesn’t falsify the theory of a common location following a worldwide Flood.
To cite a recent relevant example:
Bees, termites, spiders, and flies entombed in a newly-excavated amber deposit are challenging the assumption that India was an isolated island-continent in the Early Eocene, or 52-50 million years ago. Arthropods found in the Cambay deposit from western India are not unique — as would be expected on an island — but rather have close evolutionary relationships with fossils from other continents…
Rather than finding evolutionary ties to Africa and Madagascar, landmasses that India had most recently been linked to as part of Gondwana, the researchers found relatives in Northern Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Americas.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101025152256.htm
The amber itself was derived from trees that were not thought to exist during the Early Eocene – not even close. The earliest record of most types of living things is continually being pushed farther and farther back down the geologic column the more information is discovered about the fossil record.
It is also interesting to note that diatoms and other marine microorganisms have been found in amber:
The presence of these marine organisms in the amber is an ecological paradox. How did these marine species become stuck and then trapped in the conifers’ resin? The most likely scenario is that the forest producing the amber was very close to the coast, potentially shrouded by plankton-bearing mist or flooded by sea water during storms.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081112161206.htm
Seems like these marine “storms” were all over the place. Again, which theory is most consistent with the evidence?
In short, given the available evidence supporting the creation of the geologic column and fossil records within recent history via a common catastrophe, I’m left just a bit underwhelmed by biogeographical arguments – and I dare say that most other people who recognize the evidence for a recent formation of the geologic/fossil records would come to the same conclusion…
Is there a leap of faith that is required to believe in the Biblical account of a universal deluge that killed off all land animal life save that on the Ark? Certainly – but this is less of a leap of faith than the leap that would be required to believe it remotely likely that many kinds of both small and large animals survived the worldwide catastrophe on floating mats of vegetation or in small isolated regions that were not swamped by the Flood.
Where is the weight of evidence? Which theory is most consistent with all of the available evidence?
It is fine to present opposing theories while working for an SDA institution, but a professor should also be able to point out the significant flaws in opposing theories and also present good reasons why the biblical model is the most tenable model available among all competing theories…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
An apology to PUC
@OTNT_Believer:
Must you keep harping on the one statement on Darwin’s finches that few other than yourself and maybe some other creationists disagree with?
I have yet to see you present one phenotypic or genetic difference between any of Darwin’s Finches and other members of the Dome-nest Clade which could not be rapidly realized in a few thousand years. Certainly a 0.3% difference in cytochrome b isn’t a significant problem. I’m not sure what else makes you think that Darwin’s Finches are no uniquely evolved that they could not be explained as originating from Noah’s Ark a few thousand years ago?
As far as your arguments for the date of the first Egyptian dynasty being preceded by over a thousand years of cultural development, it simply doesn’t take very long for groups of humans to develop complex cultures and governments. Also, there are those who argue that the date for the first dynasty is more likely to be less than 4,500 years ago. Either way, the dating of Egyptian dynasties is hardly a very solid basis for challenging the historical SDA position on origins…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
The “striking phenotypic differences, and even unique genetic differences†among different populations of humans and dogs are the results of random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection or (in the case of dogs) artificial selection–not “some span of reproductive isolation.â€
It doesn’t matter how the reproductive isolation is achieved, be it “artificial” or “natural”. The resulting phenotypic differences are much more obvious between certain breeds of dogs or even various human ethnic groups than between certain “cryptic” species.
The reason why cryptic species are given taxonomic status while various breeds of dogs and human ethnic groups are not seems arbitrary to me. There really is no clear dividing line for taxonomic status on the one hand, but not on the other…
Humans don’t depend on the color or texture of eyes, hair and skin to avoid mating with chimps or apes, or even different groups of humans.
Are you kidding me? Humans are indeed biased in the choice of a mate toward those of similar phenotypic appearance. While this is not a universal rule (as is also the case with many kinds of cryptic species who also experience the occasional hybrids), it is certainly a bias.
When a female poodle is in heat, it doesn’t matter what “breed†a male dog belongs to, it is equally stimulated and could care less about the length, color or texture of eyes, hair, ears, snout, legs, tail, etc. The reproductive isolating method between dogs (genus Canis) and foxes (genus Vulpes) is likely based on olfaction rather than external morphology.
Have you considered the efforts of a Great Dane to mate with a chihuahua? Come on now, there are clear examples of not only artificial but natural reproductive isolate between various breeds of dogs and even between various human ethnic groups. Aborigines have arguably experienced some time of natural isolation, as have numerous other ethnic groups of modern and ancient humans. Unique phenotypic and even genotypic features were realized that are arguably more significant than the differences between the songs or nest structure of cryptic species of birds or the other very minor variations between cryptic species of frogs or giraffes, etc…
Again, don’t pretend like this is entirely objective science. It isn’t. There is a a fair amount of subjectivity in play here…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
An apology to PUC
@OTNT_Believer:
And the fact that taxonomists use a b it of subjectivity is a new revelation? Come on Sean, you are nitpicking. Of course there is some subjectivity.
Hey, I’m not the one who came out and said that the differences between Darwin Finches and all other birds were so dramatic and clear cut and objectively understood that they could not be reasonably explained in just a few thousand years… or that the Egyptian dynasties are definitively known to go back over 6,000 years (when they probably go back no more than 4,500 years)…
A “bit” of subjectivity involved here? – no?
Sean Pitman
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.
