Comment on An apology to PUC by Sean Pitman.
Well, indeed evolutionists have to explain migrations too, but they don’t have to accomplish the whole process in a mere 5,000 years or less. The Galápagos Islands are considered to be 3 to 4 million years old, and there is evidence that some of the islands, or adjacent seamounts might be much older, which means the organisms on the Galápagos Islands had a minimum of 3 million years to raft there, be carried there on or in another organism, swim there, fly there, or be blown there. And it all that time there are only 2289 species there?
New islands, not to mention entire continents attached to each other by land bridges, can be populated much more rapidly than you evidently imagine – without the need to invoke millions of years of time.
Consider, for example, the new volcanic island of Surtsey. Surtsey began life as an eruption 130 meters below the surface of the ocean on November 14, 1963. By the end of 1964 Surtsey was an island 174 meters above sea level. Within a few months seeds and other plant parts washed up on shore and were blown in on wind currents and were carried in by birds – and took root.
Insects were first discovered on Surtsey in May of 1964. Most of these were winged insects. However, spiders were also discovered soon after the birth of Surtsey, gliding through the air attached to spinning threads. Also, many insect species floated on the sea surface to Surtsey, either with or without the aid of drifting material. Animals – both dead and alive – have been found on the beach after being washed ashore. There are examples of transportation on floating grass turfs with soil and driftwood that have stranded upon the beach, carrying numerous small animals. In addition, birds have carried small animals to the island.
During the first few years, a total of 170 different insect species were found on the island. This represents approximately 13% of all species found in Iceland until that time. Early on, however, only a few of these species became established since conditions on the island were very harsh and not favorable for colonization at first.
However, by 1981 there were animals that were herbivores, others that were saprotrophs, and still others that were carnivores. In the summer of 1993, the first earthworms were found on Surtsey in soil samples taken from the gull colony. The worms in question were juvenile chestnut worms (Lumbricus castaneus). It is interesting to note, however, that earthworms have not been found there since. By 1995 the vegetation had become very lush in the gull colony and the soil fauna very diverse. Before that time, 16 different species of Collembola had been found, but in 1995 eight species were found, six of which were new to the island. It came as a surprise that only a few of the first species had become established. On the other hand, the diversity of mites had grown, with a total of 62 species in 1995. Since 1995, two land snail species have been found: the Western Glass-snail (Vitrina pellucida), ; and the slug Deroceras agreste. In addition, 10 species of Linyphiidae have been found in Surtsey, six of them in 2002.
http://www.surtsey.is/pp_ens/biola_4.htm
So, you see, it isn’t that hard to imagine the very rapid dispersal of land animals from an original starting point around the entire world and between large continents which likely had rather extensive land bridges right after the Flood. It is also not hard to imagine how some animals that did arrive, and perhaps even thrived for a while, subsequently died out as environmental conditions changed or where not adequate for continued survival of certain types of species (as in the case of the hummingbird in Europe and Africa, contrary to Dr. Ness’s argument – since post-Flood remains of hummingbird species, in Tertiary sediments, have been found in these regions where they no longer exist today). Millions of years simply aren’t required to explain these things…
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.
