Comment on An apology to PUC by Sean Pitman.

@OTNT_Believer:

Although I am certainly no expert on geology, I do have expertise in genetics, and your suggestions about speciation being just a rearrangement of genetic material is woefully ignorant.

It’s always nice to have an anonymous expert on hand. Tell me now, with your expertise in genetics, upon what is speciation based? Can you cite any example of “macroevolution”, in action, that has been directly observed to be the result of the evolution of qualitatively novel genetic information within the gene pool of any living thing? – beyond very very low levels of functional complexity? In other words, do you know of a single example of observed evolution in action that produces a qualitatively novel functional system that requires, at minimum, at least 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues?

If so, I’d love to see the reference. If not, then upon what is your definition of “macroevolution” based?

I’ve asked many “experts” this question and I’ve yet to receive anything more substantial than just-so stories about how the evolution of truly novel complex systems must have happened within various gene pools. The problem, of course, is that none of these “stories” is backed up by actual observation or relevant statistical analysis regarding any viable mechanism outside of intelligent design. Perhaps you can be the first?

I have seen this concept suggested elsewhere, and only from those who have not thoroughly investigated the topic. Of course, to get the rapid changes you feel must have occurred in such a short span of time, you have to invoke a theory like this.

That’s right. Rapid phenotypic variation simply isn’t a problem when there is no need to evolve qualitatively new types of functional systems within a given gene pool that weren’t already there in the ancestral gene pool to begin with…

Extensive inversions and translocations have rendered many closely related species in this genus reproductively isolated, leading to many local endemics. But to posit this as the way that all speciation occurs is simply ludicrous.

But I never said that this is the way that all speciation occurs. What I did say is that there is no example of “macroevolution” in action that is based on the production of qualitatively novel information being added to the gene pool that wasn’t already there within the ancestral gene pool… at least not beyond very very low levels of functional complexity (i.e., the 1000aa level). There isn’t a single example of evolution at this level of functional complexity in all of literature – not one example. If you do know of such an example, by all means present it. Otherwise, I’m afraid you’re simply blowing hot air without any empirical evidence beyond just-so story telling…

You need to go back to school and take a competent genetics course and then maybe one on molecular systematics. I mean this with no disrespect, but you need to realize that your competency in this area is very low.

Forgive me for my apparent ignorance, but I’d be most grateful if you would educate me just a little bit as to what I’ve missed in my own studies of genetics and molecular systematics. Please do explain to me the mechanism by which “macroevolution” can take place, even given billions or even trillions of years of time, beyond very very low levels of functional complexity beyond that which was already there in the ancestral gene pool of phenotypic options… and good luck with that 😉

As for the “finches” of the Galápagos, we hardly see evidence for a simple rearrangement of genetic material. These birds are so different from any other birds that there has been a long-standing disagreement over how they should be classified—a difficulty that remains today. The following quote from Wikipedia (not the best source, but a ready one, and accurate enough in this case) illustrates the scope of this problem:

“For some decades taxonomists have placed these birds in the family Emberizidae with the New World sparrows and Old World buntings (Sulloway 1982). However, the Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy puts Darwin’s finches with the tanagers (Monroe and Sibley 1993), and at least one recent work follows that example (Burns and Skutch 2003). The American Ornithologists’ Union, in its North American check-list, places the Cocos Island Finch in the Emberizidae but with an asterisk indicating that the placement is probably wrong (AOU 1998–2006); in its tentative South American check-list, the Galápagos species are incertae sedis, of uncertain place (Remsen et al. 2007).” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin‘s_finches

I could give you literally hundreds of examples of this sort of thing, and your explanation just isn’t relevant at all in these cases.

And I could give you hundreds of examples of hybrids between different “species” groups, and even different family and occasional intraordinal hybrids indicating a shared common ancestral gene pool without any substantial novel functionality that was not originally contained within the ancestral gene pool.

Ornithologists, in particular, give the label “species” to very minor phenotypic differences in birds. A sparrow with a different sized spot or streak on the breast or around the eye is labeled as a different species. There are even examples of phenotypically identical animals that are given different species names based on functionally neutral genetic differences.

Darwin’s finches represent an example of macroevolution by almost anyone’s definition.

Oh really? Then you’ll have no trouble explaining what the specific novel functionality is compared to the ancestral gene pool?

Another way of looking at why your interpretation is so far off is to consider dog breeds. Aside from physical difficulties, all breeds of dogs are interfertile, but look at how different they are from one another. And these differences are due in many cases to one or several small mutations. To keep the dog story in perspective, first realize that the current theory of dog origins (which has archaeological evidence to support it) has them being domesticated sometime between 7,000 BC (from where we have the best evidence) to possibly as far back as 30,000 BC. Now, granted, we all have trouble with the idea of something happening over 30,000 years ago, so let’s just assume the 7,000 BC figure is correct (of course, you would see this as problematic as it is pre-flood).

Most modern domesticated breeds of dogs were produced in the last 300 years. And, most of the phenotypic differences are not based on mutations, but on simple Mendelian variation within the underlying gene pool of phenotypic options that were originally available within the shared ancestral gene pool of all modern dog varieties. Some mutations are involved, of course, but these mutations did not produce qualitatively novel functionality. Rather, they altered the degree of functionality of some pre-existing function – such as the relative size of various features. The dwarfed legs of dachshunds, for example, are the result of a mutation that disrupts a previous function. According to Parker, et. al. in a 2009 issue of the journal Science, this is what happened in dogs (along with its relevance to mice and men):

We hypothesize that atypical expression of the FGF4 transcript in the chondrocytes causes inappropriate activation of one or more of the fibroblast growth factor receptors such as FGFR3. An activating mutation in FGFR3 is responsible for >95% of achondrodysplasia cases, the most common form of dwarfism in humans, and 60 to 65% of hypochondrodysplasia cases, a human syndrome that is more similar in appearance to breed-defining chondrodysplasia. . . . FGF4 induces the expression of sprouty genes, which interfere with the ubiquitin-mediated degradation of the FGF receptors including FGFR3, and overexpression of the sprouty genes can cause chondrodysplastic phenotypes in both mice and humans.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5943/995.abstract

This particular type of mutation, while certainly resulting in a dramatic phenotypic and functional difference, is not really the production of some qualitatively novel functional system within the underlying gene pool of genetic options. Rather, it is the result of an quantitative alteration of a pre-existing functional system. Such mutations are very common and can occur very rapidly because there are so many ways to disrupt the performance of a pre-existing system.

Now I think we can all agree that artificial selection is a much more powerful force than natural selection.

This isn’t true at all. Based on phenotypic selection alone, be it a mindless selection process or a human-based selection process, the realization of a qualitatively novel system of function is still statistically untenable beyond the 1000aa threshold this side of a practical eternity of time. There simply is no real advantage to “artificial selection” over “natural selection” when it comes to producing true “macroevolution” of something qualitatively new and functional complex within the gene pool itself.

So, with this much more powerful force humans have produced numerous distinct breeds of dogs, but no one new species. Why is that? According you your line of reasoning hundreds (or even thousands) of new species have arisen post-flood by natural selection alone working on some kind of genetic rearrangement process. The same process should have been occurring in dogs, and yet there is not one single new species of dog! I could tell the same story with a dozen other domesticated species.

Again, this is due to inconsistent definitions of what is and what is not a “species”. What qualifies as a “species” in the wild does not given even more dramatic phenotypic differences between different dog breeds. Also, note again that modern breeds of dogs share a common ancestral gene pool that is no more than a few hundred years old. What is also interesting to note here is that wolves and domesticated dogs are classified in different species groups as are foxes and coyotes. Yet, all can interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring (except, perhaps, when it comes to foxes in which case there are no verified hybrids with dogs or coyotes as far as I’m aware)… indicating that there really is no significant qualitative functional difference between these various gene pools.

The problem we have here is that you are so quick to tear down the process of macroevolution on the one hand, and then are willing to embrace it again to try and explain the rapid diversification of taxa that must have occurred post-flood. And you are accusing me of blind faith when I am willing to believe the Bible account more on faith than evidence. Well, my friend, what you are doing with genetics and evolutionary theory is just as much a form of blind faith. There are so many holes in your genetic rearrangement leading to speciation theory that I am astonished! Can we talk about something else that you know more about?

I think you think you know more than you really do about the limits of evolutionary progress via RM/NS. Speciation, when it does occur, is not the result of “macroevolution” in the sense that nothing that is truly functional novel evolves within the gene pool that wasn’t already there within the ancestral gene pool. Losses or changes in degree of functionality can be realized. Even the evolution of truly novel functions at low levels of complexity can be realized. However, nothing that can truly be described as “macro” evolution can be realized this side of a practical eternity of time. It has to do with a problem of an exponential decline in the density of potentially beneficial systems that exist in sequence space at higher and higher levels of functional complexity.

I am sorry of I have appeared unkind in my comments here, but you have truly caught me by surprise. I hope you will take the effort to educate yourself a bit better in genetics, especially as it intersects evolutionary biology. Even if your theory were the explanation for all new species, the process, where we do know it has occurred, takes much longer than a few thousand years.

Such statements are not based on an actual understanding of the underlying functional genetic changes needed to produce the phenotypic effect being investigated. I dare say that if you really understood the underlying genetics like you think you do, you’d know that long periods of time simply aren’t needed. What you think is “macro” evolution is really nothing of the sort….

Of course, if you still think otherwise, by all means, share some actual specific information along these lines that proves me wrong…

But of course, your “faith” is not affected by the validity of the actual claims made by the Biblical authors regarding the physical world. You claim to be an “agnostic” when it comes to the validity of the actual empirical claims of the Biblical authors. It really doesn’t matter if the Bible is literally true or not – right? Your faith can go with the flow. Why then don’t you believe in the superior credibility of the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an? Amazing… – Sean Pitman

Wow, you seem to really understand me so well. Actually, my faith in God’s word does not include a faith in any one interpretation. The way my faith works in relation to the Bible is to recognize that the writers were humans inspired by God to write these accounts. Sometimes, in that process, a writer may not know or understand all the facts of the original story, so he writes it to the best of his ability. What my faith allows for is that if the writer of Genesis believed the flood was literally a worldwide flood, it bothers me not the least to still have faith in the Genesis account even if the actual event might turned out to have been local.

And, using this logic, how do you tell the difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an? After all, if your faith in the Bible is not at all dependent upon an accurate description of empirical reality, why choose the Bible as being somehow superior to anything else?

I see the problems with the flood akin to those that sometimes occurred with EGW’s inspired writings and utterances. Case in point:
In 1847, James and Ellen White published a tract in which it is announced that she had seen a vision of the planets in our solar system:
“At our conference in Topsham, Maine, last Nov., Ellen had a vision of the handy works of God. She was guided to the planets Jupiter, Saturn, and I think one more. After she came out of vision, she could give a clear description of their Moons, etc. It is well known, that she knew nothing of astronomy, and could not answer one question in relation to the planets, before she had this vision.”

Now some people use this event to claim that EGW obviously was not the inspired prophet the church has claimed her to be or she would have gotten her facts correct.

This is a common argument, but it is good to consider a few key facts of this case:

1. In her own account she simply states, “I was wrapt in a vision of GOD’s glory, and for the first time had a view of other planets.” Neither names of planets nor number of moons is even hinted at in this one and only certain account of the vision written by Mrs. White herself.

2. In what may possibly, though we think improbably, be a reference to this 1846 Topsham vision, she simply states, “The Lord has given me a view of other worlds…. Then I was taken to a world which had seven moons.” But she does not identify that “world.”

3. James White states, regarding her, “She was guided to the planets, Jupiter, Saturn, and I think one more. After she came out of vision, she could give a clear description of their Moons, etc.” He does not state that she gave names to the planets, or that she numbered the moons she saw, much less that she said a particular planet had a certain number of moons.

4. Mrs. Truesdail says, “After counting aloud the moons of Jupiter, and soon after those of Saturn, she gave a beautiful description of the rings of the latter.” But Mrs. Truesdail does not profess to tell us what Mrs. White actually said, or whether the listeners simply concluded that the moons being counted were those of Jupiter and of Saturn because of certain general descriptions. Only Loughborough presumes to state just what she said.

5. Even Loughborough, quoting Bates, does not credit her with naming any planets, but only describing them, and then stating, “I see” such and such a number of moons. Bates did the identifying of planets. And may we not reasonably suppose that James White quite naturally accepted Bates’s interpretation as correct? Mrs. White left nothing on record to indicate that she even knew what were the names of the “worlds” she saw. Hence, it is altogether reasonable to conclude that James White’s statement simply reflects the conclusion that he and others reached as a result of Bates’s interpretation of her descriptive statements.

http://www.whiteestate.org/books/egwhc/EGWHCc07.html

There are good reasons for the vision given as it was given. Also, the perspective of the observer in vision is important to consider, as are the details to the internal consistency of the message of the vision. The same thing is true of the Biblical account of origins when it comes to biblical credibility and a rational belief in its Divine origin…

I just don’t think that God is in the business of making sure all the “facts” are correct when his prophets write. The writer of Genesis may truly have believed that the flood had covered the WHOLE world. If we were somehow to discover beyond a doubt that it didn’t actually cover all of it, then we have two choices: 1) Decide the Bible is a hoax and throw it out, or 2) accept the fact that the writer, who had limited knowledge of what worldwide actually would have meant, wrote the story to best of his knowledge. My faith allows me to take the latter approach. Your faith, if based more on the weight of the “scientific” evidence would be obligated to choose the first option. I surely hope we never get incontrovertible proof that the flood was local and could not have been worldwide for the sake of those whose faith is based like yours is.

Again, I ask you, what is the difference between your faith in the Bible and that of the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an? If your faith in the Divine inspiration of the Bible is not at all dependent upon empirical evidence of any kind, upon what do you make your judgment of its superior credibility or relevance?

The fact is that the empirical observations of the author(s) of Genesis are so specific and hard to misinterpret and the internal consistency of the stories are dependent upon these specific empirical observation. For example, how hard would it be to be shown that an “evening and morning” mark off each “day” of creation? Such an empirical observation would be very hard for even a young child to get wrong. The same thing is true with the worldwide Flood. If the Flood was not to be worldwide, why the empirical observation of God telling Noah to build an Ark to save not only humanity, but representatives of all land-dwelling animals? Why didn’t god simply tell Noah to move somewhere else that wouldn’t be affected by the local flood? Why the need to take animals in the Ark if the flood was just some local event?

The stories just don’t hold up very well given such basic and obvious inconsistencies. For most rational candid minds, such inconsistencies, if believed to be obviously false, scientifically, logically lead one to re-consider the “Divine” origin of such fairytale stories.

I suppose if you still want to believe that the Bible is “Inspired” even though the vast majority of it contradicts the conclusions of modern scientists, you’re free to do so. However, don’t expect too many intelligent young minds to follow you or to remain devoted to the SDA Church or even a belief in the Christian message of hope in a bright literal future in Heaven and an eternity with God. How rational is that according to “99.9% of modern scientists”?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman