Comment on An apology to PUC by Sean Pitman.
@BobRyan:
The “gene pool option†context above is certainly interesting and true. But I am not aware of any example of genomics maping variable chromosome organisms into “one†genome.
Well, you’d be wrong. I’ve listed off several examples for you and there are many many more examples where individuals with differing numbers of chromosomes are indeed classified as the same species and can interbreed to produce viable and fertile offspring.
What this means is that they all descended from the same ancestral parents – the same original gene pool. There is no such thing as “one genome” that encompasses all the genetic and phenotypic potential of a particular species or “kind” of organism.
Recently the discussion has drifted to the idea of the exact same gene pool but in a different chromosome configuration.
That’s correct.
At this point I don’t find a way to equate an organism’s genome to the idea of a “gene pool†encompassing different organism’s genomes’ where they do not contain all of the same gene in the respective organism genome.
A particular organisms genome contains all the gene types that are within the gene pool at large. Consider, for example, the “genome” of a bicycle. This genome would contain definitions for two tires, two peddles, a handle bar, a chain, a couple gears, etc… exactly like every other “bicycle” of the same type. However, there could be various options for different types of tires within the pool of options. The tires coded for in the one particular genome may be knobby while the tires coded for by another genome may be smooth. Just because a given genome doesn’t code for both smooth and knobby tires doesn’t mean that both smooth and knobby options are not contained within the same “kind” of bicycle – within the same “pool” of options.
The same thing is true of living things. Some people are homozygous for “blue eyes”. Others have the code for “brown eyes”. Just because the particular genome for a “blue eyed” person doesn’t contain the genetic code for brown eyes does not mean that the brown-eyed option is not part of the overall human gene pool of options. It is.
But even in that case – mixing two different organism’s genomes where there exists gene types in one organism’s genome that do not exist in the other organism’s genome – is what I am calling a parent mix that creates a chimera. (A + C = B).
Then you don’t understand Mendelian genetics – i.e., the concepts of homozygous and heterozygous. The parental population of a species may have the potential for a huge number of phenotypic options, some of which members of subsequent generations may not have. For example, say the parent population has codes for both blue and brown eyes. Members of subsequent populations may loose codes for one or the other. For example, a population of blue-eyed people may arise that no longer has the code for brown eyes within its own particular pool of options. This does not mean, however, that if a person from this community that is homozygous for blue eyes mates with a member of a brown-eyed community that their offspring will be a “chimera” is the classical sense of the term. Nothing truly new will have been created in the offspring that was not already present in the ancestral parental gene pool of phenotypic options.
And getting back to the original point – this does not address the requirement for macroevolution which is (A + A * a billion = C).
Exactly. In order for a new qualitative type of genetic function to be realized within a given pool of options, there will have to be a mutation to what already exists within that pool that produces something functionally unique that was never in the ancestral pool of options to begin with. This is the only way to truly change the gene pool, in a functionally novel way, beyond the original functional potential of the ancestral gene pool.
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.
