Comment on An apology to PUC by Sean Pitman.
This is exactly how I view things as well. I have known Brand for many years and have found him to be a real man of science and a man of the church. But anyone here at ET who wants to claim agreement between Pitman and Brand simpky has not taken the time to read Brand’s works, Pitman’s posts, or both. There is very little resemblence. And Brand, thankfully, uses standard terminology and knows what a species is, even though what a species is to Pitman is a mystery to me.
I have also known Brand for many years and he still sends me the occasional E-mail on interesting discoveries or ideas. He has come to many of my own lectures and I have attended several of his and read many of his papers. Brand is quite clearly a young-life creationists who believes that the weight of empirical evidence favors the young-life perspective.
Also, Brand does not argue that one should have “faith” against all empirical evidence to the contrary. It is indeed written that, “The righteous will live by faith”, but it doesn’t say that the faith of the righteous is blind to empirical reality or has no basis in that reality – quite the contrary in fact. The Bible continually points to the weight of empirical evidence as the basis for the faith of the great men and women of faith.
Brand’s comments that radiometric dating is one of the most powerful arguments that evolutionists have is true. It is one of their best arguments for the ancient age of life on this planet. However, Brand also points out that radiometric dating is not the only way to estimate the age of various features of the geologic/fossil records. There are many features of these records that are dramatically inconsistent with radiometric dating. There are also various forms of radiometric dating that are often dramatically inconsistent with each other. Radiocarbon dating, for example, is often at odds with other radiometric dating techniques.
Tektites dating at almost a million years old by K-Ar dating techniques date at less than 10,000 years old by radiocarbon dating.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html#Tektites
The same thing is true of coal and oil which are dated at 50 or 60 million years by various radiometric dating methods, but less than 40k years by radiocarbon dating.
Cosmogenic isotope dating has also been used to date the Atacama Desert in northern Chile at around 25 million years of age. However, investigators have since discovered fairly extensive deposits of very well preserved animal droppings associated with grasses as well as human-produced artifacts like arrowheads. Subsequent radiocarbon dating of organic materials indicate very active life in at least semiarid conditions within the past 11,000 years – a far cry from 25 million years.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html#Cosmogenic
There are numerous other inconsistencies between various dating methods, to include methods that are not based on radiometric dating. So, it isn’t that there is no rational or scientific basis to question mainstream age assumptions regarding the fossil record.
Also, if Brand “knows what a species is”, what definition of “species” is he using? Is he using a definition of “species” that is based on a certain degree of divergence of something like cytochrome b that has no real functional effect on the organism? After all, some scientists have used a 0.3% divergence of this molecule to give Darwin’s finches unique taxonomic status. Is such a basis of a “new species” what you would call “macroevolution”? – a 0.3% genetic change that has no real functional effect on the organism compared to the ancestral gene pool? If so, then I believe in certain forms of “macroevolution” as well.
The problem here is that many evolutionists say that if certain forms of “macroevolution” can be unambiguously demonstrated, then all forms of macroevolution or “speciation” are likely – to include those that involve truly novel functional differences beyond very low levels of functional complexity (as defined by Hazen et. al.). In other words, if cytochrome c or b can change over short periods of time, it is obvious that birds evolved from lizards given a few million years… right?!
Come on now. There are clearly different types of “macroevolution” under discussion here. You need to be clear on what type of evolution you’re talking about.
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.
