Comment on An apology to PUC by Sean Pitman.
@Eddie:
Sean, I applaud your attempt to redefine a species but if you think your new “functional species conceptâ€â€“or whatever you choose to call it–is superior to previous concepts, you’ll have a hard time getting it accepted by biologists unless you publish it in a mainstream biology journal instead of burying it in a creationist journal.
No mainstream journal is going to publish anything that suggests that the mechanism of RM/NS is actually limited to very low levels of functional complexity… even given a practical eternity of time. Just look at what happened to those who published Stephen Meyer’s paper on this topic:
http://www.discovery.org/a/2189
This isn’t just science we’re talking about here. This is about people’s religion – a religion based on the creative potential of mindless Naturalistic mechanisms. Such people do not accept much less publish challenges to their religion lightly 😉
Of course the real reason why species are such slippery entities to define is because they are dynamic rather than static, with similar populations differing from each other because they are in various degrees of divergence–what biologists refer to as speciation, or “macroevolution.â€
This isn’t the only reason why the concept of “species” is very slippery. Another reason is because functional as well as non-functional definitions are used…
Incidentally, the biological species concept works reasonably well with sexually reproducing vertebrates. The American Ornithologists’ Union, for example, has always applied the biological species concept and rejected all other species concepts in its classification of bird species in the Western Hemisphere.
Even biological species concepts are not always based on truly novel functional differences compared to the ancestral gene pool of original phenotypic options.
Sean, after trying to digest all the stuff you’ve written above I’m still a bit puzzled by what your “functionality†refers to. You seem to be applying some sort of a measurable genetic definition whereas I think of functionality as being ecological–i.e., the functional role of a species within an ecosystem.
There is no functional role of anything without there being a functional aspect to the underlying genetics of the “species” under consideration.
Can you provide us with an explicit definition of your species concept and then explain how it would be applied by taxonomists?
Sure. A functional difference is a novel phenotypic change compared to the ancestral gene pool of phenotypic options. Low-level phenotypic changes can be realized via RM/NS over time. However, such changes are limited to the production of novel systems of function which require less than 1,000 specifically arranged amino acids. Anything beyond this level of functional complexity (as defined by Hazen et. al.) would require trillions upon trillions of years of time to produce within any gene pool of phenotypic options.
Therefore, from the creationist perspective, the biblical “kind” should be defined as gene pool differences that are based on qualitatively novel systems of function beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold level of functional complexity.
Does it require genetic measurements? For example, the Snow Goose has two dramatically different phenotypes: a “blue†morph and a “white†morph. Are these morphs considered to be sufficiently “functionally†different to warrant recognition as distinct species? The Rat Snake has dramatic clinal variation throughout its range, including essentially black populations (“Black Rat Snakeâ€), yellow populations (“Yellow Rat Snakeâ€), orange populations (“Everglades Rat Snakeâ€), blotched gray and black populations (“Gray Rat Snakeâ€), etc., with intermediates. Are these color morphs sufficiently “functionally†different to warrant recognition as distinct species? The Alder Flycatcher and Willow Flycatcher are virtually identical yet differ in their vocalizations. Would their voices be considered sufficiently “functionally†different to warrant recognition as distinct species? The Eastern Gray Tree Frog and Cope’s Gray Tree Frog are essentially identical but differ in their number of chromosomes, 48 in the former and 24 in the latter. Would these differences be considered sufficiently “functionally†different to warrant recognition of distinct species?
No. None of these “differences” require qualitatively novel functionality beyond what was available within the ancestral gene pool beyond the 1000 fsaar of functional complexity. The loss of coloration, producing a white phenotype, is often based on a mutational loss to a pre-existing gene for color. Such mutational losses are very easy to realize within a gene pool in a very short period of time. Also, function is not based on chromosome number. There are many examples of organisms with different numbers of chromosomes that can and do mate to produce viable and even fertile offspring. Such examples demonstrate the fact that the very same information can be located on different numbers of chromosomes and even in different chromosomal arrangements.
Consider also that many of the phenotypic features you list are expressed by different breeds of dogs or cats or chickens – or even different ethnic variations of humans. Yet, no one refers to such phenotypic differences as a basis for different “species” classification between humans.
In short, the ability to interbreed and produce viable offspring is a big clue to the functional nature of the respective gene pools – indicating a shared original ancestral gene pool and membership within the same biblical “kind” of organism.
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.
