Comment on An apology to PUC by Sean Pitman.
@BobRyan:
I agree that instead of evolution – you could simply cross-breed plants or animals. However I maintain that this is a case of mixing existing genomes (A chimera) – it is not a case of staying within the same genome.
You misuse the word “genome”. As already noted, a genome describes the genetic material of a single individual. When a man and a woman have a child, they are “mixing existing genomes”. The resulting child is a combination of the different parental genomes – and they are always different.
A better concept is that of a gene pool of options; options that are available within the totality of individuals that are capable of crossbreeding to produce viable offspring. Crossbreeding is only possible for those individuals that have very functionally similar genomes to begin with. This is what makes them part of the same basic “pool” of functional options.
Note also that the actually number of chromosomes is irrelevant to being part of the same gene pool. Consider, for example, that foxes have a varied number of chromosomes ranging from 38-78. Yet, they are all “foxes” and can interbreed to produce both viable and fertile offspring – even though the parents may have different chromosome numbers than each other or than their offspring.
For another example, consider the house mouse Mus Musculis which generally has 40 chromosomes. However, populations have been discovered with chromosome numbers varying between 22 and 40. For example, over 40 Robertsonian “races” of Mus musculus domesticus have been found in Europe and North Africa. Yet, all of these house mice are still the same type of mouse. The number of chromosome arms are the same and banding studies reveal the genes to be homologous. Obviously, in terms of their relationship, these different mice are all one group – part of the very same gene pool of functional genetic options.
Yet another example of a Robertsonian polymorphism is the house musk shrew that lives in the central region of West Malaysia and has a variation in chromosome numbers from 36 to 40. Also, in Southern India and Sri Lanka musk shrews can be found with having between 30 and 32 chromosomes due to Robertsonian-type changes in chromosome structure.
Certainly the Horse-Donkey –> mule example is one of the easier less invasive ones to acheive a resulting composite genome (no new feature not already present in one of the parents).
This is where you are mistaken. There are no functional features in the genome of the mule that were not already present in the parental gene pool of options. The morphologic differences between a horse and a mule or a donkey and a mule are simply the result of the novel combination of the very same basic type of functional options between the horse and the donkey.
It’s basically the same thing as a man and wife from different ethnic backgrounds producing a child that is a hybrid between the two different ethnic groups. For example, the skin of the child may be of an intermediate shade vs. the skin of the father and mother. However, the functional aspect of “skin color” is not functionally unique in the child vs. either parent, the genomes of which both contained codes for “skin color” that could match up properly during gamete fertilization.
A chimera genome of that variety only produces a distinct dead-end genome not capable of reproducing, not capable of breeding even with itself. (So even IF you did yield to the temptation of “can breed with x or y” as a definition, you have to conclude by that definition that “cannot breed with x or y or even with itself” is “a new genome”. The chimera case is unique and is artificial.
Along those lines – we are seeing a wide range of chimera mixing of genomes and it will only get worse over time.
You don’t seem to understand why a mule is actually sterile. It isn’t sterile because it is a “chimera” that has functionally unique genetics. That’s not true at all. The mule is sterile because there is a chromosomal inversion in the donkey relative to the horse. This chromosomal inversion allows for effective mitosis, and therefore the embryologic development of the mule or hinny. However, when the mule or hinny try to produce their own gametes, the chromosomal inversion that they inherited prevents effective meiosis (do to ineffective chromosomal crossover during meiosis) and the gametes are not genetically viable since they don’t have a complete genomic set of information.
So, you see, it has nothing to do with the information itself, information that is functionally the same between the horse and the donkey. The sterility of mules and hinnies is the result of how the information is arranged on the chromosomes.
You need to do a bit more reading into this topic. As a start, you might be interested in actually reading through my essay on this issue:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/donkeyshorsesmules.html
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
I am disturbed by much of what I read here. According to Educate Truth’s new policies, professors can no longer teach faith; they can only teach what the “evidence” allows. Professors can no longer teach both sides and allow the student to form their own opinion; they must believe and teach that the weight of evidence supports their views. Professors can no longer teach their conscience; fear of being subjected to public humiliation will hereafter dictate what they teach. Surely Ellen White would roll over in her grave if she learned of the new fear-based pedagogical approach that is slowly taking over our institutions. Good work, Educate Truth!
Have you not read about the time when Mrs. White publicly addressed the Church body telling everyone to avoid sending their children to Battle Creek College because of their promotion of ideas which were not in harmony with the goal and mission of the Church? “In God’s word alone,” she wrote, “we find an authentic account of creation” (5 Test., 25). She displayed a willingness to both publicly rebuke the leadership of the college and to warn church members of the problems at the College. “We can give,” she memorably warned, “no encouragement to parents to send their children to Battle Creek College” (5 Test., 21). She proposed that if the College was not returned to the Biblical-centered model, that the church should “sell it out to worldlings” and “establish another school” upon the “plan which God has specified” (5 Test., 25-26). – Link
Also, have you not read the GC’s request of educators when it comes to what the Church, as an organization, expects its teachers to actually teach? The following is from the 2004 Executive Committee of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists:
We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins. We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world.
http://adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main-stat55.html
This sentiment and request was backed up at the most recent GC session in Atlanta. And, the Church has also decided to make more specific the wording of FB#6 on its creation doctrine – in order to make it very clear that the Church, as an organization, believes in a literal 6-day creation week and worldwide Noachian Flood.
Now, you can call such a position “extreme” all you want, but the Church seems to know that hiring teachers to tell our young people that the weight of scientific evidence is against us is quite counterproductive to the Church’s goals and ideals…
Regardless, at the very least, people have a right to know and to choose if such an education is in fact what they want for their own children…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
An apology to PUC
@Ervin Taylor:
There are probably a number of retired Adventist scientists who would relish the idea of writing a review of any book that Sean would write. Although I obviously can’t speak for the current editor, I’m reasonably confident that Adventist Today would be very interested in publishing reviews of that book. If someone still working for an Adventist college or university might have some reticence in putting their name on their review, I would think that an appropriate arrangement could be made.
I have actually written and self-published a little book this year, “Turtles All the Way Down – Questions on Origins”. It can be ordered from my website using PayPal or from Amazon (a bit cheaper from my website). And, by all means, you are welcome to review it if you so wish…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Dear Bob
Are you saying that all variations of a single genome must have the same number of chromosomes?
The same functional type of gene pool can have different numbers of chromosomes. For example, horses have 32 pairs of chromosomes while donkeys have only 31 pairs. Yet, they can mate and produce viable offspring (i.e., mules and hinnies). Therefore, they are part of the same functional gene pool of underlying genetic options.
For a further discussion of having the same basic type of functional information in different chromosomal arrangements or places, see:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/donkeyshorsesmules.html
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.
The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.
God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.
The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.
For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”
That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:
Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.
God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28
Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.
Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.
This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…
Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.
Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
