@Eddie: Sean, I applaud your attempt to redefine a species …

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 concept”–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.”

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 Snake”), yellow populations (“Yellow Rat Snake”), orange populations (“Everglades Rat Snake”), blotched gray and black populations (“Gray Rat Snake”), 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
@Anon MD:

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


An apology to PUC
@ken:

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