Comment on An apology to PUC by Eddie.
Sean, it appears to me that your definition of a species is more applicable to the Genesis “kind” which, as I recall, was termed a “baramin” by Frank Marsh. Maybe you should use that term instead?
Despite its limitations, the biological species concept works just fine with most vertebrate taxa. There are very many similar or extremely similar taxa that live together in sympatry but never, rarely or occasionally interbreed, demonstrating that they are discrete biological entities–what biologists refer to as species by virtually any definition. If they’re not species, what else would you call them? Maybe your definition is more akin to a genus–which is a subjective taxonomic level although there have been attempts to apply biologically meaningful definitions.
The mere ability to interbreed does NOT define a biological species. A good biological species is not necessarily completely reproductively isolated from other populations. The best criterion is free or random interbreeding among individuals. Occasional interbreeding with another taxon does not mean that they are freely interbreeding. Mallards have hybridized with many different species of ducks, especially in captivity when their choices are limited, but Mallards generally prefer to breed with their own species. Hybrids with other species occur in the wild, but they are relatively rare.
The study of mate choice among two similar taxa living in sympatry (ranges broadly overlapping) or in parapatry (ranges narrowly overlapping) can infer whether they are freely interbreeding. If they randomly mate with either phenotype the populations eventually become intermediate and any phenotypic differences between the two populations disappear. If, on the other hand, most individuals mate assortatively with their own phenotype, the differences between the two taxa are maintained even if some individuals interbreed and produce intermediate offspring. Typically the intermediates are less fit than either parental phenotype, but exceptions (“hybrid vigor”) have been documented in some well documented cases of hybridization. Most wild Mallards look very similar to each other. Ditto with most American Black Ducks, Gadwalls, Northern Pintails, Northern Shovelers, and other species of waterfowl with which they occasionally hybridize. They are all distinct taxonomic units–what we call species, not subspecies or races or varieties of a single species. If they were freely interbreeding those distinctions between the different taxa would eventually disappear.
As for Darwin’s finches, several taxa breed sympatry on each of the larger islands. Although some individuals may interbreed with another taxon, the majority of individuals mate assortatively with their own phenotype, resulting in distinct taxonomic units that are recognized as biological species. They exhibit essential rather than complete reproductive isolation. They are different biological species even though some interbreeding occurs. If they were freely interbreeding with each other on the same island, only one phenotype would be present–but clearly that is not the case. Character displacement is well documented among finches on the islands, as evidenced by less overlap in phenotypic traits between two taxa occurring in sympatry (same island) than between the same two taxa occurring in allopatry (different islands). Clearly a reproductive isolating mechanism of some sort has “evolved” (pardon my science lingo). And a reproductive isolating mechanism could potentially be coded by as few as ONE gene. Speciation–aka macroevolution–can be a relatively simple process. It’s not the same as megaevolution, which I think is what your concept of functional complexity is referring to.
Table of Contents
Eddie Also Commented
An apology to PUC
I would love to see and read such a book.
An apology to PUC
As Professor Kent has repeatedly pointed out, there is no need to redefine the long-accepted definition for the term “macroevolution.” To avoid the accusation that creationists twist its meaning, why not follow Dr. Brand by using the term “megaevolution”?
An apology to PUC
@ Sean:
Why then don’t you believe in the superior credibility of the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an?
Can you explain how scientific evidence about the origin of the universe, life on Earth and a worldwide flood all favor the Bible over the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an?
If you want to know why I believe the Bible is more credible than the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an, it’s based more on historical evidence than on any geological or biological evidence about the creation week and the extent of a worldwide flood.
The Book of Mormon describes the family of an ancient Hebrew, Lehi, who immigrated to the Americas and that Jesus later visited his descendents. However, there is no scientific evidence that Lehi and his descendents, the Nephites and the Lamanites, ever colonized the Americas or that Jesus ever visited them. The Book of Mormon mentions a variety of plants, animals and metals for which no evidence exists that they ever occurred in the New World prior to the arrival of Columbus. There is no linguistic or DNA evidence linking any group of native Americans to any group of people from the Middle East. The only evidence supporting the Book of Mormon is based on the testimony of a single man who claimed to have unearthed golden plates which he gave to an angel shortly after he translated them, and a dozen witnesses, several of whom later recanted.
As for the Qur’an, it is based on one man’s claim six centuries later that Jesus never died on the cross, which contradicts both Biblical and non-Biblical accounts that Jesus indeed died on the cross. I will quote two non-Biblical examples. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote: “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” My second example is the Roman governor Cornelius Tacitus, who wrote: “Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”
Recent Comments by Eddie
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
Will humans and animals in New Jerusalem need to sleep?
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Stephen Ferguson: Sean, how did we get to this position? In particular, why after spending decades and millions of dollars has the official Church’s own pet organisation, the Geoscience Research Institute, done so little to disprove evolution?
Why if it is all hogwash has it been thoroughly not been disproved over the last 150 years? Why do some 99% of scientists across a multitude of different fields (e.g. paleontologists, physicists, archaeologists, anthropologists, biologists, chemists, cosmologists, historians, cosmologists and geologists etc) all consider evolution to be the most plausible model?
Maybe because the evidence for microevolution and speciation is overwhelming. And some evidence for megaevolution (e.g., sequence of fossils) and long geological ages can be perplexing to explain from the perspective of most (but not all) young life and young earth creationists.
Stephen Ferguson: Why, if it is all rubbish, is there Adventist scientists and theologians who believe in evolution? Why would they risk their careers and standing in the Church to promote something they consider truth, given the huge pressure to just shut up, if they didn’t believe there was something in it?
Maybe because they’re not as honest as some prominent supporters here. Or their faith is weaker. Or, perhaps, physicians and lawyers are simply better trained than scientists and theologians to evaluate scientific evidence.
Stephen Ferguson: I really, really hope Christian scientists, especially Adventist ones, will disprove evolution some day.
Me too.
Stephen Ferguson: If the SDA hierarchy wants someone to blame for all this, they should blame themselves. It has been their pet organisations that have so spectacularly failed to offer scientific arguments in favour of YEC. Ted Wilson must accept some of the blame onto himself – if not personally then on behalf of the hierachy he leads.
I wouldn’t blame anybody. But if they were to fire the current GRI staff, hire certain supporters here, and then move GRI from LLU to SAU or SWAU, I suspect a certain faction of the church would be happier.
La Sierra University won’t neglect creation teaching, president, chairman vow
Sean, you have essentially written enough about this to publish a book, which you ought to do, exhorting SDAs to abandon Sola Scriptura and rely exclusively on empirical data, which surely will be a best seller among neoconservative SDAs.
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Like Ken, I am puzzled by the lukewarm reception of his suggestion to establish an endowed chair for intelligent design at LSU. Perhaps there was confusion about his term “intelligent design.” I think he had in mind the kind of creationism that most SDAs believe in, specifically young earth creationism or young life creationism (I realize some of you view ID negatively). So it could be called an Endowed Chair of Young Life Creationism, or whatever term is preferred.
For what it’s worth, I like his idea for several reasons:
1) SDA professors in all our institutions with the exception of LLU have relatively heavy teaching loads and scant time available for research, which means they have little time to conduct and publish research on creationism (I’m quite certain Art Chadwick would concur). That’s why as a denomination we have no well published and respected researchers with expertise on the subject, with the sole exception of Leonard Brand at LLU–who ranks among the world’s most successful scientists whose research focuses on YLC (if you believe there are other SDA experts with more expertise, you might be disappointed if you conducted a search of their publication records).
2) Most students in our institutions are seeking a career in a health profession, therefore SDA professors by necessity focus mostly on subjects that prepare students for the biomedical fields. Few have time to keep up with issues related to creationism and evolution, let alone conduct original research on the subject. You can’t really expect all professors to be as well informed with the subject as Leonard Brand.
3) It would be fantastic for LSU to have a professor with the available time and resources to pursue high quality research on creationism, which I believe was the intent of Ken’s wish. We already have one such professor at LLU; why not another at LSU? I’m astonished that some here seem to think it is undesirable to have another expert SDA researcher on the subject. Perhaps some of you naively imagine that ALL professors have the unlimited time and resources to become world-class researchers on creationism–and are wasting the denomination’s money by not doing so.
4) SDA institutions struggle to meet their payroll obligations and can benefit by obtaining financial assistance from donors.
5) If the evidence overwhelmingly favors the traditional SDA position of origins, as some here claim, what harm is there in funding a professor with the time and resources to discover even more evidence? It’s pretty hard to convince the world that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly favors our position unless the evidence is published in respectable scientific journals–as Leonard Brand has done repeatedly. It won’t ever happen unless there are more full-time researchers who focus exclusively on issues related to creationism.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Sean Pitman: Most scientists who believe in the Biblical model of origins interpret Tertiary sediments as post-Flood sediments.
So if Noah’s flood ended at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, which coincides with a period of high global sea levels according to geologists, does that mean Noah’s flood is represented by the second of two worldwide floods in this graph?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png
How would you account for the geological evidence for a worldwide flood during the Paleozoic and the lack of geological evidence for high sea levels during the early Mesozoic?
