@OTNT_Believer: Well, I guess I get it. You know so …

Comment on An apology to PUC by Sean Pitman.

@OTNT_Believer:

Well, I guess I get it. You know so uch more than me about genetics and evolution I can say no more. I do have a Ph.D. in molecular genetics with an emphasis on evolutionary genetics. I have also published a good number of peer-eviewed papers in scientific journals and a few boks to boot (not self-published, I might add). Now, of course, this likely means nothing to you, because you are obviously better read on these topics than I am. I mean I never even heard about the dog paper you cite. 😉

I’ve just asked you a few simple questions. Why not at least address them? Is your definition of “macroevolution” based on qualitatively novel functional differences within the underlying gene pools or not? If not, what is your definition of “macroevolution”? What types of differences would or would not qualify as “macro”?

Your example of the Galapagos “finches” is a good one. You note that they are so different than other types of finches or tanagers that they are difficult to classify. The question I have is, what is responsible for the difference in phenotypic appearance? What is the underlying genetic difference? Is it based on something new being added or lost from the common ancestral gene pool? Is this not a relevant question? After all, tanagers, in general, have been difficult to recognize as true tanagers. Only as genetic evidence has come into play in more modern times have many types of birds that were not originally recognized as tanagers surprised scientists by actually being part of the tanager family. There is an extreme diversity of phenotypic expression within this family. Yet, very phenotypically diverse tanagers can interbreed and produce viable and even fertile offspring.

http://creagrus.home.montereybay.com/tanagers.html

This fact strongly suggests to me that different “species” of tanagers are in fact part of the same original gene pool of phenotypic options that were already available in the original ancestral gene pool – and that there really has been no substantive change to that gene pool when it comes to the entrance of anything that is qualitatively unique with regard to functionality (that isn’t based on a loss of some pre-existing function or an alteration in the degree of expression of some pre-existing functional option).

This is reflected in the fact that:

“In contrast to the substantial differences in morphology, levels of sequence divergence among Darwin’s finches and their close relatives are surprisingly low, indicating they all share a very recent common ancestry…

Instead of identifying a single species as the closest living relative to Darwin’s finches, our results identifies a clade of six species (Tiaris canora, T. fuliginosa, T. obscura, T. bicolor, Loxigilla noctis, and Melanospiza richardsoni) that together form the sister taxon to Darwin’s finches. The ”domed nest clade” represents a strongly supported monophyletic group not previously recognized. Thus, we propose the Latin name Tholospiza (meaning dome finch) to assist future communication concerning this group of birds…

Darwin’s finches and their relatives that build this unique type of nest as the ”domed nest clade.” The species within the domed nest clade are genetically quite similar to each other, indicating they share a very recent common ancestry. Levels of sequence divergence range from 0.3% to 10.0% and average only 6.7%. By comparison, Johns and Avise
(1998) compiled cytochrome b sequence data for 88 avian genera and found that congeners show on average 7.8% sequence divergence. Thus, most species within the domed nest clade exhibit levels of genetic divergence less than that of pairs of congeneric, closely related species of birds. This contrasts with the traditional taxonomies that have placed these species into 13 different genera and three different families based on dramatic morphological differences in bill size and other characters.”

http://eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/galapagos/handouts%202009/articles%202009%20for%20web/phylogenetic%20relationships.pdf

As you know, when it comes to functionally neutral evolution, or even the loss of functional options that were originally present in the ancestral gene pool, such changes can be realized very rapidly. Consider, that the mutation rate is quite high – on the order of 200-300 mutations per individual per generation.

The problem with rapid speciation, it seems to me, is really only a problem if one’s definition of “species” is based, at least somewhat, on the entrance of functionally novel elements to the gene pool that were not already present within the ancestral gene pool.

I too have a real problem wth macroevolution, and thus my surprise at how you propose the earth was repopulated after the flood and the rapidity with which new taxa would have to arisen. I don’t know what you think Noah took into the ark, but even if he took a very broad sampling of the world’s taxa there would have to have been some macroevolution to get where we are now. Even if you define macroevolution more in the way creationists do, Darwin’s Finches represent a good example of this, as would a lot of isolated endemic species. They are the best examples, because they “appear” to have been separated from other related taxa for so long that their taxonomic affinities are often obscured.

And that’s the main question here. You think that it would have to take a very long time for Darwin’s finches to have achieve the degree of phenotypic uniqueness that we observe today. Why do you believe this? Upon what is this belief based? Please do educate me at least a little bit in regard to your understanding of population genetics and the rate at which genomes can mutate and pre-existing trait options can become isolated or enhanced over time…

I notice in some past post either you or someone else suggested that they knew no one who accepted a local flood and a short term chronology. Well, I am not one that falls into that category, but I certainly lean that way. It would help solve at least some of the problems.

But it would create many more problems than it really solves. How is a few thousand more years going to help solve your finch evolution problem anyway? That’s a drop in the bucked compared to the mainstream understanding of geology and the fossil record… to include the origin of the Galapagos.

One thing I do know. the Egyptian dynasties, based on their written records go back more than 6,000 years, so that at least would suggest we need to push things back a few thousand years.

The dates for various Egyptian dynasties are not very reliable. There are several reasons for this, to include the possibility that some Egyptian kings may have been contemporaneous – parallel rather than serial. Not knowing whether their monarchies were simultaneous or sequential may lead to widely differing chronology interpretations. Also, the dates for the same pharaoh often vary substantially depending on the intermediate source that is used as a reference. For example, J.H. Breasted, writing in 1905, adds a ruler in the Twentieth dynasty that further research showed did not exist. Breasted also believed all the dynasties were sequential, whereas it is now known that several existed at the same time.

Because of these problems, Breasted’s dates, published in 1905 for the 1st and 2nd dynasties, were 3400–2980 B.C. These dates have been reduced by Ian Shaw (in 2000) to 3000–2686 B.C. – a difference of some 400 years for the start of the 1st dynasty. In other words, the first dynasty is currently dated at ~5,000 years ago… not “over 6,000 years ago” as you suggest.

Beyond this, the debated “New Chronology” developed by English Egyptologist David Rohl and other researchers, suggests that the start of the 1st Egyptian dynasty was another 350 years younger than Shaw’s estimate… or ~4,650 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Rohl%29

Either way, I fail to see how this substantially helps your argument…

So, although I mioght poke in on occasion, I am afraid I have neither the time, inclination, or apparently the adequate knowledge to continue this. I still think you would do well to take a few graduate courses, one in genetics and one in molecular systematics. Of course, it might be that you know all you need to know, in which case those classes would be a waste of time.

I have taken graduate level genetics courses – though not yet a course specifically in systematics. I have done more than a bit of reading into the topic however, and would appreciate it if you would clarify your concerns and reasons why you think the current phenotypic diversity of living things could not have been achieved nearly as rapidly as I’m suggesting. What specific genetic feature, in your opinion, is unexplainable in my model?

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