@Geanna Dane: What you failled to point out is that …

Comment on Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism by Sean Pitman.

@Geanna Dane:

What you failled to point out is that the reason the different species definitions can lead to different conclusions is because the characters used (eg morphological divergence, ecological divergence, reciprocal monophyly,etc) to delineate species evolve at different rates.. Therefore practicing systematists genreally use multiple data sets to satisfy more than one species criteria. There is much more objectivity to their approach than applying your yet to be defined “qualitative functional difference” criterion.

What you seem not to notice in this very same article is the statement that depending upon the criterion chosen the conclusions can be and often are contradictory. The basis upon which one or more than one criteria are chosen is largely subjective.

Beyond this, most of these definitions are irrelevant to the debate between creationists and evolutionists since this debate is based on the origin of unique functional information – not definitions of “species” which do not account for qualitative functional differences.

The reason why I use the word “qualitative” rather than “quantitative” is because quantitative differences in the very same type of genetic function are very easy to achieve over short periods of time via RM/NS. The controversy between evolutionists and creationists is over the origin of qualitatively unique functionality within a given gene pool.

As an example of a qualitative vs. a quantitative functional difference, consider the bacterial ability to hydrolyze lactose using a lactase enzyme. Say the bacterial colony in question already has the lactase ability in their gene pool. Now, say that this colony experiences an mutation that increases the lactase activity. This type of functional change is a quantitative functional change in that the type of function remains the same; only its level of functionality changed. Compare this situation to a situation where the colony in question never had the lactase activity at all to any selectable level of activity. Let’s say that this colony then experiences a mutation of some pre-existing genetic sequence that suddenly gives it a lactase enzyme with at least some useful level of lactase activity. This would be an example of a qualitative change in functionality within the overall gene pool – the addition of a unique function that was never there before.

Such qualitative changes in function can be and have been very objectively measured. Kenneth Miller, well-known biologist and evolutionary apologist from Brown University, uses such qualitative examples of evolution in action all the time as illustrations of the creative power of RM/NS.

Using such functional definitions of novel gene pools, the concept of “levels” of functional complexity come into play when determining the average time required to achieve various levels of functional change within a gene pool via RM/NS. Achieving such qualitative functional differences takes a great deal more time to achieve within the gene pool compared to your non-functional definitions of “species” – even at very low levels of functional complexity. Then, the real problems arise when you realize that with each step up the ladder of functional complexity the average time to success increases exponentially.

This is the real argument between creationists/IDists and evolutionists. Evolutionists do not recognize the dramatic statistical limitation to evolutionary progress for RM/NS with increasing functional complexity that creationists and IDists recognize. That’s the problem in a nutshell…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

P.S. As far as your question on the functional differences of various kinds of wolves and dogs, it seems to me that any kind of animal that can successfully mate with another kind of animal and produce viable offspring indicates a common origin from the same original gene pool of pre-programmed functional options. In other words, I would consider animals like donkeys, horses, mules and zebras to be part of the same original gene pool of pre-programmed functional options. This is true even though mules are sterile. The reason mules are sterile is not because of some qualitative functional difference in the genomes between horses and donkeys, but because of a chromosomal inversion that makes it impossible for the chromosomes to line up without looping in the mule – resulting in uneven translocations and non-viable gametes. So, because all of these animals share the same gene pool with respect to qualitative functionality (to include wolves, foxes, and domesticated dogs), they are therefore different reflections of this same original gene pool – the overall gene pool itself having not sustained any significant change in original functionality. This is one reason, I believe, for the common observation of improved hybrid vitality.

http://reporting.journalism.ku.edu/spring06/kuhr-musser/2006/05/post_6.html

You also wrote:

Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. Apparently mechanisms of reproductive isolation do not qualify as “qualitative functional differences” for defining species limits. At least you’ve narrowed the possibilities. Exactly what characters do?

There are all kinds of mechanisms of reproductive isolation – to include geographic mechanisms (which have nothing directly to do with the gene pool), social mechanisms, quantitative morphologic mechanisms (as in the size difference between chihuahuas and Great Danes), gross chromosomal alteration mechanisms, etc. Most methods of reproductive isolation have nothing to do with qualitative functional differences between gene pools. As noted above, qualitative functional differences are the real issue here – not mere reproductive isolation mechanisms that have nothing at all to do with qualitative functional differences (see the lactase illustration above).

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
@Ron Nielsen:

Sean, it seems to me that if you admit ANY functional change in the DNA the creation/evolution debate is lost in favor of evolution. All the rest, however you define species is just a matter of time and quantity.

Hardly. The vast majority of functional mutations are detrimental – based on a loss of qualitatively unique pre-established functionality. Most of the rare mutations that are functionally beneficial do not produce something that is qualitatively new within the gene pool of options, but produce only an increase or decrease in activity of the same type of functionality that was already there to begin with. And, the very rare beneficial mutations that actually produce something qualitatively unique as well as functionally beneficial never produce anything that requires a minimum of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues to work – not even close.

The reason for this is that evolution beyond this very low level of functional complexity would require trillions upon trillions of years to achieve – – on average.

This is why the constant demonstration of low-level examples of “evolution in action” do not remotely explain how higher levels of evolution are therefore reasonable – even given a few billion years. The extrapolation is not at all reasonable because of the exponential decline in evolutionary potential with each step up the ladder of functional complexity.

You say, “it’s just a matter of time and quantity”. What you don’t understanding is that the time required is simply not reasonable. The time required to get beyond even the 1000aa level is in the multiple trillions of years. Do you not see that as a problem?

That is why I think it is so dangerous to state that evolution is incompatible with belief in God and creation, because no one, not even you are willing to deny that that the mechanisms for evolution are in place.

The mechanism for evolution is not “in place” beyond extremely low levels of functional complexity. That’s the problem.

It’s similar to saying that because natural processes are known which can produce roughly cube shape granite blocks that obviously such mindless natural mechanisms could explain a highly symmetrical polished granite cube measuring exactly one meter on each side. Such a conclusion does not rationally follow since the higher level illustration requires exponentially more time for the natural mechanism to achieve relative to the lower level demonstration that does not require the same level of constraints…

Except out of wanton ignorance, it is not possible to deny evolution in this day of DNA mapping. If you insist on making evolution and belief in God mutually exclusive you will have to declare every single educated person in the church to be athiests and drive them out of the church. Your stance just isn’t reasonable.

Anyone who wishes to worship in our Church is welcome – even if he/she is an “atheists”. I would not drive anyone who wants to come out of our Church. However, this does not mean that such a one should ever expect to get a paycheck from the SDA Church for promoting his/her atheistic ideas from pulpit or classroom.

You see, attendance is not the same thing as paid representation. A paid representative must be held to a higher standard in any organization.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
@Michael Prewitt:

I agree with this general line of reasoning…

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com


Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
@Geanna Dane:

In other words, you’d believe in the existence and love of God despite all physical evidence to the contrary? That is very similar to the faith of some LDS friends of mine. I suppose it works for some people, but my own relationship with God is based on the evidence that I think He has given me of His own existence and the reliability of his Word combined with personal experiences with answers to prayer, etc.

Now, I agree with you that theistic evolutionists can be saved even if they got the whole origins thing all wrong. God loves everyone and will save all who earnestly seek after Him and love Him in the person of “the least of these…” Salvation itself is not based on correct doctrinal knowledge, but on living according to the Royal Law of Love. However, correct doctrinal knowledge is not therefore worthless. It is very valuable in that it has the power to give us a clearer picture of God here and now and to provide a solid basis of hope here in now in the reality of God and of a bright and glorious future.

I’m sorry, but without correct doctrinal knowledge, without the Bible, you may have some sort of vague idea of God’s existence and maybe even His love for you through the features of nature, but you would have very little else upon which to base a solid hope in such notions. It is the evidence that the Bible is reliable in those things which can be tested and evaluated that gives solid confidence in those metaphysical statements that cannot be directed evaluated – at least for me.

This is why when you argue so strongly for the idea that science works against SDA doctrinal positions and offer nothing up but blind faith that the Bible is true that you undermine the basis of many people’s hope in the reality of the Good News. Your seeming suggestion is that science is quite clearly contrary to some very plain biblical statements and that the only way to overcome such evidence is through blind faith. That simply doesn’t do it for many many people. It certainly doesn’t do it for me.

I hope this helps you to at least understand why your ideas and comments are so strongly opposed by those who actually consider it important that the Bible be consistent with the physical evidence in order for its metaphysical statements to be considered trustworthy…

Sean Pitman
http://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.