Sean, Sorry I couldn’t reply earlier as I wasn’t feeling very …

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

Sean,

Sorry I couldn’t reply earlier as I wasn’t feeling very well last evening. Dr. Kent and his wife visited with my family last evening and when I went to bed early he kindly posted the only thing I had put together, which was on the Yes Creation! thread. I agree with him that you have done a better job now explaining things. It is nice to have a more civil discourse. Here are some responses:

some “cryptic species” are so morphologically similar that they can only be distinguished based on DNA analysis. In other words, they are more morphologically similar than human ethnic groups yet they are assigned to different cryptic species based only on mtDNA differences? Human ethnic groups have such differences as well yet are not assigned to different species groups – why not?

I hope my answer here helps. There are a handful of options to delineate distinct species, but one needs to recognize some inherent difficulties. As you are no doubt most familiar with the biological species concept which involves reproductive isolation, this can be applied readily to sympatric species that share the same range but do not interbreed. The problem here is that it can’t be applied readily to allopatric species that live in different regions. How could we possibly know whether gray wolves in North America can breed with gray wolves in Euarasia? Of course, we could put them together in captivity but for many species, including endangered species, this would be unethical or impossible. COnsider two frog populations on two different islands as an example.

So here are three basic approaches. Two populations can be considered distinct species if:

(1) Each individual of an age or sex class of the two populations can be fully diagnosed from the other. That is, you could take any male, for example, obtain a measurement, and assign it with 100% certainty to the population it came from. Ideally the level of differentiation between allopatric species should be similar to that between closely-related sympatric species which we know with more certainty to be distinct.

(2) A gene tree based on DNA samples shows that the two populations form monophyletic groups, what we call independent “lineages”. That is, all individuals of a sampled population share a common ancestor to the exclusion of individuals of the other population.

(3) The genetic distance (measured in DNA base pairs) is equivalent to or greater than that seen in other valid species, including sympatric species. For example, if the two frog populations showed 4% divergence, which is in the range of many closely related species pairs, then they would be regarded distinct species. If their divergence was much less, say 0.4%, this would be in the range of many closely related subspecies.

For delineating cryptic species the latter two approaches are necessary. For the special case of humans they are simply not going to satisfy any of these criteria. I hope my explanation has helped you out.

The basis upon which one or more than one criteria are chosen is largely subjective.

When systematists seek to identify species limits within an organism, they use the characters and corresponding concepts most likely to detect species-level differences. If there are clear phenotypic differences like morphology (eg color, size, structure, scalation) or song, they use them first for obvious reasons. Often they can use museum specimens for this. Next they typically turn to molecular characters (eg proteins, DNA, chromosomes) that require more expense and often tissue from living animals, which for endangered species can be problematic. If available (it takes more time) they will look at patterns of gene flow and stability, evidence for non-assortative mating, and so forth. Whenever possible they prefer to combine multiple data sets and seek to satisfy multiple species concepts when identifying distinct species. There are of course many ways to skin a cat, as you will perhaps recall from your own science training.

Geanna Dane Also Commented

Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
Thank you everyone for sharing your views. Good bye.


Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
So tell me Sean, how would you go about showing that the Bullocks and Baltimore orioles are the same species? You reject what everyone else uses. Just saying that you would show “qualitatively functional differences” won’t cut it. Give us a data-based paradigm. What data would you collect and how would you analyze it? You’re the expert systematist after all.


Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism

Sean,Let’s set aside the issues related to speciation and deal more directly with your “qualitative functional differences”.Pleasse educate me. A rattlesnake has the following traits. Which would you say could be “qualitative functional differences”? Perhaps you could comment for each how difficutl they would be to evolve and whether any would exceed the 1000 fsaar threshold (your holy grail of insurmountable evolution).FangVenom glandVenomFacial pit (an eye for seeing infrared wavelengths)RattleRattling (a behavior)And assuming you believe that rattlesnakes evolved- that is GOd did not create them- perhaps you could tell me which of these traits was most likely to evolve first. The venom? The rattle? The facial pit?  (Quote)

Um…Sean…I have asked about “qualitative functional differences”. Are we going to get to these? I’d like to understand how you view these for obvious traits we can all wrap our minds around.


Recent Comments by Geanna Dane

Ravi Zacharias: Should Church Members be Held to a Higher Standard?
Professor Kent, thank you for defending me, but its not really necessary. You have been very kind to me and I have greatly appreciated the way you and your wife so generously share your faith. You have given me added confidence in the Bible and I have a better understanding of how to trust God’s word ahead of science. Thanks to your encouragement I now enjoy attending church more than ever. I have also learned that my personal experience with God is much stronger when I avoid contentious and negative websites like this one. After reading a few posts here I can’t bear the thought of reading more. Makes my stomach turn.

Your friend,
Geanna


Ravi Zacharias: Should Church Members be Held to a Higher Standard?
Wow, a friend gave me a phone call and sure enough, my name has come up here again.

Ken, please understand that you are seeing some of the worst of Adventism at this website. I don’t understand the mean-spirited and snarkey posts that are so common here even from clergy like Pastor Constantinescu. I can forgive their treatment of me and others as I attribute their comments to the impersonal nature of the internet. I strongly suspect that if I were casually chatting with them in the foyer after church they would be very kind and gracious, much like most other church members that I sit down with in the pews each week. I prefer to assume these men are sincere upstanding Christians and so I don’t wish to respond in kind to their remarks.

I actually have family in Michigan and fully intend to sit in on a service by Pastor Constantinescu one day. I will make a point to visit with him personally after the service and he will not know who I am (unless I decide to publicy post my impression afterwards- which I think would be uncharitable of me). He will answer to God how he has treated me and others here, and how he treats people in person. I don’t care to defend myself further. Believe whatever you wish to believe, Ken, but know that Jesus loved his enemies and we should be willing to do the same.


Video show LSU undermining church doctrine
I don’t think there is anything any of you truly wish to hear from me. It doesn’t matter how nice or agreeable I am, everything gets interpreted from an extreme point of view that I am seldom able to anticipate. If I have misplaced anything, it has been my time spent here. I agree on many issues about the message, but I don’t share the personal vendetta and punitive approach that others articulate here.

I wrote a very nice, very sincere reply to Sean, thanking him for the many positive things he does for the church. There was no anger or sarcasm in the message. I don’t know why it has not been approved for posting yet, but he is welcome to treat and interpret the message as he wishes. I’ve made my peace and I am finished for good.

Good-bye


Video show LSU undermining church doctrine
Sean,

Thank you for your concerns about the education of Adventist young people and for trying to find solutions to save them from losing their faith. We need them and they need us.

Thank you for attempting to share with Adventists your understanding of the overwhelming evidence that supports our belief in God, the Bible, Genesis, 6 days, 6,000 years, the spirit of prophecy, the nonexistance of the flying spaghetti monster, and the like. It’s refreshing to know that faith is not enough.

Thank you for bringing the importance of “transparency” and “on the church’s dime” to our attention. Your concepts are like manna to the faithful.

Thank you for pointing out individuals and institutions by name, and making clear to us how they continue to undermine the fundamental values and beliefs of our church and how our administrators have utterly failed to correct them. They must surely be a part of the much-anticipated omega apostasy.

Thank you for taking so much time to correct those of us who disagree with you. Perhaps there is hope for us after all.

Thank you for adhering so vigorously to what you believe to be God’s will for your life. We admire your fidelity to your stated positions and family and spiritual values.

Thank you for defending the faith of those who do not understand or agree with your views but still believe in many of the same spiritual truths that you do. We can only hope that they too can find their way to the kingdom of God.

Thank you for being so patient and respectful toward those who hold to different views than you do. Your example will perhaps inspire these individuals in ways that only God can understand.

May God bless you abundantly.


Video show LSU undermining church doctrine

So, no big deal right? Since most are not affected nothing needs to be done for those that are?

I didn’t say either, Sean. I respectfully pointed out that it was unnecessarily cruel, in my humble opinion, to shut down a university (as some have argued), ship it to Europe (as one individual suggested), or tell parents to send their children elsewhere when so many students have no exposure to the lies and theft that you have diligently brought to our attention and receive blessings from an Adventist college that are very difficult to get from a secular college.

Why is it that I can’t say even one acceptable thing here? No one should object to anything I’ve written in the past few posts above this one. Can’t you simply say, “Thank you Geanna for sharing your experiences and views. You raise some valid points.”