Comment on An apology to PUC by Sean Pitman.
@BobRyan:
I agree that instead of evolution – you could simply cross-breed plants or animals. However I maintain that this is a case of mixing existing genomes (A chimera) – it is not a case of staying within the same genome.
You misuse the word “genome”. As already noted, a genome describes the genetic material of a single individual. When a man and a woman have a child, they are “mixing existing genomes”. The resulting child is a combination of the different parental genomes – and they are always different.
A better concept is that of a gene pool of options; options that are available within the totality of individuals that are capable of crossbreeding to produce viable offspring. Crossbreeding is only possible for those individuals that have very functionally similar genomes to begin with. This is what makes them part of the same basic “pool” of functional options.
Note also that the actually number of chromosomes is irrelevant to being part of the same gene pool. Consider, for example, that foxes have a varied number of chromosomes ranging from 38-78. Yet, they are all “foxes” and can interbreed to produce both viable and fertile offspring – even though the parents may have different chromosome numbers than each other or than their offspring.
For another example, consider the house mouse Mus Musculis which generally has 40 chromosomes. However, populations have been discovered with chromosome numbers varying between 22 and 40. For example, over 40 Robertsonian “races” of Mus musculus domesticus have been found in Europe and North Africa. Yet, all of these house mice are still the same type of mouse. The number of chromosome arms are the same and banding studies reveal the genes to be homologous. Obviously, in terms of their relationship, these different mice are all one group – part of the very same gene pool of functional genetic options.
Yet another example of a Robertsonian polymorphism is the house musk shrew that lives in the central region of West Malaysia and has a variation in chromosome numbers from 36 to 40. Also, in Southern India and Sri Lanka musk shrews can be found with having between 30 and 32 chromosomes due to Robertsonian-type changes in chromosome structure.
Certainly the Horse-Donkey –> mule example is one of the easier less invasive ones to acheive a resulting composite genome (no new feature not already present in one of the parents).
This is where you are mistaken. There are no functional features in the genome of the mule that were not already present in the parental gene pool of options. The morphologic differences between a horse and a mule or a donkey and a mule are simply the result of the novel combination of the very same basic type of functional options between the horse and the donkey.
It’s basically the same thing as a man and wife from different ethnic backgrounds producing a child that is a hybrid between the two different ethnic groups. For example, the skin of the child may be of an intermediate shade vs. the skin of the father and mother. However, the functional aspect of “skin color” is not functionally unique in the child vs. either parent, the genomes of which both contained codes for “skin color” that could match up properly during gamete fertilization.
A chimera genome of that variety only produces a distinct dead-end genome not capable of reproducing, not capable of breeding even with itself. (So even IF you did yield to the temptation of “can breed with x or y†as a definition, you have to conclude by that definition that “cannot breed with x or y or even with itself†is “a new genomeâ€. The chimera case is unique and is artificial.
Along those lines – we are seeing a wide range of chimera mixing of genomes and it will only get worse over time.
You don’t seem to understand why a mule is actually sterile. It isn’t sterile because it is a “chimera” that has functionally unique genetics. That’s not true at all. The mule is sterile because there is a chromosomal inversion in the donkey relative to the horse. This chromosomal inversion allows for effective mitosis, and therefore the embryologic development of the mule or hinny. However, when the mule or hinny try to produce their own gametes, the chromosomal inversion that they inherited prevents effective meiosis (do to ineffective chromosomal crossover during meiosis) and the gametes are not genetically viable since they don’t have a complete genomic set of information.
So, you see, it has nothing to do with the information itself, information that is functionally the same between the horse and the donkey. The sterility of mules and hinnies is the result of how the information is arranged on the chromosomes.
You need to do a bit more reading into this topic. As a start, you might be interested in actually reading through my essay on this issue:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/donkeyshorsesmules.html
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
An apology to PUC
@OTNT_Believer:
Must you keep harping on the one statement on Darwin’s finches that few other than yourself and maybe some other creationists disagree with?
I have yet to see you present one phenotypic or genetic difference between any of Darwin’s Finches and other members of the Dome-nest Clade which could not be rapidly realized in a few thousand years. Certainly a 0.3% difference in cytochrome b isn’t a significant problem. I’m not sure what else makes you think that Darwin’s Finches are no uniquely evolved that they could not be explained as originating from Noah’s Ark a few thousand years ago?
As far as your arguments for the date of the first Egyptian dynasty being preceded by over a thousand years of cultural development, it simply doesn’t take very long for groups of humans to develop complex cultures and governments. Also, there are those who argue that the date for the first dynasty is more likely to be less than 4,500 years ago. Either way, the dating of Egyptian dynasties is hardly a very solid basis for challenging the historical SDA position on origins…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
The “striking phenotypic differences, and even unique genetic differences†among different populations of humans and dogs are the results of random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection or (in the case of dogs) artificial selection–not “some span of reproductive isolation.â€
It doesn’t matter how the reproductive isolation is achieved, be it “artificial” or “natural”. The resulting phenotypic differences are much more obvious between certain breeds of dogs or even various human ethnic groups than between certain “cryptic” species.
The reason why cryptic species are given taxonomic status while various breeds of dogs and human ethnic groups are not seems arbitrary to me. There really is no clear dividing line for taxonomic status on the one hand, but not on the other…
Humans don’t depend on the color or texture of eyes, hair and skin to avoid mating with chimps or apes, or even different groups of humans.
Are you kidding me? Humans are indeed biased in the choice of a mate toward those of similar phenotypic appearance. While this is not a universal rule (as is also the case with many kinds of cryptic species who also experience the occasional hybrids), it is certainly a bias.
When a female poodle is in heat, it doesn’t matter what “breed†a male dog belongs to, it is equally stimulated and could care less about the length, color or texture of eyes, hair, ears, snout, legs, tail, etc. The reproductive isolating method between dogs (genus Canis) and foxes (genus Vulpes) is likely based on olfaction rather than external morphology.
Have you considered the efforts of a Great Dane to mate with a chihuahua? Come on now, there are clear examples of not only artificial but natural reproductive isolate between various breeds of dogs and even between various human ethnic groups. Aborigines have arguably experienced some time of natural isolation, as have numerous other ethnic groups of modern and ancient humans. Unique phenotypic and even genotypic features were realized that are arguably more significant than the differences between the songs or nest structure of cryptic species of birds or the other very minor variations between cryptic species of frogs or giraffes, etc…
Again, don’t pretend like this is entirely objective science. It isn’t. There is a a fair amount of subjectivity in play here…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
An apology to PUC
@OTNT_Believer:
And the fact that taxonomists use a b it of subjectivity is a new revelation? Come on Sean, you are nitpicking. Of course there is some subjectivity.
Hey, I’m not the one who came out and said that the differences between Darwin Finches and all other birds were so dramatic and clear cut and objectively understood that they could not be reasonably explained in just a few thousand years… or that the Egyptian dynasties are definitively known to go back over 6,000 years (when they probably go back no more than 4,500 years)…
A “bit” of subjectivity involved here? – no?
Sean Pitman
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.
