Sean Pitman: You’re confusing learned human knowledge with genetic information No, I

Comment on Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration by Ron.

Sean Pitman: You’re confusing learned human knowledge with genetic information

No, I am not confusing human knowledge with genetic information.
1. It was Dr. Sanford who made that connection. He used it as metaphorical proof of his position. I am pointing out that
a. His metaphor, and
b. even the metaphor as he presented it is false.

2. I maintain that random variation with natural selection is a fundamental law of the universe even outside of biology, and that it is a feature of Intelligent design specifically, and that if people weren’t so caught up in worrying about evolution, they would see that it is patently obvious.

For example, I happen also to be an inventor/creator. If you think about my world from the perspective of an inventor, you will notice that I was, in fact born into a very complex social and object world that has been evolving through the process of intelligent design for a very long time.

If you could examine my thought processes as I work in my shop, you would notice that I am constantly noticing features of objects in my environment that I can use in ways not previously intended to meet new needs and challenges. I then try to fit different parts together to make something new. (The principle of emergence). Sometimes the ideas work, (analogous to a beneficial gene being created in biology) in which case that idea eventually gets patented and propagated. (Survival of the best adapted). Sometimes the pieces don’t work together as expected in which case natural selection causes that idea to fail, and I have to either modify it further, or abandon it as non-viable.

The intellectual process of creation/intelligent design is at it’s heart, an evolutionary process. That is why Darwin is such a great man. He was the first to identify and describe a fundamental, universal process. It is tragic that his idea has been mired down in the debate over God, because it is really bigger than biology and genetics, and it really is NOT incompatible with belief in God.

I invite you to get out of the black and white thinking box. Put your prejudices away for just a little while, and take a look around you. If you don’t like what you see, you can always pick your prejudices up again, but I think that you will find it really is OK.

2. I think it is you who don’t understand the genetic point. I am talking about genetic change at the base pair level. If you do studies of the genome there is tremendous diversity at the base pair level. I know, it would take more research than has yet been done to really prove this definitively. (I am getting some of my information from my son who has a degree in molecular biology) but it appears that pretty much, any possible base pair substitution that can be made in every and all genes without creating a non-viable fetus, has been attempted by nature already. This is a feature of random variation. The fact that not all base pair substitutions are represented in the population is a feature of natural selection. i.e. those that result in a non-viable organism are not propagated further.

The other thing you don’t seem to understand is that while it is individuals who prosper or fail to prosper, evolution is really about populations of genes within populations of organisms, so while it is true that families may be accumulating genetic defects and be declining over time, it is not necessarily true that the genetic diversity as a whole is declining.

If Sanford’s hypothesis were even remotely true, the world would long ago have died out because of failure of the bacterial population. In a resource rich environment, a bacterial generation is about 20 minutes. So, even for a short earth creation of about 6,000 years, bacteria have gone through the human equivalent of “bbiilliioonns” of years (to quote Bob) of development without collapse of their genome.

Now, it is possible for the environment to change faster than organisms can adapt, so we do see organisms going extinct. That may be happening to humans. I guess time will tell, but if it does, I don’t think I will be here to worry about it.

Table of Contents

1 Ron Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Ron
2 Related

Ron Also Commented

Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@Sean Pitman:
Sean, The problem with this assertion is that there is no way to know if the prophecy is being properly interpreted, or even that it isn’t a lie as the prophet who was killed by the lion found out, until the prophecy is fulfilled. A good example is the second coming of Christ. The church has been predicting his soon return for 2000 years now. While the prophecy, at least for believers, is no doubt true, it is totally unhelpful in any meaningful predictive way.

Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@Sean Pitman:
Thanks for the link to this post from the other thread, I had indeed missed this post. (I just hope I can find the one that had the link again.)
And I freely admit to being a little dense and methodical, so I appreciate your patience.

I notice that Mendelson’s work was not published until 1866, and was pretty much ignored until it was rediscovered in 1900. Whereas Darwin’s book was published in 1859. I agree that the finches beaks, if not strictly Mendelian, then at least they are the result of multigenetic variations which does not add anything new to the genetic library.

Darwin however, did not have access to Mendelson’s work when he wrote, and Darwin obviously considered the finches beaks to be an example of evolution, so why do you exclude Mendelian genetics from Darwinian evolution? I would think that you would have to include Mendelian variations as one of many mechanisms that accounts for Darwinian evolution. I know, it doesn’t add any new genetic ability, and it doesn’t account for “amoeba to horse evolution”, but it at least accounts for the finches beaks. It just seems more logical than to deny evolution altogether as Bob and Bill do, it would be better, to say, yes of course there is evolution. It just can’t replace God. (I think you actually do say that. I think it is Bob, Faith, and Hope and Bill who are still giving mixed messages about whether evolution has a place.)

I am not sure exactly when 2SM was written, but probably before 1900. So presumably when Mrs. White said that “theistic evolution” was the worst infidelity, she had in mind all forms of evolution which would have included any form of evolution attributed to Mendelian genetics as well, since she was referencing Darwin’s theory, and Darwin’s theory was based primarily on Mendelian variation. Why is it that people who otherwise are quite literal in their interpretations, suddenly exclude Mendelian inheritance from Mrs. White’s statement?

To draw from Bob’s reasoning that 6 days have to be literal because the author considered them to be literal. By the same reasoning Mrs. Whites statement about evolution would have to include Mendelian genetics as infidelity because Mendelian genetics are the cause of the kind of evolution Mrs. White was talking about, i.e. Darwin’s finches.

One of the main arguments between creationists and evolutionists is over the fixedness of species. At least in the mid 1800’s creationists and evolutionists both thought that if the fixedness of species were abandoned or proved false, that it would falsify Genesis and prove God was excluded from the process. I think that is and was a false dichotomy. I think that Mrs. White’s statements about amalgamation, (yes, it referred to interbreeding of son’s of Seth with the daughters of Cain, but it also references animals) proves that Mrs. White did not believe in the fixedness of species, thereby validating the idea that fixedness of species is not determinative as to whether or not God was the creator.

So, if Mrs. White wasn’t concerned about the fixedness of species, then what difference does it make by what mechanisms species are not fixed? As you noted in your article about the donkeys and horses it is very difficult to define a distinct boundary. So why try? I don’t think it really makes any difference to the question of creation. Obviously God could have created all the species capable of interbreeding as well as he could have created all species incapable of any interbreeding at all, or any combination he wants.

Is it really so vile to accept that Darwin saw what he saw and agreeing with the fact of evolution without buying into the argument that the existence of evolution somehow disproves creation?

Just for the sake of argument, if it could somehow in the future be proved that there are biological systems not yet discovered that would allow organisms to reach your somewhat arbitrary 1000aa level of specificity, would that prove that God didn’t create the whole kit and caboodle 6000 years ago? I don’t think so. Would you really give up belief in God if that threshold were somehow reached?

Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@Sean Pitman: “If you understand the mechanisms so well, please do explain them to me.”

Your current argument is based on statistical arguments. I am not enough of a mathematician to comment on your current discussion. So I won’t.

I do see evolution happening in many places by many mechanisms. I can list a few, but before I do, let me ask you, what is your definition of evolution. I keep offering examples looking for some common ground from which to start a discussion. If you don’t accept the examples that Darwin himself used, like the finches, then it seems to me that you must be talking about something other than Darwinian evolution.

1. The HIV virus evolves through a sloppy reverse transcriptase that has an extremely high rate of error. Again, without trying to get into your argument, to a non-mathematician this seems like an example that would disprove Dr. Sanford’s theory, since HIV’s mutation rate is exceedingly high, and so far we see no sign of a genetic meltdown.

2. Antibodies in the blood are created by the generation of random segments on the variable chain, then the thymus exerts a selective pressure by killing all the lymphocytes that produce antibodies that happen to match the HLA antigens.

3. Large mammals of different species can pass genes between species through hybrids. For example the horse and the donkey. They have a common hybrid in the mule. Generally mules are sterile, but occasionally one is fertile. When a Mule is fertile, then it can randomly pass whole chromosomes between species just like any other pairing within a species.

4. Ideas in my shop evolve through a process of intelligent design. (At least I hope there is some intelligence.) I come up with a solution to a problem, I build something that I think will work, and as I am in the process of building it, I often get ideas about how to make it better, so over time, it continues to evolve to be more functional and higher quality.

5. Nylonase Gene, I’m not sure, I think the bacteria copied and combined nonfunctional gene fragments.

6. Sickle Cell trait. It was a single base transcription error. I think there are lots of mechanisms that can do such a thing. I don’t know if we know which one was the actual one. Maybe ionizing radiation?

7. Cars and other transportation devices evolve through a process of intelligent design responding to the selection pressures of the market.

8. The shape of the tree out front evolves each year based on selective growth as each leaf tries to optimize it’s sun exposure. Limbs that get more sun grow better.

9. I heard on the radio today that violent men tend to have higher testosterone levels, and tend to father a higher ratio of males to females, so that creates a selection bias in favor of violent men. I have no idea how accurate the statement is, but it is an example of how pervasive evolutionary principles are.

10. Relative HIV resistance in humans is conferred on Europeans, compared to Africans, by an increased prevalence of the CCR5 allele which most likely entered the Northern population through a plague, probably viral.

11. I read recently that there have been identified 38 specific mutations in the Tibetan population that has occurred in the last 3000 years that has allowed their population to escape pressure from the Han Chinese by moving to higher altitudes. I don’t know the mechanisms. But, are you denying that this is evolution?

12. At one point, humans had the same number of Chromosomes as the chimps, but two of the chromosomes combined into one chromosome, so now Humans have one less chromosome than chimps do. How do you fit that fact into the Biblical narrative? Do you think that the chromosome combination took place some time after creation? I have a hard time imagining God creating us originally with a chromosome with double centrameres and telemeres.

I would note however that the presence of evolution does not necessarily imply an improvement. Let’s go back to Darwin’s finches. We could imagine an island that had both finches and gross beaks on it at the start. Then some catastrophe destroys all of the gross beaks. Those finches who have larger bills may be more successful at taking advantage of the new ecological niche that opened up, so the finch population evolves toward larger beaks. But that doesn’t mean that the finches are better than the gross beaks were. This would be an example of “devolution” on the larger, island scale, with positive evolution on the smaller, finch, scale. I suspect we will see more and more of this kind of evolution as we kill off more and more of our highly specialized species.