Comment on Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration by Sean Pitman.
@Ron:
You’re still doing it. You don’t seem to understand the difference between the mechanism used by human intelligence to produce novel information and the random mutations and natural selection that affect our DNA. They aren’t the same thing. The Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS is far more limited in that it cannot imagine the future nor can it strive for any particular goal. It can only deal with what works or doesn’t work right now. That’s it. Big difference.
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.
What you don’t seem to realize is that if every child in every family always has more detrimental mutations than its parents had, the population as a whole, the entire gene pool, is degenerating in informational quality. That’s the problem here. It’s not about “diversity” as much as it is about overall genomic functional quality.
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.
That’s true when you’re talking about a very limited number of errors existing in any one fetus. However, when you start talking about adding more and more and more errors in every child in every generation, the genetic quality of every single baby born declines relative to the parents. That’s the issue in play. Even if every genetic foci could be mutated, in isolation, without resulting in the death of the fetus (there are numerous point mutations that will result in the death of the fetus by the way), that wouldn’t mean anything at all when it comes to solving the problem proposed by Sanford. The problem, yet again, is the continued build-up of detrimental mutations in each generation until the overall load results in genetic meltdown. We aren’t there yet, but it is quite clear that we, along other living things, are headed for eventual extinction at a rather rapid rate.
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.
Evidently you didn’t watch the entire lecture. Bacteria have a much lower per generation mutation rate compared to humans. The per-year mutation rate is similar, however. Also, bacteria have a far far greater reproductive rate compared to humans and other slowly reproducing creatures. These features mitigate the devolution of bacteria over a greater absolute number of generations.
In short, nothing you’ve presented remotely addresses the very real problem presented by Sanford. You don’t seem to understand the very basis of the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS. You actually think it is comparable to human-style creativity and intelligence?
I’m sorry, but you simply don’t seem to understand the relevant concepts in play here.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@Ken:
Aside from the fact that science cannot definitively prove any theory, yes, a form of historical science can be used to test and evaluate Biblical prophecies. You have to know a lot about history though. You can’t simply read Daniel and Revelation and hope to understand what you’re reading unless you have detailed knowledge of the historical events being discussed.
I recommend you start with the “70 weeks” prophecy starting with Daniel 9:24. This prophecy precisely predicts the First Coming of Jesus as well as his death to the day.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@-Shining:
I’ve been doing this a long time (almost 20 years now) and I can tell you that, as far as I know, no one has misunderstood my position as a young life creationist who also recognizes limited forms of Darwinian evolution…
This isn’t like accepting a little bit of Nazism. The Darwinian mechanism is given its name because Darwin really was the first to popularize it in published literature. Therefore, he deserves to have his name attached to the mechanism of RM/NS.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@-Shining:
I’ve only been expaining why I say things the way I say them. I believe it is best to at least try to start off a discussion on as much common ground as is possible with those on the opposing side in a discussion… to openly admit those points, from the opposing side, that are actually valid.
As I see it, there is simply no advantage in arguing that Darwinian evolution is completely wrong – that I believe in no form of Darwinism. It’s just not true for one thing and admitting those things that the Darwinian mechanism can produce only adds to the credibility of the creationist position – in my opinion.
Sean Pitman
www.DeteectingDesign.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.
