Comment on Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration by Sean Pitman.
@Ron:
What is able to remove the detrimental mutations from the gene pool as fast or faster than they are entering it? – Sean Pitman
Ok, here is one, just a stab in the dark off the top of my head. How about a second mutation which returns the base pair back to it’s original form? I haven’t researched this, but I would imagine that the odds would be about equal since it is the same process going in both directions. But of course it is unlikely anyone would notice, because it would return to the norm.
Well, at least you’re starting to think about the actual problem in play. What you are describing here are known as “reversion mutations”. They are real and relatively common. They can be directly identified in lab experiments. The only problem, of course, is your assumption that they are equally common. They aren’t nearly as common as the original detrimental mutation was to begin with.
The reason for this is rather obvious once you consider the odds of a random mutation hitting a particular point in a sequence of characters… and then hitting that same point again by purely random chance and mutating the character back to the original character by random chance.
Now, consider the odds of a character position being mutated in the human genome of ~6 billion base pairs. The odds that some character position will get mutated somewhere are very close to 100% since the average mutation rate per individual per generation is ~100 mutations. Now, consider the odds that a reversion mutation will occur for any one of these 100 mutations? The odds of that happening are approximately 100/6 billion/3 = around 1 chance in 100 million mutations.
See the problem? Reversion mutations don’t remotely solve the problem that Dr. Sanford is presenting…
Again, I am not a molecular biologist and I don’t know the details, but my son tells me there is a system to check for, and correct transcription errors.
Yes, there is. But, as Dr. Sanford explained in his lecture, the mutation rate we’re talking about here is the errors that remain after the correction system has done it’s job. The original mutation rate is tens of thousands every day. The fantastic correction mechanism in our cells detects and corrects the vast majority of these errors. However, the correction mechanism isn’t perfect. And, that’s the problem… a very very big problem.
And there is always natural selection which will increase the prevalence of the best gene in the population.
Natural selection is dependent upon the premature death of those “less fit” individuals within a population before they have a chance to reproduce. In order for natural selection to keep up with the rate of detrimental mutations that enter the gene pool every single generation, the average woman would have to give birth to over a trillion offspring… all but two of which would have to die prematurely.
Obviously, such a high reproductive/death rate is not remotely feasible for humans. We are therefore destined to steadily decay, as a population, over time toward inevitable extinction. This is a currently observed fact. We are detectably heading downhill right now. There really is no argument here… no known solution to this problem for Neo-Darwinists.
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.
