@pauluc: I would suggest that the posters on this thread …

Comment on Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration by Sean Pitman.

@pauluc:

I would suggest that the posters on this thread review the many comments on the science on the thread WASC reviews LSU accreditation posts from July 2011.

http://www.educatetruth.com/news/wasc-reviews-lsus-accreditation/

It seems from his comments here that for Sean that discussion never really took place or had any impact. He seems impervious to reason or at least recognition that there is any valid alternative view.

What is clear to me is that the logic of Sanford argument is back to front in 2 ways

1] There has never been a published observation that human populations are in genetic meltdown in a freeliving population of sufficient size.

As previously explained back in July of 2011, your problem is that there are published observations that detrimental mutations are building up in humans (and other slowly reproducing creatures) far far faster than they can be eliminated by any known naturalistic means. The average mutation rate, as well as the detrimental mutation rate, is known and has been published. What is not known is how these detrimental mutations can be effectively removed from the human population by any mindless natural mechanism?

This shouldn’t be news to you except that your memory may be failing you here. The published arguments you previously cited back in July (Link) to try to discredit Dr. Sanford’s position were based on nematode worms – creatures with an extremely high reproductive rate (>5000 offspring per generation) that can tolerate a death rate of greater than 99% per generation. Obviously, this is not the case for humans or other slowly reproducing creatures (like all mammals for instance).

As I noted before in our original discussion of this topic:

Sean Pitman:
If the individual reproductive rate for a nematode worm is around ~5000 offspring during the lifespan of the worm, and only 25 of the offspring are selected to populate the next generation, that is an effective pre-reproductive death rate of over 99%. Again, such a death rate could not be remotely tolerated by a human population…

My point from the beginning, which you have yet to even address as far as I can tell, is that population size is not enough to compensate for the detrimental mutation rate experienced by slowly reproducing creatures. Do you not understand that the reproductive rate also comes into play? – not just population size? Nematode worms like C. elegans are capable of extremely high rates of reproduction. This is not true for humans or other slowly reproducing animals that cannot sustain such a high mortality rate. And, I fail to see how increasing the population size is going to do anything to solve this problem for slowly reproducing creatures? If you can explain this to me, I’d be most grateful…

It is easy to explain how bacteria, viruses, and nematode worms can keep up with such bad karma since their potential reproductive rate is in the many thousands per individual per generation. This is simply not true for humans or other slowly reproducing animals…

What is also interesting is that you mischaracterized my original position in the discussion you reference:

That was not the point. You said there was no viable mechanisms to remove mutations and I responded with a clear model albeit artificial which showed that natural selection removed mutations. I never at any point tried to pretend it would remove all. You now concede this point but narrow the goal post to large slowly reproducing animals. – Pauluc

Your memory seems to be failing you. I ask you, what did I originally say in my post of August 6 at 8:49 am? Here, let me help you:

Sean Pitman – “What is not published in literature is any viable mechanism whereby the overwhelming load of detrimental mutations might be removed from the gene pools of slowly reproducing creatures (like all mammals for example) nearly as fast as they are entering it.”

You went on to finally admit:

I do not know of a mechanism beyond that of selection shown in model systems for the removal of large slowly reproducing species. I am not arrogant enough to say there is no mechanism fulfilling the criteria you have selected but I am prepared to consider it unknown. – Pauluc (Link)

So, you see, it seems to be that it is your memory that is failing you. Either that, or you’re the one who is “impervious to reason”. As far as I’m able to tell, you just seem to want to continue to ignore the evidence regardless of how strong it may be against your original positions (Link).

In science one starts with an observation and then develops an hypothesis. Here we have an hypothesis without an original observation.

Not true. The original observation is the known rate of detrimental mutations per individual per generation and the required death rate needed to deal with this detrimental mutation rate in such a way as to avoid constant genetic deterioration. This observation has implications that are quite clear to many scientists – even to those who may not wish to admit it.

Even you have admitted that you do not know the solution to this problem…

(Lest I get referred back to quotations from Lynch et al, what literature is available considers the likelihood of meltdown in the context of populations removed from selection pressures such as reduced life expectancy due to infections epidemics and in small population size.)

That’s also not true. The literature that is available suggests a steady buildup of detrimental mutations regardless of population size and regardless of the strength of selection pressures applied (again, for slowly reproducing creatures like humans and all other mammals in particular).

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.