Comment on Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration by Sean Pitman.
@pauluc:
I have thought long and hard about issues in restricted areas of immunology and genetics and do think I know something about what is scientific.
Great! So where is your testable hypothesis regarding the non-deterioration of slowly reproducing gene pools? The “solutions” you’ve presented so far are either completely irrelevant or insignificant. They do not remotely solve the problem.
Where then is the “science” behind your position beyond just-so story telling and blind appeals to authority? Where is the testable explanatory value of your position?
As we have clearly established there is accumulation of near neutral and detrimental mutations from generation to generation but you have not shown in real life that this is a problem.
There are strong indications that this is a problem in real life. Genetic diseases are very prevalent in real life and there is no scientific reason to believe that the redundancy built into the functionality of living things isn’t being used up quite rapidly. Everything we know, scientifically, points toward an eventual genetic meltdown. You have no mechanistic reason, none, to suggest otherwise.
Your only argument is, “Well, we haven’t reached a complete genetic meltdown yet!” Is that what it would take to get you to recognize the problem? – a full blown genetic meltdown? You’re really unable to detect such an eventuality ahead of time? Your science is that limited?
Science is about predicting things before they happen, not after or during. If you can make predictions of events until they’re actually happening, you’re not doing science either…
You have not yet persuaded me by published data on real outcomes that there is a demonstrable problem except in situations of limited population size and artificial removal of selection pressures as Lynch has indicated. I would think that an outbred population of 7 billion is probably sufficient to allay fears of genetic bottlenecks in homosapiens.
You’ve yet to grasp that the problem in play is not solved by large population sizes. Not at all. The high detrimental mutation rate is present in every single individual in every single generation. Increasing the population size isn’t going to solve the downhill decline of the population as a whole.
If you really understood the statistics of the problem, you’d recognize the futility of your thinking here. You evidently just haven’t sat down and done the math…
You have glibly responded to the real problems of cheetah and florida panther genetics and populations size without addressing the real problem you must confront to sustain a populations of 2 and a literal flood model. There is no infusion of genes from an external gene pool there.
Exactly! It is for this reason why the original gene pools were, by necessity, of higher quality than they are today. They had greater higher quality redundancy within their gene pools. They had farther to fall before reaching our current level.
Humans (and cheetahs) have a spontaneous miscarriage rate (including both recognized and unrecognized pregnancies) of about 31% (Link). During the time of Noah this rate was most likely close to zero. We have declined since the time of Noah in the quality of our genetic cushion which shields us, as a population, from complete genetic meltdown.
Perhaps you can start with a real documented problem and tell us how a universal population bottleneck in every species 4000 yrs ago pans out genetically.
Mathematical models published by Rohde et al., in a 2004 issue of Nature suggest that the most recent common ancestor of all mankind living today lived as recently as 3,000 years ago. (Link)
So, I fail to see your point? Also, I fail to see how this argument even addresses the otherwise overwhelming evidence for the gradual and inevitable build-up of detrimental mutations in our gene pool?
You seem to be reaching for straws here. The reasons you don’t believe that this is a steady decline in the human genome seem to be related to your very strong original belief in the truth of neo-Darwinism – not because you really have any scientific rational for questioning the evidence for devolution. Yours seems to be a faith-based rejection of the evidence – evidence which is far more than statistical. You refuse to recognize the implications of the evidence until you actually see a full-blown genetic meltdown and population collapse. Until then, you’re simply going to shut your eyes to the science in hand…
But, go ahead. Keep posting your pejorative comments and efforts to make something, anything, stick. It’s always nice to have a good foil around to highlight the scientific weaknesses of the neo-Darwinian position.
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.
