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

@pauluc:

Thanks for responding. Some people I have met smile wryly when I say I have had a dialog with Sean Pitman about science. It is indeed hard to separate science from religion here.

Again with the obligatory opening pejoratives. All I’m asking from you is a testable potentially falsifiable hypothesis to support your perspective. I don’t care how brilliant you are or even if you’re a Nobel Laureate. None of it matters when it comes to the topic in play if you don’t really have a testable theory.

I do apologize if you think my comments have been perjorative that was never their intent.

Oh please. Of course it was/is your intent… to include your condescending and pejorative comments in this current post of yours – to include all these so-called “appologies”. You simply can’t help yourself. You think you’re right and that I’m painful wrong. That’s Ok. Just admit it. It’s fine to think that you’re right and that I’m way off base in my silly notions of science and religion. I’m the same way. I think I’m clearly in the right and that you’re obviously mistaken. And, that’s fine. It just means that we both have clearly established opinions on this topic. No need for appologies for having a strong opinion. Now, its up to those reading these comments to decide for themselves…

I apologize if I have offended by my syntheses that you think have been “just so stories”

I’m not offended by your just-so stories. I appreciate your efforts since they highlight the vacuous nature of the so-called “science” behind these stories. For those reading them, it should become even more clearly evident that they really aren’t valid science. They are nothing more than made up non-testable stories that are no more scientific than fairytales for children.

I apologize if the deprecation of my expertise in many fields and deference to those with demonstrated expertise is seen as “blind appeals to authority?”

It is fine if you say that you don’t personally understand a topic, but you think there are those who do. It is another thing entirely for you to claim that you yourself know why a particular argument is mistaken when you really have no clue outside of the fact that someone else also disagrees. Knowing that someone disagrees with me isn’t the same thing as knowing why I’m wrong.

In short, if all you really have is an argument from authority, say so. That would be more honest in a discussion like this.

I apologize for not sufficiently privileging limited mathematical models over concrete empirical observations

The “mathematical models” are based on very solid empirical observations which have very clear implications within the empirical world. You have no countering concrete observations outside of the fact that you will not recognize Dr. Sanford’s position until you see the complete meltdown of the gene pool and a population dying off.

How is that a scientific position? Science is about predicting the future based on the information that is currently in hand. Science is not about absolute demonstration. If you will not recognize the likely truth of a theory until absolute demonstration is in hand, you’re not doing science. It’s as simple as that.

I apologize for not seeing the Rohdes model as supporting YEC and for agreeing with the critical analysis of this modelling by Hein
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/full/431518a.html#f1

The mathematical models suggesting a MRCA of all modern humans some 3000 years ago do not in themselves suggest the recent arival of humans on this planet. It only means that modern humans are all very closely related to each other as far as mutational divergence is concerned. That’s all.

What does strongly support the YLC model, however, is the very strong evidence in support of the rapidly declining quality of the human gene pool (as well as all other slowly reproducing creatures) due an inevitable build up of a large number of detrimental mutations in every individual in every generation.

The death rate need to remove these mutations as fast as they are entering our gene pool, as already explained to you, is far far too high for humans to achieve.

You’ve presented counter arguments that are either completely wrong (some sort of intracellular selection mechanism for non-detrimental genes) or statistically irrelevant (gamete selection before fertilization, in-utero selection, and increased genomic deterioration, due to enhanced fixation of detrimental mutations, in very small populations).

I apologize for not accepting by faith “..the original gene pools were, by necessity, of higher quality than they are today. They had greater higher quality redundancy within their gene pools.” and asking for evidence for a theoretical genetic basis for this or for evidence in the fossil record and ancient DNA sequence.

This is always the fall-back argument for neo-Darwinists. You all know that the fossil record represents hundreds of millions of years of the evolution of life on this planet. Therefore, any genetic challenge to your interpretation of the fossil record must, by default, be wrong. You may not have any idea how or why the genetic evidence must be wrong, but you are absolutely sure that it is wrong because you know your view of the fossil record is correct.

The same thing goes for the preservation of soft tissues and protein sequences over many tens of millions of years. Despite the fact that kinetic science has long declared this to be absolutely impossible, the actual finding of such soft tissues in dinosaur bones thought to be 60-80 million years old is used as conclusive evidence that the kinetic models of protein and soft tissue deterioration must somehow be wrong.

It’s a self-fulfilling non-falsifiable just-so story – not science.

The fact is that we know that the human gene pool is currently deteriorating. Even you recognize this much. But, the neo-Darwinists declare that this is due to the lack of adequate exposure to natural selection in the modern age.

There is no attempt to figure out the actual death rate that would be necessary for the forces of natural selection to effectively deal with the detrimental mutation rate. What is your suggested death rate for natural selection to effective do the job? You simply don’t know. You guys present no mathematical models in this regard. You simply present your non-testable just-so stories as fact and hope that no one will notice that you have no actual science to back up your stories.

I apologize if I have confused people by introducing population size as a critical issue in population genetics or of thinking that recessive genetic diseases, the most common form of monogenic disease dependents on restricted population size and inbreeding for their manifestations. I clearly erroneously thought it was relevant.

What you’ve not explained is how population size is critical in dealing with this problem? Do you really not undrestand that population size is only critical when it comes to reducing the likelihood of fixation of specific detrimental mutations within the entire population? Do you not realize that preventing the fixation of a specific detrimental mutation has absolutely nothing to do with preventing more and more detrimental muations, of all different kinds, from entering the gene pool faster than they can all be removed?

Please at least consider that fixation within the gene pool is not relevant here. Not at all. While this problem may be relevant for very small populations (as in your cheetah example) large populations have another problem – the inevitable build-up of many different types of detrimental mutations that, while not becomeing fixed in a very large population, are still rapidly building up over time in every individual in every generation.

I apologize for my ignorance and that I have not “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…”

Where is your math? Where have you presented any statistical model at all for the minimum required death rate to deal with the per generation detrimental mutation rate?

You really don’t seem to understand the statistical significance of this problem. I’m sorry, but without these models, you’re not dealing with the science behind the issue in play here. No need to appologize. Just do the math.

I do not mind at all to be thought a foolish buffoon who is merely a “good foil around to highlight the scientific weaknesses of the neo-Darwinian position” as long as even one person sees the lack of imagination in the only 2 options presented here of fundamentalist Christianity or fundamentalist atheism. I maintain there is a life in Christ that transcends the natural but does not require rejection of reality.

And I’m happy for you and for those who hold to your ideas. However, what is also important, for the purposes of this website anyway, is that many of those who read your posts will see that neo-Darwinism is not much more than smoke and bluster and that theology without an ability to see God’s Signature in nature or in His written Word leads to clearly irrational and self-contradictory conclusions about the nature of God and any hope that faith in God gives us for a fundamentally better future than this world now provides.

Grace to you. I do not wish you success in your attempt to extirpate from the body of Christ those honest souls that do not agree with you and your followers but I do pray that you find peace.

Who am I to even attempt to remove anyone from the “body of Christ”? The Seventh-day Adventist Church organization is not “The” body of Christ. Obviously, one does not have to be SDA to be in a saving relationship with God.

However, if one wants to represent the SDA Church as a paid representative, it is only honest for that individual to actually do what the church is asking him/her to do for the money. Paid representation of the SDA Church is not a right, but a privilage. It is therefore a moral wrong to take money from any organization while undermining what that organization is paying you to do.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman