Four billion years might seem like a long time to …

Comment on Emergence and the Origin of Life? by Sean Pitman.

Four billion years might seem like a long time to some, but it is the tiniest drop in the bucket compared to the time that would be required for even a small subcellular biomachine, like a rotary bacterial flagellum for example, to be produced by any known “raw” force of mindless nature. The production of any machine at this level of functional complexity is extraordinarily unlikely to be produced by random mutations and function-based natural selection, or any other mechanism like “emergence”, this side of trillions upon trillions of years of time.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, can and does produce such machines in real time in very short order.

So, which theory is most rationally and statistically tenable? Certainly not your theory of a few billion years of randomness and chaotic interactions guided by mindless natural mechanisms. Such a notion is truly magical – not at all “scientific”.

Such just-so story telling might be entertaining, but these stories are not demonstrable. There are no examples of evolution in action, by emergence or RM/NS, producing any such machine beyond very very low levels of functional complexity. And, statistically, these stories are absolutely untenable. The only thing left to hold them up is an appeal to some mystical magical process – not science.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Emergence and the Origin of Life?
I’ve asked you for the math that addresses function-based selection (i.e., natural selection). Your cited study doesn’t explain how a function-based selection mechanism can produce much of anything beyond very low levels of functional complexity. This paper doesn’t even address the concept of function-based selection. So, I ask you yet again, where’s your math? Where is anything beyond just-so story telling to support your assertion that natural selection is the fantastic creative force you claim it to be?


Emergence and the Origin of Life?

Right, so because you can’t specifically demonstrate or prove biblical creation you rely on your subjective weight of the evidence.

The “weight of evidence” is the basis of science. You do realize that nothing is absolutely provable in science? All there is as a basis for scientific belief is the “weight of evidence” or “predictive value” of a hypothesis or theory.

But when it comes to evolution, you acknowledge micro evolution, you acknowledge that RMNS works at a certain level,

Of course. It is the extrapolation from lower-level examples to higher-levels of evolution that isn’t scientifically or statistically rational or tenable or demonstrable. In other words, it isn’t scientific.

you know that DR. Ben Clausen of the GRI has stated that there is no viable scientific young earth or young life model.

I know he says this and believes this, but I think he is wrong. There is a very good young-life model – the Biblical model. This model has the weight of evidence clearly on its side for those who take the time to candidly consider it.

Yet you call evolution the just so story. Hmmm….seems like you have a bit of a double standard there, pard!

I’m asking from you just what I would ask from anyone proposing a rational hypothesis or theory – including myself. I’m not asking anything from you that I’m not willing to do myself.

For example, I’ve done the statistical analysis and calculations for random mutations finding novel beneficial sequences within various levels of sequence space. Where have you presented any relevant calculations or mathematical analyses of any kind to support your arguments for the creative potential of RM/NS? – anything beyond just-so story telling?

I’m sorry, but you seem to be the one with the double standard here…


Emergence and the Origin of Life?
Except for the fact that termites build termite nests while bees build bee nests?


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.