with no broken bones -to determine that something is a beneficial …

Comment on How much of the Human Genome is Functional? by Sean Pitman.

with no broken bones
-to determine that something is a beneficial mutation one has to demostrate that that gene didn´t exist before (generations back) in the members of that family and must specify when it appeared.

The mutation is clearly unique to this particular family and has clear functionality. It’s seems obvious to me that it is a novel mutation that did not exist in the original ancestral human gene pool.

better survival in cold weather environments
-same as above, if one can study the geneaology of that people to show that it is about gaining and not about losing of that specific gene in the other populations.

Again, this mtDNA mutation is unique to these people who live in cold weather environments. It’s pretty clear that these are novel human mutations. The same is true for those who are resistant to HIV infection…

vaccination
-introduction of the microbe into the blood through rupture in the continuity of the skin by a needle, by-passing the natural defense of an organism (located at every natural orifice and skin) is a violation of the laws of immune system (read Matzinger and also J. Oller). Bacteria form our first barrier defense. Bacteria-bacteria interaction is the main principle in nature.

I’m sorry, but how are vaccinations a “violation of the laws of the immune system”? – just because they don’t present antigens through the GI tract? Isn’t that the whole point? The immune system is affected and works regardless of how bacteria or viruses for foreign antigens in general gain entrance into the body (i.e., through the skin or GI tract or respiratory tract, etc.) and generate a response from the immune system. It is for this reason that vaccinations actually work to prevent various illnesses – is it not Dr. B?

“It’s called immunity”.
-No, it is called immunization. They are not interchangeable. Long explanation.

I wasn’t trying to use the terms “interchangeably”. What I was trying to say is that “immunizations” affect the “immune system” to produce enhanced “immunity” – which seems like a truism to me. After all, isn’t it true that immunizations “educate” the immune system to recognize certain types of antigens as “foreign” and attack them in the future?

cholesterol
-the age of the great myth on cholesterol will end soon. Cholesterol on the arteries is a protective mechanism against inflammation. Artherogenesis is a side effect. Statins, agents used to lower the cholesterol are potent antiinflammatory agents… with their side effects.

How is this relevant? The point I was trying to make here is that those who have the HDL mutation (the Apolipoprotein AI-Milano mutation) do in fact have less coronary artery disease, less strokes, and less heart attacks. There’s just no getting around this observation. It’s a real beneficial mutation in humans. Sure, the effects of this mutation are based on a reduction in inflammation via enhanced antioxidant activity, but the results are the same. In most people, free radicals can go unchecked as they grab electrons from lipids that line arterial walls. But for the less than 50 people lucky enough to possess the Milano mutation (the monomeric form with its free sulfhydryl) their mutant apoA-I protein mops up the unpaired electrons from free radicals. This prevents the scavenging of electrons from arterial lipids and therefore prevents a series of reactions that lead to cholesterol deposition and atherosclerosis that follow unchecked inflammation otherwise produced by free radicals.

“Apolipoprotein A-IMilano and Apolipoprotein A-IParis exhibit an antioxidant activity distinct from that of wild-type Apolipoprotein A-I,” appears in the journal Biochemistry, 2002, 41 (6), pp. 2089-2096.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

How much of the Human Genome is Functional?
This calculation is a too simplistic to be meaningful. It doesn’t take into account the ability of natural selection to weed out detrimental mutations and keep beneficial mutations. This ability is, of course, dependent upon the reproductive rate of a population. So, the real question you need to ask is: What is the minimum reproductive rate needed to effectively deal with a given detrimental mutation rate? I’ve already cited this calculation in my article above…


How much of the Human Genome is Functional?
U2…


How much of the Human Genome is Functional?
There are in fact a lot of examples of beneficial mutations – that are truly beneficial and not detrimental. However, all of these examples are at a very low level of functional complexity – involving systems that require no more than a few hundred amino acid residues.

As far as the detrimental mutation rate, it makes a big difference how much of the human genome is actually functional. This is important because it determines the required minimum reproductive rate needed for natural selection to effectively deal with the detrimental mutation rate.


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:

Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.

The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.

God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.

The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.

For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”

That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:

Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.

God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.

“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28

Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.

Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.

This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…

Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:

Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.

Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com