Dr. Nick Matzke Explains the Evolution of Complexity

This is not a “debate”, it’s some comments that I randomly posted on your blog, which you have fairly weirdly strung together into a single piece and then called a “debate”. That’s all you.

Whatever you want to call it…

You still aren’t getting the difference between a “functional island” as measured by blasting a protein with multiple simultaneous mutations, and the reality, which is a web (even within a single function), the strands of which are gradually explored by a step-by-step process of various sorts of substitutions, including compensatory ones, and which would essentially never return to the starting point, or even be constrained within the region of sequences-similar-enough-to-be-identified-by-BLAST. The web covers a far, far greater area of the sequence landscape than your little island. There’s not much point in discussing more complex issues if we can’t resolve simple points like this.

I’m sorry, but I do not see how compensatory mutations 1) significantly increase the size of the islands within sequence space (as far as the absolute number of protein-based sequences in sequence space that can produce a given type of function), 2) how they create narrow paths between qualitatively different islands at higher levels of functional complexity that are significantly more likely to be traversed in a given amount of time, or 3) how they significantly narrow the non-beneficial gap distances between different islands within sequence space?

As far as I can tell, compensatory mutations are simply a way of compensating for detrimental mutations by maintaining the same basic structure and function of the system (within the overall flexibility limitations of the minimum structural threshold requirements of the system in question). I guess I just don’t see how this significantly improves the odds of finding novel islands with qualitatively novel functionality? Such has not been demonstrated anywhere in literature that I’m aware, and I personally don’t see how the odds of success could be improved by invoking compensatory mutations?

The reason for this, as far as I can tell, is that compensatory mutations are limited to producing the same basic type of structure that characterizes a particular island within sequence space. For example, “It is well known that the folding of RNA molecules into the stem-loop structure requires base pair matching in the stem part of the molecule, and mutations occurring to one segment of the stem part will disrupt the matching, and therefore, have a deleterious effect on the folding and stability of the molecule. It has been observed that mutations in the complementary segment can rescind the deleterious effect by mutating into a base pair that matches the already mutated base, thus recovering the fitness of the original molecule (Kelley et al., 2000; Wilke et al., 2003). (Link)” Of course, in this particular situation, there are very limited choices for workable compensatory mutations given the high degree of required sequence specificity of the structure.

So, as far as I can tell, this nicely illustrates my observation that compensatory mutations simply don’t produce novel structures with novel functional complexity. They simply compensate for a loss of structure/function that results from detrimental mutations by trying to get back to the original to one degree or another. This is why compensatory mutations are so constrained. Depending upon the detrimental mutation, only a limited number of compensatory mutations are possible – and most of these do not provide full functional recovery from what was lost. In other words, the original level of functionality is not entirely reproduced by most compensatory mutations. In fact, populations tend to fix compensatory mutations only when the rate of compensatory mutations exceeds the rate of reversion or back mutations by at least an order of magnitude (Levine et. al., 2000). This means, of course, that back or reversion mutations are usually the most ideal solution for resolving detrimental mutations, but are not always the first to be realized by random mutations. And, compensatory mutations are usually detrimental by themselves. That means, once a compensatory mutation occurs, it is no longer beneficial to revert the original detrimental mutation (since one would also have to revert the compensatory mutation as well). This is somewhat of a problem since since compensatory options are more common, a compensatory mutation is usually realized before a reversion mutation – up to 70% of the time (Link). However, because compensatory mutations are not generally as good as back mutations at completely restoring the original level of functionality, they are less likely to be fixed in a population – especially larger populations.

In any case, your argument that there are a number of potential compensatory mutations for most detrimental mutations (an average of 9 or so) is clearly correct. So then, doesn’t it therefore follow that these compensatory options do in fact expand the size of the island and create a net-like appearance across vast regions of sequence space? – as you originally claimed?

Consider that the overall shape of the island remains the same – with sharp peaks and steeply sloping sides. I do not see how compensatory mutational options change this basic appearance of the island? They simply make the island 10 times larger, and much more spread out, than if there were no compensatory options (as in a case of increased specificity requirements) – which isn’t really relevant given the overall size of sequence space and the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial within sequence space.

For example, say that a protein sequence experiences a point mutation that happens to be detrimental. Say there are 10 potentially compensating mutational options to “fix” this protein to some useful degree, one of which is realized. Now, let’s say that this protein experiences a second detrimental mutation in a different location. Now, there are 10 more potentially compensating mutational options, one of which is realized. What happens with each additional detrimental mutation to the sequence? Is the observation of Bloom et. al., that proteins suffer an exponential decline in functionality with each additional detrimental mutation, negated by the compensatory mutation options? Not at all. The compensatory mutations simply expand the size of the island to the extent allowed by the specificity requirements of the system, but they do not make it possible for the island stretch out indefinitely over all of sequence space. The minimum structural threshold requirements simply will not allow this. The same basic structure with the same basic function and the same minimum number of required building blocks must be maintained. And, that puts a very restrictive size limit on the overall size of the island with this type of function within sequence space (size being defined by the absolute number of protein sequences that can produce a given structure with a particular type of function). In other words, the actual maximum number of protein sequences that comprise the island is very very limited.

But, you argue, compensatory mutations may allow for narrow arms or branches to extend long distances (Hamming or Levenshtein distances) within sequence space. And, this is true. However, remember that sequence space is hyperdimensional. Changing the shape of an island comprised of a limited number of grains of sand doesn’t significantly change the odds of putting it within closer range of the next closest island within sequence space. After all, the shape of the island has a random appearance that is not biased toward other surrounding islands within sequence space. Therefore, the odds of successfully locating a different island with qualitatively novel functionality remain essentially the same as far as I can tell. There is no significant change in the minimum likely gap distances between any part of the starting island, regardless of its shape, and any other island within sequence space at higher levels of functional complexity. Other islands with other types of functions still have to be found by getting off of the original island and crossing a non-selectable gap distance – and I don’t see how compensatory mutations improve these odds?

And, that, in a nutshell, is why your proposed steppingstones in your flagellar evolution pathway simply require too many non-selectable differences to get from one to the other in a reasonable amount of time.

Re: flagellum — the word “Pallen” does not appear in your webpage, and the homology-and-unessentiality table from that paper is not discussed.

I do discuss the homologies that you proposed in your 2003 paper, “Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum”.

It seems to me that they key difference you see between your 2003 and your 2006 papers is the discovery of more homologies for vital structural flagellar proteins. You write:

The important overall point, as discussed in my blog post, is that of the 42 proteins in Table 1 of Pallen and Matzke, only two proteins, FliE and FlgD, are both essential and have no identified homologous proteins. This is substantially more impressive than the situation in 2003, and means that the evidence for the evolutionary origin of the flagellum by standard gene duplication and cooption processes is even stronger than in 2003. (Link)

You see, I really don’t care if every single one of the individual protein parts within the flagellum are homologous to proteins within other systems (even though a couple of them are not currently known to be homologous to anything else). This is completely irrelevant to the plausibility of the evolution of higher level systems based on pre-existing subsystems. You see, the problem is that having all the required parts to make a new type of complex system isn’t enough. Why not? Because, these parts must be modified in very specific ways before they can work together in a new specified arrangement as parts of a different type of complex system – like a flagellar motility system. And, the number of required modifications to get the parts in your proposed pathway to work together, to any selectable advantage at a higher level of functional complexity, is simply too great to be realized this side of a practical eternity of time.

How is that? After all, is it not possible for the required parts to be perfectly homologous between different systems? Well no, it’s not. If this were the case, all kinds of very different complex systems could be produced using identical subparts. The reason why this doesn’t happen is because qualitatively different complex systems require key modifications for the otherwise homologous parts to work together in different ways. And, the great number of these required non-selectable modifications to otherwise homologous parts, the exponentially greater the average random walk time. So, by the time you’re at a level when the minimum number of required non-selectable modifications is a couple dozen or so, the average time to randomly produce all of these required modifications, which cannot be guided by natural selection, is trillions upon trillions of years. And, I fail to see how compensatory mutations help to solve this problem? As far as I can tell, they do nothing to solve this problem for the ToE.

In short, homologies simply don’t cut it because it isn’t the similarities that are important, but the number of required non-selectable modifications that completely kills off evolutionary potential, in an exponential manner, beyond very low levels of functional complexity.

---

Dr. Nick Matzke Explains the Evolution of Complexity

“You mistakenly assume that human languages evolve via the same mechanism as Darwinian evolution. They do not.”

Dr. Pitman, you are the one that introduced the language metaphor to compare probabilities of genetic sequence space for new functional complexity. You are hoisting yourself on your own petard my friend!

You confuse the look of sequence space with various methods of moving about within sequence space.

All meaningful language/information systems have the same basic look of sequence spaces at various levels of functional complexity, to include an essentially uniform fairly random distribution of potentially beneficial islands within sequence space at higher levels of functional complexity. However, the mechanism by which one gets around in that space may be different. The various words that are used for similar purposes within various human languages “evolve” over time via the involvement of intelligent design (an intelligent environment if you will). The Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS does not have this option since the “environment” within which protein-based systems may evolve is not intelligent. Movement through protein-based sequence space via this method is therefore much more limited, even at the level of small individual sequences that are equivalent to most individual words in various language systems. When one starts talking about moving beyond the mere definition of small individual words, to sentences, paragraphs, and entire essays or books (i.e., higher and higher levels of functional complexity), the nature of sequence space changes exponentially with regard to the ratio of potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial – regardless of the language/information system. With each increase in the minimum structural threshold requirement of the system (in any language/information system) the minimum likely distance between a given island and the next closest island in sequence space increases in an linear manner.

How this non-beneficial gap distance is crossed can be done with or without intelligence. It is just a matter of a significant difference in the average time required to achieve success.

If one chooses to move around in higher level sequence spaces via random mutations and function-based selection, without including intelligent manipulation of the mutations, the average random walk time required to get from one island to the next closest island within sequence space increases exponentially as the minimum gap distances increase in a linear manner. That is why the “evolution” of sentences, paragraphs, and books (and novel individual words as well) in English or Latin or Greek or Russian, etc., happens so fast – because intelligence is involved in this kind of intelligently directed “evolution”. This is not the case, however, for a mindless mechanism like RM/NS, where exponentially greater and greater amounts of time are required.

I hope this makes things a bit clearer for you…

---

Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Obviously, I’m not talking about women who don’t understand how IUDs and hormonal birth control work. I’m talking about women who do understand. And, according to your cited reference, the majority of women who have such knowledge would not stop using such forms of birth control. Given your position that full human life begins at the moment of conception, such fully-informed women would most certainly be guilty of pre-meditated first-degree murder – before God. Again, morally speaking, it doesn’t matter at all what a human government may or may not say or do. Human governments don’t determine true morality. What really matters is what God thinks. Are such fully-informed women murderers before God? The same as a woman who kills her baby at full term? – just before it would otherwise be born naturally? That’s my question here. I could not make the accusation of murder against a woman using hormonal birth control or IUDs because there really is no unambiguous Scriptural support for your position that full human life begins at the moment of conception – as far as I’m able to tell. That’s the bottom line here.

As far as your argument that the word Gabriel used for John the Baptist before he was born was the same as for a baby that had been born (supporting the equal moral value of the unborn), the Greek that Gabriel used here was: βρέφος. Notice, however, that Gabriel did not use this particular word until John was already six months old (Luke 1:36-41). So, again, as previously discussed with you, I fail to see how Gabriel is defining John as a full human being from the moment of conception here.

After all, an early embryo can split in two, or three or four or five embryos – ending in identical offspring. Yet, although genetically identical, each baby produced in this manner is a unique person. Twins may have identical genetics and indistinguishable bodies, yet they are uniquely different people before God. When did the unique identify of each of these identical twins or triplets, etc., begin? Clearly, not at the moment of conception. You see, the creation of unique genetics isn’t the same thing as the creation of a unique soul or individual person.

You say that I’m unable to provide Scriptural evidence for the dichotomy between the moral value of a person and “its nature”. Well, where is your definitive Scriptural evidence in support for a single cell or small clump of a few cells being fully human? As a relevant aside, where does the Scripture talk about “brain death”? Yet, we do not consider it “murder” or even “manslaughter” to “pull the plug” or harvest the organs of someone who is definitively brain dead – even if the rest of the body is still alive. Why is that do you think? Obviously, because there is no “false dichotomy” here even though Scripture doesn’t specifically address such a situation. The same could very reasonable be true of the human embryo as well. There simply is no definitive Scripture otherwise as far as I can tell.

As far as the LXX, Masoretic, and DSS all “agreeing”, with you I presume, regarding Exodus 21:22-25, well, I just don’t see it that way – and neither do many others, to include many well known historians and Christian leaders and thinkers. There has been a widespread and nuanced theological debate about the beginning of life in the history of Christianity. The idea that personhood begins at the moment of conception is far from a universally agreed upon matter of historical Christian doctrine. When viewed in the long history of the Christian tradition, it is the minority position. In any case, Exodus 21:22-25 does read differently in the LXX and none of the translations seem to definitively support your position. Ancient Jewish scholars certainly didn’t take your perspective. Since the death of a person would be murder or manslaughter, and carry a different penalty, most rabbinic sources deduce from these verses that a fetus has a different status. The Babylonian Talmud states that: “The embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day.” So, I’m afraid that the “weight of evidence” is not clearly on your side here – at least not as best as I am able to tell. Certainly nothing in the New Testament definitively clears up this question in your favor.

The other names your mention present no more convincing arguments than you present – as far as I can tell. They may be less abrasive in their approach (certainly Nic is a very kind and tenderhearted man), but the basic arguments used are very similar to those forwarded by Andrew – just not convincing to me despite my honest efforts to carefully consider them as best as I am able.

Now, it is interesting to me that you actually argue that my position on abortion, “my own definition”, is clear enough to indict those who have committed late-term abortions of murder. If so, I fail to understand your argument that I’ve said and done “nothing” here to make my position clear to the church. The leadership of the SDA Church is well aware of my position.

---

Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Andrew’s response (Link):
____________

Please notice that by Dr. Pitman’s own argument his very own Adventist Church supports the murder of the unborn (see @25:01) yet notice in his response that he completely ignores this. The Adventist Church, to which Pitman belongs, supports the violent torture and murder of boys and girls in utero yet Pitman spends his time criticizing……Prolife Andrew. To use an analogy, if you belonged to a church that supports rape or slavery why would you then complain about another church member who opposes this? Pitman complains that Andrew is “needlessly abrasive in his tone” but, to further the analogy, at least Andrew doesn’t support rape or slavery! Apparently, an abrasive tone is worth more criticism than supporting or practicing murder. My video is vindicated.

A few additional points:

1.
Pitman does everyone a favor by openly proving the point. He says “Surprisingly, Andrew would evidently be fine with a “lesser charge” such as “involuntary manslaughter” RESPONSE: As was explicitly stated in the video @15:29 onwards it was stated “government to make illegal the manufacture sale and use of chemicals that are used to kill or do kill other human beings Dr Pitman however completely ignores this.” And how does Pitman respond? By doing exactly that, ignoring this fact. Andrew’s opinion is irrelevant to the premise of the argument which Pitman ignores: The government can protect the right to life. It can charge people with crimes for destroying an innocent life. The degree of the crime and one’s culpability is determined by the government, not by Andrew. Pitman, again, just ignores the argument. (See also the video @56:29 onwards).

2.
In his response under the video Pitman says “It’s like arguing that deliberately putting lethal poison into apples or candy or medication at the supermarket isn’t really premeditated murder because the one doing this doesn’t know exactly when someone will actually die. That argument is clearly false on its face.” This is another falsehood because Pitman is confusing (1) birth control pills that prevent implantation with (2) injecting poison into supermarket foods. The big difference between the two is knowledge. In the former most women have no idea how contraceptives work. The vast majority of women who take contraceptives do so ignorant of how they work while, in Pitman’s example, injecting poison relies upon knowledge. Most women do not know how contraceptives work and if they did know it would change their behavior. For example, in 2010 a journal for obstetrics and gynecology reported that 45% of the women said that they would not consider using a birth control method that had post-fertilization effects, and 48% of women said that if they found out they were using a method that had post-fertilization effects, they would stop using that method. Lopez-del Burgo C, Lopez-de Fez CM, Osorio A, Guzmán JL, de Irala J. Spanish women’s attitudes towards post-fertilization effects of birth control methods. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010 Jul;151(1):56-61. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.03.012. Epub 2010 Apr 13. PMID: 20392555. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20392555/

3.
Pitman says “despite Andrew’s adamant assertion that the angel Gabriel defined John the Baptist as being of full moral value from the moment of conception, Gabriel never actually said that. Gabriel was simply noting that the Word of God, the foreknowledge of God, never fails.” RESPONSE: This is both false and absurd as Gabriel is describing a physical situation wherein the nature of the unborn is defined with the exact same Greek words for born sons. Pitman assumes a false dichotomy between “moral value” of the unborn and its nature but he is unable to provide any scriptural evidence for such a dichotomy.

4.
Pitman says “Taken together, all of the translations of this passage [Exodus 21:22-23] leave the question as to the moral value of the human embryo as not clearly answered or defined.” This is false because as was explicitly stated in the video, the Masoretic, LXX, and DSS all agree. The weight of the evidence is against Pitman here. And as was noted above, Pitman is here assuming a dichotomy for which he has no evidence. Furthermore, as was noted explicitly in the video @49:13, Pitman is committing a category error by comparing unintentional vs. intentional. Despite this being addressed explicitly Pitman ignores this as well. (This is the same Pitman @54:16 who criticizes others for rejecting the weight of evidence).

5.
Arguably, one of the biggest falsehoods is when Pitman complains that Prolife Andrew is “often sarcastic and needlessly abrasive in his tone and has a habit of misrepresenting or distorting the positions of those he attacks in his YouTube videos. He’s just not even handed in how he presents and deals with the those who hold differing views. I just don’t see this as being at all Christlike or remotely helpful.” This is false because Prolife Andrew’s videos began in 2017. There have been many prolife voices within Adventism especially since the late 1980s and early 1990s. Pitman complains about Andrew’s tone but doesn’t make such accusations against those who for decades preceded Andrew because he can’t. Nic Samojluk, Doug Yowell, Teresa Beem, Dr. Martin Weber, George Gainer, George Lawson, Dr. Richard Fredericks, etc. were all well known and continue to be outspoken about the Adventist Church’s support for murder. As was mentioned in the video @34:50 Pitman also ignores the arguments of Drs. Robert George and Christopher Tollefson who are some of the most highly respected, articulate voices concerning the ethics of (embryonic) abortion. For these people Pitman can’t make accusations of “abrasive tone” so he simply continues his trend of just ignoring them. This tactic was explicitly noted @58:56 and Pitman just again vindicates the accuracy of the video.

Pitman belongs to a church that has, by his own definition, officially and publicly supported the violent murder of helpless, little children for over fifty years.

---

Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Andrew Michell (AKA: ProLife Andrew) has put out a lengthy video in response to my article on abortion.

His YouTube Channel can be found here: Link
And his Facebook page here: Link
And his page on X here: Link

While I commend Andrew’s passion to protect the lives of the unborn, I find his argument that full human life begins at the moment of conception unconvicting – at least inconclusive. I mean, if the full moral value of human life truly begins at the moment of conception, as Andrew, the Catholic Church, and many Protestants believe, then all women who use various forms of birth control that block embryologic development (after fertilization) are forms of premeditated murder (to include IUDs and various birth control medications).

• Progestin-only pills (mini-pill): These pills thicken cervical mucus, making it harder for sperm to reach the egg, and thin the lining of the uterus, making it less hospitable for implantation.
• Combined oral contraceptives (the pill), patch, vaginal ring, and injections: These methods prevent ovulation, meaning no egg is released for fertilization, and also thicken cervical mucus and thin the uterine lining.
• Contraceptive implant (Nexplanon): This small rod inserted under the skin releases progestin, reducing pregnancy by reducing ovulation, thickening cervical mucus, and thinning the uterine lining reducing implantation.
• Hormonal IUD: These IUDs release progestin, which changes the cervix and uterus to prevent sperm from reaching an egg and also makes it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant.
• Copper IUD: This IUD uses copper to prevent pregnancy by creating an environment that is unfavorable for sperm and fertilization, and also disrupts the lining of the uterus, making implantation less likely.
• Emergency contraception: Some emergency contraceptive pills, like Plan B, can prevent implantation if taken soon after unprotected sex.

So, are women who use such birth control methods truly guilty of murder? – as Andrew’s position would indicate?

While it is true that the genetics of a person are set at conception, what about the moral worth of a person? You see, science cannot address this question. So, where can one turn to find out the answer? Well, as Christians, the Bible should be our first and primary source to search for answers to moral questions. And, I applaud Andrew for trying to do this. In support of the concept that full human life begins at the moment of conception Andrew cites various Biblical passages. Here are examples of Bible passages that Andrew finds most convincing in this regard:

“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” – Psalms 51:5

“Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.” – Luke 1:36-37

“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” – Psalms 139:13

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” – Jeremiah 1:5

For Andrew, these and other similar passages are conclusive evidence of the full value of humanity starting at the moment of conception. However, many honest Christians just don’t see it this way. Andrew cannot understand how anyone could honestly disagree with him after hearing out his arguments, but I for one am honestly not convinced. And, it’s not because I don’t want to know the truth as God wishes me to know it. It’s because I don’t see anywhere in these passages that Andrew cites where God makes the idea clear that the full value of humanity begins at the moment of conception.

Add to this the passage in Exodus 21:22-25 (discussed in some detail in my article above) that seems to support the conclusion that there is a spectrum as to the moral value of human life during embryological/fetal development. Certainly the writers of the LXX (3rd to 1st century B.C.) supported this conclusion hundred years before the Masoretic Text was written (7th to 10th centuries A.D.). And, while it is true that the Samaritan Pentateuch overlapped the production of the LXX, it is not true that the language of the Samaritan Pentateuch, regarding this passage in Exodus, is definitively unambiguous – certainly not unambiguous enough to discount the LXX translation of this passage. Taken together, all of the translations of this passage leave the question as to the moral value of the human embryo as not clearly answered or defined.

But what about the passages that Andrew cites? Don’t these passages clearly demonstrate God’s Design of the embryo from the very moment of conception? And, if so, is anyone at liberty to destroy or even hinder what God is forming? Well, look at the passage from Jeremiah 1:5 where God explains that he knew of the future existence of Jeremiah before he was even conceived. This passage simply speaks to the foreknowledge of God rather than to the moral value of a human embryo or a single fertilized cell. It really doesn’t answer the question as to if a deliberate ending of an an early pregnancy, such as after a few days of fertilization, is truly considered “murder” in the site of God. Also, despite Andrew’s adamant assertion that the Angel Gabriel defined John the Baptist as being of full moral value from the moment of conception, Gabriel never actually said that. Gabriel was simply noting that the Word of God, the foreknowledge of God, never fails. But what about David claiming that he was “sinful from the moment of conception”? Well, it’s hard for me to definitively argue that this is clearly more than poetic license. After all, Jesus Himself noted that unless a person consciously knows the truth, and deliberately choses to do otherwise, there is no sin (John 9:41; John 15:22; James 4:17). How then can a single cell, or a small cluster of cells that is unable to think or act, be guilty of sin? – beyond the fact that we are conceived and born in a state of moral separation from God? Again, I fail to see such arguments as conclusive support for Andrew’s position that women who use the various forms of birth control described above are guilty of murder. Not even the founders of the SDA Church said anything about full humanity being instantly realized at the moment of conception. Yes, they were opposed to abortion (Link). However, modern birth control methods had yet to be invented. Would they really be opposed to such birth control methods? We cannot know, for sure, but I doubt it. Certainly there is no clear or definitive guidance regarding this particular question from the Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, or the Founders of the SDA Church.

And, that’s my main concern here. At what point would I be willing to accuse a woman of being a murderer? – worthy of arrest and execution for deliberately taking the life of another human being? I just do not see the clear Biblical support, or support from any other inspired authority, for making such a charge when it comes to a single cell or a tiny ball-shaped cluster of cells. Sure, once the body of the baby is formed, and certainly once the brain of the baby is functional, things become much more clear in my own mind regarding the moral value of the baby as a full human being with all of the moral God-given rights thereof. It’s just that I honestly see no solid basis for accusing a woman of murder for blocking or terminating a pregnancy very early on following conception when the pregnancy consists only of a single cell or a small cluster of cells.

What is also most interesting is that, in his review of my article, Andrew gets a bit upset with me saying that I’m the one using “inflammatory language” such as “first-degree cold-blooded murder”. Surprisingly, Andrew would evidently be fine with a “lesser charge” such as “involuntary manslaughter” (57:00) for women who use birth control that prevents embryonic implantation or who otherwise deliberately abort their babies. I’m actually really surprised by this particular argument since, if one truly views a full human life as beginning at the moment of conception, how can one argue that the deliberate termination of such a life is anything other than a deliberate pre-meditated murder? I mean, it’s almost as if Andrew doesn’t really believe what he’s saying regarding the full value of human life beginning at conception. He does discuss birth control pills or IUDs (starting around the 17-minute mark) that block the implantation of the embryo, thus aborting it, but claims that the mother’s lack of knowledge as to exactly when this happens means that she isn’t really guilty of premeditated murder. Really? It’s like arguing that deliberately putting lethal poison into apples or candy or medication at the supermarket isn’t really premeditated murder because the one doing this doesn’t know exactly when someone will actually die. That argument is clearly false on its face. And, contrary to Andrew’s claims, this has nothing at all to do with the government proving or doing anything. It has nothing to do with human governments at all. It has to do with the morality of a woman deliberately doing something that she knows will likely end pregnancy shortly after conception. If this act really is the taking of full human life, it is premeditated murder before God. There’s just no other term to use if full human life really does begin at the moment of conception.

Another relevant issue involves the use of IUDs and birth control pills to regulate hormonal issues that many women suffer. Andrew suggests that condom use would overcome such issues. However, even if condoms are always and correctly used with every act of intercourse, they have around a 3% failure rate (Link, Link) with some studies showing a failure rate of condoms of up to 16% per year (Link). In other words, even if a condom is being used by the husband every single time he has sex with his wife, at best there is still around a 3% chance of impregnating his wife within a given year. If she is also on hormonal birth control, that means that there is a ~3% chance of killing a real human being if full human life truly begins at conception. How is this a viable solution given the reality of Andrew’s position? Basically, what married couples would be left with is the Catholic concept of not having vaginal sex unless they are actually trying to get pregnant. Just because not every such effort would be successful, as Andrew points out in his video, is completely irrelevant to the required motive that would be necessary before couples could engage in sex without guilt – without the possibility of committing murder. In other worlds, no sexually active woman could ever take advantage of the benefits of hormonal birth control without the guilt of murder on her conscience – even if her husband always uses a condom (which is also less fun by the way).

Andrew also claims that I have done “nothing” to combat abortion, not even late-term abortion (i.e., an induced ending of pregnancy after the 20th week) – despite the fact that I’ve written this particular article calling late term abortion murder in no uncertain terms – and having directly prevented such an abortion when it was in my power to do so as a medical officer in the US Army (something that not even Andrew has been able to do). In fact, several church leaders have contacted me due to their favorable impression of my article on abortion, including religious liberty lawyers. Portions have even been included in religious liberty literature regarding this topic. The religious liberty lawyer for northern and central California conferences, Stephen Allred, included much of my article in the appendix of his book, “Do Justice: The Case for Biblical Social Justice” (Link). And no, he is no relation to the notorious abortion doctor Edward C. Allred, who outright murdered a great many late-term babies.

I guess Andrew feels that this doesn’t go nearly far enough. It’s just that I honestly don’t see his position as entirely accurate or conclusive or his approach to this topic as being more positive than negative. For me, Andrew’s position is without clear Biblical support regarding the claim that full humanity begins at conception and is inconsistent, as noted above, in that he argues for a lesser charge than “murder” for women who deliberately abort very early in pregnancy. He is often sarcastic and needlessly abrasive in his tone and has a habit of misrepresenting or distorting the positions of those he attacks in his YouTube videos. He’s just not even handed in how he presents and deals with the those who hold differing views. I just don’t see this as being at all Christlike or remotely helpful – at least not for me personally. It ends up harming the positive impact that one could have on an important topic, which is probably the reason that Andrew is largely ignored by the leadership of the SDA Church. Now, I understand that he believes that this issue is clearly black and white, to the point that no one his his/her right mind could honestly question his position. Perhaps, however, there are a few, like me, who just don’t have the same mental capacity to grasp what Andrew sees so clearly?

Now, I do appreciate the seriousness and righteousness of Andrew’s effort to save lives. While I may disagree with or fail to understand his arguments or his methods/approach, I do see his motives as being very good indeed! I have no problem with his sincerity or his passion to save lives. The attempt to save lives is a noble effort. However, the process, the method used, is also important. I mean, consider that Jesus, who was trying to save souls as well as lives, was much more patient and tactful in his approach – a pattern that would serve us all well to emulate as we deal with others who don’t see things in quite the same way. Yes, I know that Jesus did rarely call out exceptional cases with very harsh language. However, generally speaking, such methods should be avoided if at all possible – especially when dealing with fellow Christians who are sincere and who are actually trying to learn and to do what it right.

---

Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
God gave rational empirical “scientific” evidence to believe Noah’s message.

Many of the amazing discoveries of medical science in our day, to include the gift of vaccines and an understanding as to how the human immune system actually works, are not opposed to the Scriptures or the Spirit of Prophecy (Ellen White did not opposed the use of vaccines). They are amazing gifts from God that should not be ignored or disregarded.

In this same line, Barbara O’Neill has made numerous false and misleading claims regarding various medical therapies – particularly regarding the treatment of serious conditions like cancer. She does get some things right, but the things she gets wrong significantly overshadow the things she gets right and have significant hurt people. For example, she wraps people who have cancer (which she falsely claims is caused by fungal infections, promoted by antiobiotics and other pharmaceuticals – Link) in towels soaked in baking soda as a means to treat their cancers when such treatments do not help cancer patients in the least. (Link). Yet, she she makes a lot of money peddling these and other such worthless “therapies” to the gullible. She speaks with great confidence and assurance about things that she doesn’t remotely understand since she has no medical training. It’s not the GC or Church leadership or physicians like me making money off of “Big Pharma”. Rather, it’s the snake-oil salesmen like Peter McCullough and Barbara O’Neill, and others like them, who are making quite a lot of money selling their worthless natural remedies and conspiracy theories to their worldwide audiences. Consider that her Misty Mountain Health Retreat near Kempsey charged clients as much as $2,450 per person for a one-week stay and $8,800 for two people for two weeks. She also sells numerous books and travels around giving paid conferences and seminars. Let’s just say that she makes a very good living doing what she does (Link).

It’s not like I’m opposed to natural remedies that actually work, of course. I’m just opposed to those who promote “natural remedies” just because they’re supposedly “natural” when they don’t actually do what they’re claimed to do by those who have no understanding of medical science who make money selling their “remedies” to the gullible and the desperate. If you want to see some natural remedies promoted by someone who actually does known what he’s talking about, look up the YouTube videos put out by the well-known pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult.

---

Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
While recommending the vaccines, the vaccine statements clearly left the decision to vaccinate, or not, to the individual. They had nothing to do with government funding (yet another conspiracy theory). These statements were issued in an honest effort to save lives, not to make money. The “medical minds” at the BoT Symposium generally support anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists like Peter McCullough who are known for promoting misleading or downright false claims regarding the pandemic and the mRNA vaccines.

---