I’ll have a go at the ‘detrimental mutations’ argument. It …

Comment on Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment? by Bravus.

I’ll have a go at the ‘detrimental mutations’ argument. It is basically an argument that works well if someone’s presupposition is recent creationism: that humans were created perfect about 6000 years ago and have been subject to the effects of sin since, and that therefore the human genome is degenerating. It takes the notion that more mutations are harmful than beneficial (the vast majority of mutations have no practical effect either way) and suggests that this imbalance means that defects accumulate over time.

It’s well worth reading Sean Pitman’s page on the issues around mutations – I don’t agree with the guy, but he’s definitely done his reading and thought things through. It’s here: http://www.detectingdesign.com/dnamutationrates.html

The misunderstanding is very simple: this model ignores natural selection. It looks only at half the equation – mutations – without recognising that within a population the individuals with fewer detrimental mutations and/or more beneficial ones will increase their probability of survival and breeding, so that detrimental mutations will tend to be bred out of a population and beneficial ones will spread through it.

Bravus Also Commented

Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment?
Entropy is conserved (a) for the entire universe and (b) for a closed system. It is *not* conserved for an open system – and a living thing is a very open system indeed.


Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment?
All that is accurate: there is energy loss at every step. Where you’re getting stuck is simply on the notion that energy is not in short supply – the sun provides plenty for the desirable work *and* the losses. As Asimov’s quote said, once I quoted the rest of it – the decrease in entropy of living things was far, far smaller than the increase in entropy of the sun… so there is no problem of *net* entropy decrease.


Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment?
So, we’re all clear now, right? Bob really doesn’t understand entropy.


Recent Comments by Bravus

Ted Wilson: “We will not flinch. We will not be deterred.”
Interesting that he says he is very proud of the GRI when they clearly said during the discussion that there is ‘no model’ of scientifically credible recent creationism that can be taught in our universities.


“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
My guess on the two-thirds thing is that what is actually being said is ‘more than two-thirds’. 99% is more than two-thirds… that specific number was chosen, not as the actual vote-count, but as a break-point: some motions need a simple majority, some need a two-thirds majority… and the vote well and truly delivered that, and more.

Just my interpretation.


GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Excellent, excellent post above. J. Knight.


“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
(that should be ‘place in the church’)


“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
Bobbie Vedvick, the quote you asked about was a parody, penned by me.

Faith (and many others in this thread), the comments about those who will be driven out of SDAism by this push tend to assume that they are in disagreement with what has always been SDA belief. This is not the case: the very strong literalist recent creationist position is a relatively recent view. Note that what has happened at this GC is a vote for a *change* to Fundamental Belief 6. SDA beliefs are being *changed*, and those who won’t go along for the ride told they have no ce in the church.