Eugene Shubert: Untaught Laodiceans are so conceited. Sadly, even children …

Comment on Perspectives from alleged LSU students by Sean Pitman, M.D..

Eugene Shubert: Untaught Laodiceans are so conceited. Sadly, even children know that you have been lied to. Where did you receive your degree in science? I can easily create an event less probable than 1/10^20. And average high school students of algebra understand why. It only takes flipping a coin 67 times and noting the results.

You clearly don’t understand the concept of predictability. The odds that some pattern will be produced by flipping a coin 67 times is 100%. The odds that you will be able to predict the resulting pattern ahead of time, for fair flips of an unbiased coin, is 1 in 2^67 or 1e-20. Big difference.

Remember, science is based on predictability… on the odds that your predictions will come true.

Sean Pitman

Sean Pitman, M.D. Also Commented

Perspectives from alleged LSU students

Eugene Shubert: Sean Pitman: The odds that you will be able to predict the resulting pattern ahead of time, for fair flips of an unbiased coin, is 1 in 2^67 or 1e-20.

Eugene Shubert:
And there is no mathematical theorem which states that such a remarkable prediction couldn’t be fulfilled. Furthermore, if a chimpanzee were to pound on a keyboard long enough, he could type out—on his very first try—the complete works of Shakespeare without a single spelling error.

Chimpanzees and popular creationists simply don’t understand the mathematical theory of probability.

Ever hear of the “null hypothesis” Eugene? Upon what basis do scientists, real scientists that is, reject or accept the null hypothesis as being “most likely true”?

What they do is accept or reject hypotheses, all of which are technically “possible”, based on statistical analysis and what level of predictive value is needed, in their own minds anyway, to accept or reject the hypothesis at hand as being “most probable” out of all the available options.

I really can’t believe you brought up the whole “Monkey-typewriter” argument! Sure, while this scenario is technically possible, it is extremely unlikely – so unlikely that if it were to ever happen most real scientists would reject the idea that a real monkey did the job in favor of the idea that there was some higher-level intelligent cheating going on.

Why is that? After all, it is possible that all the works of Shakespeare could be produced by a single monkey on the very first try – – right? There is actually a finite possibility of success for this scenario. The problem in science is that just about anything is possible, but not just anything is likely. Science is about determining what is most likely among many solutions which are all possible, but which are not all equally probable.

Sean Pitman

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman, M.D.

Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
We are talking about something a bit more subtle here than the question as to what is merely “alive” and what is not “alive” – in the most basic sense of the term (as in the skin cell on my earlobe is “alive” and “human”). What we are talking about here are the qualitative differences between a single cell or a small cluster of unformed cells and a human being that can think and feel and appreciate sensory input. Now, someone might have their own personal ideas as to when, exactly, the human soul is achieved during embryogenesis, but the fact remains that the Bible is not clear on this particular question – and even includes passages suggesting that there is a spectrum of moral value to the human embryo/fetus. Consider the passage in Exodus 21:22-25, for example, which seems to many to suggest such a spectrum of value where the unformed fetus is not given the same value as a fully formed baby or the life of the mother (especially if read from the ancient LXX Greek translation which appears to be the most accurate translation of the original Hebrew text).

Because of this, there actually appears to me to be a great deal of disagreement among honest and sincere Bible-believing Christian medical professionals, embryologists, and theologians (modern and ancient) over when, exactly, during embryogenesis, does humanity become fully realized. Given the information currently in hand, I certainly could not, in good conscience, accuse a woman of “murder” for using various forms of birth control that end pregnancy within the first few days after conception (such as intrauterine devises or birth control pills).

Would you actually be willing to take action on this as you would for any other cold-blooded murderer? Would you be willing to accuse such a woman of wanton murder with all the guilt that is involved with such an accusation? or put her in prison for life for such an intentional act? Could you really do this? I certainly could not for the use of such standard forms of birth control during the earliest days following conception. Yet, that is what the current language of the church’s guidelines on abortion suggest… that these women who take such forms of birth control are in fact guilty of a heinous act of cold-blooded murder.

Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
”These latest guidelines appear to me to put the SDA Church in the same position as the Catholic Church on this topic –with human life beginning at the moment of conception. That doesn’t seem like a reasonable position ” – Sean Pitman (From an Adentist Review Article:

Yes, it is also in harmony with when every SDA pioneer, including the church’s founder, put the beginning of human life. It is also the same point that virtually every secular, evolutionary embryologist puts the beginning of human life. In fact, it’s the unanimous point of agreement among every biology textbook. If that doesn’t sound like a reasonable position based on empirical evidence then factual reasoning has escaped those who try to equate preventing the conception of a human being with intentional kllling of one that is already biologically and detectably in existence.

Brilliant and Beautiful, but Wrong
Thank you Wes. Really appreciate your note and being able to see you again!

Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
As far as the current article is concerned, I know of no “outdated” information. The information is current as far as I’m aware. The detrimental mutation rate is far too high for complex organisms to avoid an inevitable downhill devolutionary path. There is simply no way to rationally avoid this conclusion as far as I’m aware.

So, perhaps your friend could be more specific regarding his particular objections to the information presented?

Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
Look again. I did reference the 2018 paper of Basener and Sanford (which was the motivation for me writing this particular article). Of course, as you’ve mentioned, Sanford has also written an interesting book on this topic entitled, “Genetic Entropy” – which I’ve previously referenced before in this blog (along with a YouTube video of a lecture he gave on the topic at Loma Linda University: (Link). For those who haven’t read it or seen Sanford’s lecture on this topic, it’s certainly worth your time…