Thanks for the lesson on TcR biology. You might indeed …

Comment on The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation by Sean Pitman.

Thanks for the lesson on TcR biology. You might indeed be interested in our recent paper in Nature Communications on TcR and clonotypic diversity. That you would suggest a scientist has little knowledge of immunology without looking to see that most of his 100 peer reviewed publications concern this, some would construe evidence of excessive hubris.

I know of your background in biology. However, you did think to cite the immune system as an example of “high-level evolution” for some very strange reason given your background. It just isn’t high level evolution at all – not remotely. It functions within very low-level sequence space (and uses template matching very similar to Dawkins’ “Weasel algorithm” to boot). By what measure do you consider evolution within ~20aa sequence space an example of “highly level” evolution of novel functional systems? – remotely comparable to systems that require several thousand specifically arranged residues to achieve their functions?

I have changed my mind on the origins just as I have in many areas of science and likely will do so again. I am sorry but at this time I do not however feel compelled to do so because of your manifest subservience to the maths.

That’s obvious since you don’t seem to think much of mathematical analysis or predictive value (i.e., science). I have yet to see you present any statistical support for your own position – for your own claims that random mutations and natural selection can produce anything beyond very low levels of functional complexity this side of a practical eternity of time. You simply assert this claim – without evidence of any kind. You have no examples and you have no mathematically relevant model. How is this not just so story telling on your part?

My Christian faith and my approach to the sacred text is informed by science but as I have suggested before it is not dependent on any particular scientific understanding. As I have said many times before I am a Christian because of non-scientific evidences and a faith that God has revealed Himself in the incarnation in Jesus. I am a follower of Jesus Christ. A Christian.

That’s fine, but you’re not a Seventh-day Adventist Christian and you don’t believe much of anything when it comes to the fundamentals of Christianity at large. Your “Christianity” is not only independent of any particular scientific understanding, it also seems to be independent of anything the Bible has to say about God or Jesus or anything else. Your faith seems to me to be more of a Christian ethic, not a belief or faith in very many, if any, of the claims of the Bible regarding various historical and/or future realities. You also don’t hold very many of the doctrinal positions of the Bible, to include many of those spoken by Jesus Himself, to be “true”.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
This is the same language used by the Bible. Whatever “wiggle room” the Bible leaves open is still open when one uses this language. The Bible is not clear that the “creation of the heavens and the earth” means that the material of the Earth itself was created during creation week. Quite the opposite is true. The Bible seems to suggest that something was here prior to creation week. Or, at the very least, leaves this question open.


The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
Oh please. You do realize that there are difference kinds of “heavens” in Hebrew understanding? This is not a statement arguing that God made the entire universe…


The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
The question is if you or anyone else has even tried to explain how the evolutionary mechanism (RM/NS) can tenably work beyond very very low levels of functional complexity. The answer to that question is no. This means that this mechanism is not backed up by what anyone would call real science. It’s just-so story telling. That’s it. There is nothing in scientific literature detailing the statistical odds of RM/NS working at various levels of functional complexity. And, there is no demonstration beyond systems that require a few hundred averagely specified residues.

What is interesting is that no one who controls the mainstream journals will publish any observations as to why a real scientific basis for the Darwinian mechanism is lacking. The basic information is there. Contrary to Pauluc’s claims, a precise definition of “levels of functional complexity” has been published, along with what happens to the ratios of potential beneficial vs. non-benficial sequences. What no one is allowing to be published is the implications of this information.

Regardless, the implications should be clear to you. The math is overwhelmingly clear. If the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial goes from 1 in 100 to 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 the fact that the average time to success will decrease quite dramatically doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out. Evolutionists, who have actually seriously considered this problem must recognize the implications here, but seem to be trying to brush it all under the rug because no one knows of any other viable mechanism (again, despite Pauluc’s unsupported claims to the contrary – to include his “life enzymes”).

In any case, it is possible for you to move beyond blind faith in the unsupported claims of your “experts” and consider the information that is available to all for yourself. Start at least trying to do a little math on your own and you will no doubt recognize the problem for yourself regardless of what your experts continue to claim – without any basis in empirical evidence or science.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


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.