No, I think science would have discredited them if their …

Comment on Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists” by Sean Pitman.

No, I think science would have discredited them if their ideas were not supported by observation and experimentation.

Exactly, so why not at least try to do the same for my ideas, which are quite easily falsifiable?

I know, you can’t do it yourself, but you’re quite sure that if I publish my ideas in a mainstream science journal that someone out there will know how to shoot my theory all to shreds. Right? This sounds like a no-brainer! Why not just published my ideas and test them against the big boys? It must be that I’m afraid to get shot down! and that’s why I don’t publish… Don’t you think?

I guess that’s why I went on live radio to debate Jason Rosenhouse? – because I was afraid that he’d show me how silly my ideas are on public radio? – how the Darwinian mechanism is so clearly capable of creating all kinds of things regardless of their level of functional complexity? If I was so afraid of getting smashed to pieces by some of these Darwinian big shots, why take such public risks? – even in their own blogs and public forums? Why not just hide out in my own little ghetto?

Come on now. You have to know that I’d love to be able to publish my ideas on the statistical limits to the Darwinian mechanism in a science journal like Nature or Science or any mainstream science journal. I really would. The problem, as I’ve already explained, is that no one is going to publish, in any mainstream science journal, any argument for intelligent design or creative intelligence (even if the intelligence were a “natural” intelligence like some kind of intelligent alien life form) as the origin of various kinds of biological machines. It just doesn’t happen these days without someone getting fired over it. So, the next best thing is to take the argument directly to them and challenge them in their own blogs, on the radio, and on television, etc. There’s nothing else I can do. My hands are tied.

In any case, do let me know when you’re willing to reasonably define what it would take for you to recognize a phenomenon as a true “miracle” or when you’re able to present something, anything, that explains how the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS can actually work beyond very low level of functional complexity.

Until then, what are you really contributing here? What are you trying to say? – that you don’t know but someone else probably does? That you’re skeptical about everything and nothing could possibly convince you of the existence of God or any other designer of life? – not even if you were to personally witness some of the most fantastic miracles described in the Bible? Good luck with that… but you’re just fooling yourself in your efforts never to be tricked by anything. You’re missing out on a great deal that life has to offer.

Still, I wish you all the best.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
I have no fear, thanks to God and His mercy, and no one is free of bias – not even you. You’ve simply traded one religion for another. It is still possible that your current bias blinds you to what would otherwise be obvious.


Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
All the best to you… yet again 😉


Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”

What many different species and what changes define these limits?

Changes don’t define anything. A level of functional complexity is defined by the minimum number of specifically arranged amino acid residues that are required to build the system in question. It’s like a 20-character sequence in the English language system that is made up of several words. If a certain type of beneficial function requires a sequence of words totaling at least 20 specifically arranged characters, that is the minimum structural threshold requirement to achieve that type of function. Such a 20-character sequence may be realized by a single point mutation to a pre-existing sequence. Or, it may be that the closest pre-existing sequence requires 12 mutational changes. However, the odds that the minimum number of require mutational changes will be just one or two changes decrease exponentially with each linear increase in the minimum size and/or specificity requirements. This is what creates the non-beneficial gap problem for higher and higher level systems in any language or coded message.

So, whatever species happens to have a novel higher level system compared to any other species that does not have this system, it can be known that the one with the 1000 saar system did not evolve from any of the ones without it – because all such systems require “creative intelligence” to produce due to the statistical problems for all known non-intelligent mechanisms (just like the highly symmetrical granite cube that you yourself claim is a “blindingly obvious artifact” of creative intelligence – despite your stumble there when you mistakenly explained that conclusion of yours is somehow due to your brain’s teleological ability to detect design behind certain patterns wherever they may appear).

You are claiming something for which you have never providing any evidence beyond Behe’s flagella.

I’ve given you a great deal of evidence. It’s been demonstrated, quite clearly, that the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial at the level of 1000 specifically arranged amino acids and beyond is exponentially lower compared to lower-level systems. It’s been shown, not surprisingly given the first observation, that any system that requires this minimum or greater is extremely isolated in sequence space. I’ve shown, in fair detail, that the proposed steppingstones for evolutionary pathways for such systems (published by Matzke in particular) are each far far to far apart in sequence space for the Darwinian mechanism to get from any one to any other of these “steppingstones” this side of trillions upon trillions of years of time. I’ve also shown that this is true for any system, any system at all (not just flagellar systems), that require more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues to work. The problem doesn’t get easier for other systems. It remains the same.

You are continually reverting to the bacterial flagella but we are talking now about vertebrates and evolution of species where there is significant body of evidence in genomic sequence comparisons to inform a discussion, not about abiogenesis for which there is scan knowledge.

Why are you talking about abiogenesis here? Are you really this confused about flagellar evolution models and why they are so popular among evolutionists? Flagellar evolution models, like Matzke’s in particular, aren’t based on abiogenesis. They aren’t thought to spring into existence from nothing outside of a living thing. Obviously, it is thought that the flagellum evolved after the bacterium was already in existence. The problem, of course, is that given the pre-existence of homologies to all the required subparts to the bacterial flagellum, the evolution the flagellum by RM/NS would still be absolutely impossible. How is that? Because, the pre-existing homologous proteins in the bacterium are not homologous enough to produce the flagellar motility system. Very specific modifications are required. And, these required modification are too numerous, between every single proposed steppingstone, for evolution to actual happen between any one of these steppingstones this side of trillions upon trillions of years of time.

Sequence comparisons are based on similarities, not the required differences needed to produce qualitatively novel systems. This is where Matzke gets all confused – just like you. He assumes that homology demonstrations for each protein within the bacterial flagellum (and other such machines) make the conclusion for evolution of the entire machine obvious. This is a mistaken assumption. A demonstration of homologies for the subparts of a system says absolutely nothing about the minimum number of required modifications needed before these subsystems will work together properly to form the larger more complex system.

That’s the entire problem with these homology arguments – to include your homology arguments for animal relationships. Similarities say nothing about the minimum number of genetic changes that would be required to produce the qualitatively unique functional differences between different kinds of creatures. And, the minimum number of required differences increases with each increase in the minimum structural threshold requirement (i.e., with each increase in functional complexity).

What are these systems of high level complexity that seperate cats from dogs. I am prepared to take the “risky” approach and am going out on a limb in saying there are unlikely to be any such systems. There are certainly none in the literature on mammalian sequence comparison.

First off, why are you asking for examples of higher level differences between cats and dogs while completely ignoring the numerous examples of such between different kinds of bacteria? If you won’t accept the examples of the numerous complex biomachines that do in fact exist within different kinds of bacteria and which have been studied in great detail, if you call such machines magically “emergent” and label me a “reductionist” for thinking that they are actual machines, how is a discussion of cats vs. dogs going to solve or change anything for you?

Further as a theistic evolutionist cant I legitimately claim that God tinkers when there is any such problem and the schemata of neo-darwinian evolution remains intact. After all you accept Darwinian mechanism for origin of species within “kinds” but draw the line (arbitrarily I would contend) and do not accept it for the orgin of related “kinds”.

The problem is that you claim to have no empirical evidence for your theistic position. You can claim that God tinkers all you want, but you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Where is the evidence that such tinkering is required? Darwinists claim that it is not required, and they’re right, but only when it comes to very low levels of functional complexity. When it comes to higher levels, beyond 1000 saars, deliberate tinkering most certainly was required because no other known mechanism could have done the job.

I have suggested the experiment to test your model. Get out all the sequences comparisons between for example cats dogs and bears and tell me with specificity what are the highly complex systems of greater than 1000 FSAAR that separate them?

I’ve already done this for bacterial biomachines. If you won’t accept the demonstration on the bacterial level, a level which is far easier to study and for which far more is known, what’s going to make things any different if you are shown higher level qualitative differences between dogs and cats? Nothing. You’re just trying to dodge the obvious conclusion is all. If you are shown that such differences do in fact exist between dogs and cats, you’re going to simply ask for the differences between something else – like cows vs. whales, etc. It’s never ending and most disingenuous.

Once you have the putative 1000 Fsaars that define this limit you can map its occurence across species.

No you can’t. The limit of 1000 saars applies to any kind of qualitatively novel system that has this minimum structural threshold requirement. It is not a set sequence. There are many different kinds of systems all with very different sequences that all require more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues (as is the case for any language/information system). Do you really not understand this very basic concept?

Then you might have some evidence to present that is an insurmountable barrier calling for intelligent design. Statistical models of islands drawn from your head is all very nice but just so much “so what” and removed from the reality of origin of species.

You wouldn’t be saying “so what” if you had any idea about what is actually happening in protein sequence space at various levels of functional complexity. You just have no idea…


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.