Comment on EducateTruth.com promoted on 3ABN by Sean Pitman.
Carl,
I see no point in arguing further with Sean, as he clearly believes he can anwser anything. From what I gather, he believes
1. A new venom protein is easy to make. (just 5 aa changes?)
Novel single-protein enzymes have been demonstrated to be fairly easy to evolve since they are often no more than a handful of mutational differences away from something else that already exists within the genome. Please consider well-known cases of lactase, nylonase, and citrase evolution in real time – as well as hundreds of other similar cases. The reason why evolution via RM/NS is so successful at these low levels of functional complexity is because of the relatively high ratio of potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences in sequence space at or below the threshold of systems that require no more than a few hundred specifically arranged amino acid residues. This high ratio produces a very small gap distance between what already exists within the genome and the next closest potentially beneficial enzyme given the proper environment.
Tell me, if you have no idea as to what is or isn’t the likely minimum gap distance, upon what basis do you consider your arguments in favor of the creative potential of RM/NS scientific?
2. God created pitvipers and boas and pythons with facial pits because there is no way these structures could have evolved except in trillions upon trillions of years. (So God equipped these snakes but not any others to localize warm-blooded prey before they ever needed to. Vampire bats also have infra-red vision to locate warmth: blood sources close to the skin.. Apparently God had that in mind too.)
What I said is that such highly complex structures must have been designed by someone very intelligent and creative – not necessarily God. But, the need for an original intelligent designer is obvious due to the fact that no mindless natural process is remotely likely to be able to produce such features this side of trillions of years of time.
If you do know of any rational statistical basis for your assumptions and just-so stories to the contrary, why not present your real scientific arguments? – instead of basing everything you believe on your incredulity against the idea that no intelligent designer would have done it that way? While I might sympathize with your motives, your feelings about what should and should not be simply aren’t scientific…
3. Rattlesnakes readily produce new species so there is no problem with 30+ species evolving in the New World in less than the 4,000 years since the flood. (Although he speaks of the biological species concept, he seems completely unaware of the phylogenetic species concept which contrary to his statement is based on gene sequences, either or both mitochonidrial or nuclear. He further seems unaware that southern California’s six species hybridize extremely rarely. Often multiple species are both sympatric and syntopic but readily recognize and mate only with their own kind. Methinks he knows nothing about the gene pool differences of snake species much less any species. Hybridization is not a particularly relevent criterion for even the biological species concept.)
It isn’t the commonality of hybridization that is important when it comes to evaluating functional gene pool similarities and differences, but the potential for hybridization. Successful hybridization potential is based on their being a great deal of functional genetic similarity between creatures. Without this similarity, successful hybridization would be impossible because the gametes produced would not be viable.
Also, I am very well aware of the phylogenetic concept of “species” differences as well, but these sequence analysis are also not based on functional differences, but simply on sequence differences without regard for their functionality at any particular level of functional complexity. Because of this, such phylogenetic comparisons say little of anything about the functional similarities of the respective gene pools and therefore say little regarding the potential for successful hybridization or the potential for rapid divergence due to front-loaded information within the original ancestral gene pool of options.
4. Evolving a venomous snake is easy since less than a few hundred fsaars are needed. (Glad he thinks so,, because he needs to accomplish in <4,000 years what virtually all other biologists require millions of years. I don't think he has a clue the number of traits involved much less fsars.)
Again, venom isn’t nearly as complex as you imagine it to be. The other structures you mention are far more complex since they have much much greater minimum structural threshold requirements.
5. He believes that higher-order changes like kingdom, phylum, class and order cannot happen because presumably they require to many fsaars. (I wonder how many fsaars would distinguish the family of viperids from elapids and atractaspids? How would he even know? Let’s not tell him that some classes of worms are entirely parasitic, cuz he’d then have to believe God made them to be parasites.)
You do realize that it is less genetically complex to become a parasite vs. the complexity needed to live independently? It has been demonstrated, in real time, that certain parasitic features can evolve very rapidly due to this genetic deterioration effect given the proper environment. It is just less work to be a parasite and let others do the work of gathering food for you.
The evolution of the famous TTSS system (erroneously used by Kenneth Miller as an illustration of how the flagellar system probably evolved) is a great example of this sort of thing since it has been demonstrated that the simpler TTSS system evolved from the pre-formed flagellar motility system – not the other way around.
Again, a loss of information is much easier for RM/NS to achieve vs. a novel gain of higher level functional information.
6. He communicates to me in an exceedingly condesending tone and knows with certainty what I dont know.
All I know with certainty is that you haven’t presented any reasonable arguments as yet explaining how your proposed mechanism of RM/NS can come up with novel systems of function that require at least 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues this side of a practical eternity of time. Do you have any scientific basis for this notion of yours? Any known demonstrations or at least some statistical argument? Where is your science beyond your bold just-so story telling assertions?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
EducateTruth.com promoted on 3ABN
@Geanna Dane:
Um, I think the evolutionists are the ones who informed us about ice ages.
You’re mistaken. Evolutionists were not the first ones to propose ice age theories – theories which were around well before Darwin published Origins in 1859.
For example, Andrew Ure (1778-1857) was one of the top chemists of his day with an international reputation as a meticulous scientist, a prolific writer and an effective teacher. But he was also one of those brilliantly versatile men of science in the early 19th century. In 1829 he published A New System of Geology in which he proposed some new theoretical ideas for the reconstruction of earth history, one of which was one of the earliest conceptions of an ice age, which he speculated would have resulted from the Flood. One of the author’s he quoted was Jens Esmark (1763-1839)
Jens Esmark also argued a sequence of worldwide ice ages well before Darwin. In a paper published in 1824, Esmark proposed changes in climate as the cause of those glaciations. He attempted to show that they originated from changes in the Earth’s orbit. Adding to Esmark’s work, Bernhardi, in a 1932 paper, speculated about former polar ice caps reaching as far as the temperate zones around the globe.
http://creation.com/british-scriptural-geologists-in-the-first-half-of-the-nineteenth-century-part-4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_Esmark
They have given us more information about ice ages than creationists have and nothing, I repeat nothing, is going to change that. They have no problem with ice ages whatsoever.
They have no problem with ice ages, true. But, they do have a definite problem with the idea of very rapid, even catastrophically sudden, formation and regression. It wasn’t until just a few years ago that scientists began to realize that glacial melts can happen many times more rapidly than they tought possible just 10 years ago – to include the melting of Greenland’s ice-cap as well as the Antarctic ice. No one thought that such rapid melting could ever happen as rapidly as it is taking place today.
www.DetectingDesign.com/AncientIce.html
What is it with Adventists suddenly talking a lot about Las Vegas, card games, houses of cards, gambling and betting? I’m bewildered.
It is often a very good way to get important statistical concepts across to those people who don’t usually deal with numbers and the scientific usefulness of statistical odds analysis… like you ; )
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
EducateTruth.com promoted on 3ABN
@Geanna Dane:
So…ice ages are scientifically impossible and therefore could only result from a global supernatural flood. The arctic seas became hot which caused very high precipitation. Then an extreme cold spell came along that made an iceberg out of high elevations and high altitudes, decreased the ocean sea level and dried out the Mediterranean basin. I assume these explanations fit within the 1000 gsaar threshold (geologically supportable argumentative age reasoning) of explanatory complexity
Ice ages are not scientifically impossible. They are certainly consistent with a global catastrophe that involved massive volcanic activity. And, massive meteor impacts may indeed have provided the sudden release of the huge quantities of energy needed to produce the initial catastrophe on a global scale. Also, it is well-known that ice ages would indeed reduce ocean levels quite dramatically – easily below the level needed to maintain water in the Mediterranean basin (which is known to have been dry during the last major ice age).
I fail to see what it is about this scenario that you find so “complex” and unbelievable given the starting premise of a sudden massive release of energy on this planet?… What would you expect to happen? Orderly weather as usual? The whole surface of the planet was broken up by the massive impact that set the whole catastrophe in motion… the aftershocks of which we are still feeling to this day.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
EducateTruth.com promoted on 3ABN
@Geanna Dane:
So did the mammoths dies of cold or starvation? Maybe it wasn’t the intolerable cold, perhaps it was too much snowfall that spoiled access to the vegetation they depended on. Unless most or all of the fossils had identifiable food in their mouths or stomachs (I have heard that some did), how could one possibly know?
It really doesn’t matter if they died directly because of the cold or indirectly because of starvation (though I favor the former idea). Either way, the evidence suggests that they, along with millions of other types of animals, died out very suddenly in line with a sudden global cold snap. That’s the key point here. The cold snap would result in a rapid decrease in the ocean’s water level, resulting in an opportunity to dry out the Mediterranean basin…
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.
