Comment on Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration by Sean Pitman.
@Ron:
By far, most of the mutations are detrimental, but if there is ever, a beneficial one, it tends to propagate throughout the population pretty fast. Since the time of Christ, there have been 38 mutations that help the Tibetan’s live at high altitudes. This allowed them to escape persecution from the Han Chinese. If you took a Tibetan back down to low altitude, it is quite probable that most of those mutations would be detrimental.
It seems that a modification of just one gene is primarily responsible for the enhanced ability of Tibetans to tolerate high altitudes (EPAS1). This EPAS1 gene is thought to affect red blood cell production. It happens to be present in both the Han (low altitude) as well as the Tibetan (high altitude) populations. It is just that this gene is present in only 9% of the Han population, but is found in 87% of the Tibetan population.
“It is the fastest change in the frequency of a mutation described in humans,” said Professor Nielsen (Link).
So, the evolution responsible for this particular effect is two fold. First, it involved a mutation that enhanced a pre-existing function of red blood cell production. It did not produce a novel type of function that did not already exist. It just increased the amount of what already existed. Such mutations are quite common and are very rapidly evolved via random mutations to pre-existing systems.
Once realized, this beneficial mutation will indeed spread fairly rapidly throughout the population… as is clearly evident in many such examples.
None of this, however, discounts or significantly mitigates the reality that detrimental mutations are still building up in all human populations far far faster than they can be removed by natural selection – even in Tibetans. The reason for this is that detrimental mutations greatly outpace the rate of such beneficial mutations (to include reversion mutations). We are all, therefore, rapidly heading downhill toward the eventual and inevitable extinction of the entire human race.
While this may seem like a hopeless situation, the implications of our situation, as noted by Sanford, are quite hopeful in that they suggest a supernatural (or at least superhuman) origin for humans and a supernatural (or superhuman) solution to our current genetic decline…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@Ken:
Aside from the fact that science cannot definitively prove any theory, yes, a form of historical science can be used to test and evaluate Biblical prophecies. You have to know a lot about history though. You can’t simply read Daniel and Revelation and hope to understand what you’re reading unless you have detailed knowledge of the historical events being discussed.
I recommend you start with the “70 weeks” prophecy starting with Daniel 9:24. This prophecy precisely predicts the First Coming of Jesus as well as his death to the day.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@-Shining:
I’ve been doing this a long time (almost 20 years now) and I can tell you that, as far as I know, no one has misunderstood my position as a young life creationist who also recognizes limited forms of Darwinian evolution…
This isn’t like accepting a little bit of Nazism. The Darwinian mechanism is given its name because Darwin really was the first to popularize it in published literature. Therefore, he deserves to have his name attached to the mechanism of RM/NS.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@-Shining:
I’ve only been expaining why I say things the way I say them. I believe it is best to at least try to start off a discussion on as much common ground as is possible with those on the opposing side in a discussion… to openly admit those points, from the opposing side, that are actually valid.
As I see it, there is simply no advantage in arguing that Darwinian evolution is completely wrong – that I believe in no form of Darwinism. It’s just not true for one thing and admitting those things that the Darwinian mechanism can produce only adds to the credibility of the creationist position – in my opinion.
Sean Pitman
www.DeteectingDesign.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.
