Comment on Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration by Sean Pitman.
@pauluc:
I have always admitted I could be wrong and have freely and unequivocally admitted I misinterpreted your original question in July but I do respect the process of science and would appreciate the source of the data showing the build up of mutations in humans indicated by the term “meltdown”. This is all I am asking. I do not ask for statistical models based on mutation rates and some predictions of the removal rate. Further evidence on rate of new mutations per individual is superfluous as that is not at all in contention.
The human genome/gene pool is not currently in functional “meltdown” mode. What I said is that it is heading toward a meltdown. As Sanford touched on in his lecture, our gene pool is in a current state of gradual and inevitable deterioration that will eventually result in a catastrophic functional “meltdown” once a certain threshold of detrimental mutations is realized within the gene pool. At this point, rapid extinction of the entire population will take place.
What is not contested is that the mutation rate per individual per generation is very high at around 100 mutations/individual/generation (taking into account all forms of random mutation, to include indel-type mutations). Of these far greater than 5 mutations (even greater than 30 given current knowledge of the 80-90% functionality of the genome) are functionally detrimental with most being “near neutral” in their functional effects and therefore able to go essentially unaffected by natural selection over time.
There is no argument, in literature, that these mutations build up over time and that they far outpace the rate of beneficial mutations.
The fact that mutational differences build up over time is also not contested in literature – and is in fact used as a clock to measure time since the MRCA. If you compare living individuals with the DNA obtained from ancient relatives, the mutation rate can actually be calculated in a direct manner – and it is similar to the mutation rates described above.
Of course, you may ask, “So, why aren’t we in genetic meltdown right now? If detrimental mutations are building up so fast in our gene pool, why don’t they produce a more noticeable effect on survival and reproductive capacity?”
The most obvious reason for this is that there was a great deal of redundancy originally built into our genome. A single hit to one of two or more genes that can do the same or a similar function does not immediately result in a meltdown in the functionality of the genome. In fact, by itself, such a detrimental mutation may not produce any detectable functional effect at all. Yet, it is still a detrimental mutation in that it reduces the original redundancy cushion and puts the genome closer to a true genetic meltdown of functionality.
For example, say you have two genes that have the same functionality (Genes A and B). Let’s say that Gene A gets mutated so that it doesn’t work as well as it used to. However, the effect of this mutation is completely masked by the continued functionality of Gene B. A phenotypic functional effect will not be realized from the perspective of natural selection until Gene B is also mutated. At this point, the individual will realize a detectable loss of functionality… but not before.
So, where does this put us. You can either reject the strong implications of the science currently in hand regarding the known detrimental mutation rate and the known per generation death rate that would be required to keep up with it, or you can go on blind faith that some solution to this problem may one day be found.
Of course, the notion that a solution may one day be found isn’t currently testable in a falsifiable manner. Therefore, this notion of yours simply isn’t scientific. And, neither is your suggestion that this “statistical problem” isn’t of any valid concern or that a valid solution is currently known. None of that is true. There is no currently known solution to this problem… and you know it. You’ve even admitted it! which in itself is quite amazing.
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.
