Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
Sean

Thanks for responding. Some people I have met smile wryly when I say I have had a dialog with Sean Pitman about science. It is indeed hard to separate science from religion here.

I do apologize if you think my comments have been perjorative that was never their intent.

I apologize if I have offended by my syntheses that you think have been “just so stories”

I apologize if the deprecation of my expertise in many fields and deference to those with demonstrated expertise is seen as “blind appeals to authority?”

I apologize for not sufficiently privileging limited mathematical models over concrete empirical observations

I apologize for not seeing the Rohdes model as supporting YEC and for agreeing with the critical analysis of this modelling by Hein
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/full/431518a.html#f1

I apologize for not accepting by faith “..the original gene pools were, by necessity, of higher quality than they are today. They had greater higher quality redundancy within their gene pools.” and asking for evidence for a theoretical genetic basis for this or for evidence in the fossil record and ancient DNA sequence.

I apologize if I have confused people by introducing population size as a critical issue in population genetics or of thinking that recessive genetic diseases, the most common form of monogenic disease dependents on restricted population size and inbreeding for their manifestations. I clearly erroneously thought it was relevant.

I apologize for my ignorance and that I have not “really understood the statistics of the problem, you’d recognize the futility of your thinking here. You evidently just haven’t sat down and done the math…”

I do not mind at all to be thought a foolish buffoon who is merely a “good foil around to highlight the scientific weaknesses of the neo-Darwinian position” as long as even one person sees the lack of imagination in the only 2 options presented here of fundamentalist Christianity or fundamentalist atheism. I maintain there is a life in Christ that transcends the natural but does not require rejection of reality.

Grace to you. I do not wish you success in your attempt to extirpate from the body of Christ those honest souls that do not agree with you and your followers but I do pray that you find peace.

Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@Sean Pitman:

At risk of prolonging this dialog unnecessarily since you and I start from much different assumptions and experience in science I will summarize my conclusions beyond what I have said to shining.

In a remarkable display of projection you say;

“In short, we are were we started. The very best empirical evidence we currently have in hand strongly supports Sandford’s position. Your notions simply aren’t backed up by science. At best they are working hypotheses, hunches, or wishful thinking that simply aren’t testable in a potentially falsifiable manner.

Your position on this topic simply isn’t scientific.”

I agree we are where we started. You start with religious premise of degeneration and then interpret science from that point of view. In disagreeing with the consensus view you prolaim yourself an expert in all fields of the physical and biological science including population genetics, cladistics, geology, molecular biology, cosmology and disagree with mainstream science in all these fields.
I am sorry but I do not think I am that smart or have sufficient time to study the primary literature in all these fields and can only point to my publications in the peer reviewed literature as my credentials. I have thought long and hard about issues in restricted areas of immunology and genetics and do think I know something about what is scientific. And I conclude that you like Sanford have answer theoretical questions with theoretical answers. As we have clearly established there is accumulation of near neutral and detrimental mutations from generation to generation but you have not shown in real life that this is a problem. You have not yet persuaded me by published data on real outcomes that there is a demonstrable problem except in situations of limited population size and artificial removal of selection pressures as Lynch has indicated. I would think that an outbred population of 7 billion is probably sufficient to allay fears of genetic bottlenecks in homosapiens.

You have glibly responded to the real problems of cheetah and florida panther genetics and populations size without addressing the real problem you must confront to sustain a populations of 2 and a literal flood model. There is no infusion of genes from an external gene pool there.

As I have repeatedly said you can criticize me for accepting conventional models of origins based on what I think is the best available data but to be scientific you must publish experiments testing your alternative model to have scientific credibility. Perhaps you can start with a real documented problem and tell us how a universal population bottleneck in every species 4000 yrs ago pans out genetically.

Again I would repeat what I have said before; I waste way too much time here in apparently futile responses because I do have pastoral concern for people who might come to this site and be persuaded that you can only be a fundamentalist Christian or a fundamentalist Atheist. You can be an honest productive scientist and still accept the Grace that is manifest in the life and death of God incarnate in Jesus Christ.

Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@-Shining:

Sorry seems to have posted before I finished editing this. His other relevant paper that is not indexed I would suggest you read is from a computer science conference.

Sanford, J.C., Baumgardner, J., Gibson, P., Brewer, W., ReMine, W. (2007). Using computer simulation to understand mutation accumulation dynamics and genetic load. In Shi et al. (Eds.), ICCS 2007, Part II, LNCS 4488 (pp.386-392), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Which begins with “Long-standing theoretical concerns about mutation accumulation within the human population can now be addressed with numerical simulation.” and proceeds to discuss Mendels accountant.

This is my real concern. Both Sean and Sanford start from a religious premise of degeneration and construct a theoretical model to answer a theoretical question without at all dealing with the real biology. No-one is contesting that mutation occur that most of these are not beneficial or that there are around 100 per generation. What is contested is that death is the only mechanisms for removal and that they are accumulating at a lethal rate. Theoretically this has been established beyond any doubt in Seans mind but as a biologist I demand a little more than Seans reassurances and mathematics based on God said it I believe it. That may be religion but it is not and never has been the basis of science.

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Bob Helm: With that said, I find your views to be spiritually dangerous and often scientifically weak. I detect a lot of smoke in your posts, but very little light. I hope you will continue to ponder these issues and try to have an open mind.

You are most welcome to your opinion and I know you would like nothing better than that anyone who takes Christianity and the Bible seriously but not literally to just go away. It is much better not to know of any possible problems with one current views. It very hard to get to the science when we cannot even agree on what is science. What passes as science on this site is so completely dismissive of its methodological basis and history and is entrained in a specific supernatural world view that allows arbitrary acceptance of any observation as miraculous. I think Roger’s paper may well be relevant to Adventist that believe that Christianity has and must respond to a careful study of physical reality by reconsidering its interpretations of the word of the Lord, but as Sean has indicated you are exception to that characterization. I still do not really understand why you should be interested at all in any science. It seems a bit messy to worry about facts. It really seems an unnecessary bother to argue whether the precambrian/cambrian boundary or the upper cenzoic (is that really what you meant?) as the evidence of a divine intervention.

Dont worry I do have an open mind which is why I still peruse this site to see how more knowledgable fundamentalist Adventists think. I wont worry you further.

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: So, you do see the need for a police force and a military to maintain civil society, but somehow Christians should not provide what is an otherwise necessary part of that civil society? I’m with Abraham Lincoln on this one when he noted the inconsistency of such a position – like Orthodox Jews paying others to turn their lights on for them on Sabbath

On that logic you should not have any issue with working on Sabbath in any profession serving 24/7. Be that computer support, utilities firefighters. Those giving up those jobs because of inability to have sabbath observance were all deluded. They as Christians should be prepared to “provide what is otherwise a necessary part of civil society”

You cant have it both ways. You cant because of a moral postion claim that Adventists should have exception from working on Sabbath and at the same time deny me the right to consider immoral some occupations that may be very utilitarian in a world full of selfishness and the human acts of evil that comes from that.

Lets for a moment step back from lala land. Where are we and where did we come from on this thread?

1] You posted a rehash of all your usual arguments in response to an article about the more mainstream Adventist positions that may impact the way Adventism reacts to conventional science. All very straight forward.
2] The contention was that Adventism has accepted process for the orgin and evolution of the inanimate world. The birth and death of galaxys and stars and planets in black holes supernova and impacts of spiralling planets. This is where it gets really strange.
3] You contend that Adventism has always accepted the conclusions of that process but then expand on your view of the process which involves a little bit of order and natural law but large amounts of magic. God waited a few billions years until the interstellar material generated by the big band condensed into planets onto which God created life mature and complete. This included Heaven the place of his throne-room which he populated with physical being angels which it is implied have both mass and composition and metabolism.
4] When it was suggested that the same processes and natural law resulted in life on this planet this was claimed inconceivable and would never be done by any process involving life and death. Instead the life we see now is in reality designed to live for ever and has be chemically changed because it is deprived of a particular form of nutrient from a tree that existed on the Earth some 6000 years ago.
5] The inconguity of practicing medicine by the principles of process of natural law and the technology resulting from both the processes of the innanimate and the animate world rather than accepting the much more important process of divine intervention seems to be completely obsure.
6] When someone says that the process of life and death that gave us the physical substance of our universe is also the basis of the creation of life here he must be animal hating sadistic psychopath who cannot belieive in a God of love and grace and is lying when he says that non-violence characterizes the children of the heavenly father for one must always recognize that peace and freedom are only obtained over the bodies of 1/3 of the angels of heaven and the eternal physical and violent struggle against those who would practice violence.

I really cannot understand you Sean. Your ways are way beyond me. I am just sorry that Bob seems to be drawn into your twighlight zone.

Grace

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman: sorry but your curious amalgam of magic and biology is not really comprehensible to me as a biologist or as a Christian . it. is neither logical or biologically feasible

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: However, according to the Bible and Ellen White, before the Fall God specifically directed nature so that all sentient life was protected in a manner that there was no suffering or death. By eating from the “Tree of Life” God provided constant renewal and regeneration that worked against what would otherwise be inevitable entropic changes, decay, and death. It was by deliberately stepping away from the true Source of eternal life that mankind stepped away from God and into the full workings of mindless natural law alone – which does in fact inevitably lead to suffering and death.

And this interpretation is precisely why you need a theodicy. Where is the justice in killing all for the sake of the sins of one woman+man? It makes no sense logically. If they were conditionally immortal because of eating of the tree of life then did all the animals in all the world congregate around this tree like beasts around a water hole on the serengeti. how exactly do you as you are wont to do translate the account into a literal reality. And which beast had to come and eat. Or was it symbolic? Oh now that’s a thought.

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: Come on now. Even I can imagine limitations to reproduction or the turnover of sentient carbon-based life. Surely you can at least imagine something similar? I know God can since such a world is described in the Bible and in the writings of Ellen White. Think about it…

Of course I have. This is not simply about reproduction. That is trivial. This is about metabolic process. Show me a carbon based life form that does not grow or metabolize anything and I will show you an organism in stasis as a spore “living” millions of year in amber. That is; effectively dead.

Real life cannot exist without metabolic process in a carbon based world and God has sanctified all this by a process of making good out of evil from the death of one comes life for others. Just as in the biological world so in the spiritual. By his death we have life. Just as God sanctified the practice of sacrifice of appeasement practiced by most cultures for thousands of years before and showed that in the Judeo-Christian tradition these same acts of sacrifice were emblematic of a monotheistic God that would become incarnate and bring life from death. So also he took the preceding accounts of creation derived as they were of the mesopotamian valley and recast it as an account of the monotheistic God who is above all but comes and dwells among us to become one of us. Participating in our life and death but showing us the importance of the transcendent life of the spirit that supercedes carbon based life and its inherent death. It is no fairy tale of 6 impossible things before breakfast. It is not pie in the sky by and by. It is rooted in a real world and it is about the transcendence of love and grace that is acted out in a real physical world by the incarnate God and us as we follow as His disciples.

That is the message I get from the images and visions of the Canon and EG White. But of course I read it for the message that it conveys not as a scientific text. That is where we fundamentally differ.