Comment on The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation by Sean Pitman.
Its call evidence not certainty as you well know. You are asking for certainty. When we have been over the evidence for fitness in the face of continual mutations through natural selection using the models where this can be tested including eukaryotes and c elegans you concede that this is so but you respond with a yes but and demand that we show this in slowly reproducing mammals.
You’re confusing concepts here. You’re talking about simply surviving the detrimental mutation rate without heading toward genetic meltdown (which is possible only with very high rates of reproduction that allow for the necessary death rate needed for natural selection to keep up with the detrimental mutations).
That’s not the particular question I’m asking here. What I’m asking for here is a model of evolution via random mutations and function-based selection at various levels of functional complexity within a given span of time. That’s an entirely different question that has nothing to do with the detrimental mutation rate at all.
And no. I’m not asking for absolute proof. I’m just asking for a reasonable model that can be tested in some way and has at least some demonstrable useful predictive value.
When you demand we “conventional scientists” explain it to you and you then couch questions in such restrictive terms that is cannot at this time be answered it is little wonder that people particularly famous people simply concede ignorance and get on with something useful like doing experimental work and publishing new observations incremental though they may be. That you refuse to publish your ideas or any experimental work give further grounds to dismiss your questions as lacking gravitas or sincerity and representing merely rhetorical repartee.
In a word you are a debater not a scientist and give little evidence of engaging seriously with the dialogue of science.
Your latest totally incredible missive that you accept PGT because of the theology and not at all because of any science only reinforces such a conclusion.
The mechanism of random mutations and natural selection is the very heart and soul of neo-Darwinism. If you cannot explain how this mechanism works beyond very low levels of functional complexity, within a reasonable amount of time, then where is the “science” behind your position? Beyond just-so story telling?
It’s a very simple question…
Sean Pitman Also Commented
The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
This is the same language used by the Bible. Whatever “wiggle room” the Bible leaves open is still open when one uses this language. The Bible is not clear that the “creation of the heavens and the earth” means that the material of the Earth itself was created during creation week. Quite the opposite is true. The Bible seems to suggest that something was here prior to creation week. Or, at the very least, leaves this question open.
The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
Oh please. You do realize that there are difference kinds of “heavens” in Hebrew understanding? This is not a statement arguing that God made the entire universe…
The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
The question is if you or anyone else has even tried to explain how the evolutionary mechanism (RM/NS) can tenably work beyond very very low levels of functional complexity. The answer to that question is no. This means that this mechanism is not backed up by what anyone would call real science. It’s just-so story telling. That’s it. There is nothing in scientific literature detailing the statistical odds of RM/NS working at various levels of functional complexity. And, there is no demonstration beyond systems that require a few hundred averagely specified residues.
What is interesting is that no one who controls the mainstream journals will publish any observations as to why a real scientific basis for the Darwinian mechanism is lacking. The basic information is there. Contrary to Pauluc’s claims, a precise definition of “levels of functional complexity” has been published, along with what happens to the ratios of potential beneficial vs. non-benficial sequences. What no one is allowing to be published is the implications of this information.
Regardless, the implications should be clear to you. The math is overwhelmingly clear. If the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial goes from 1 in 100 to 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 the fact that the average time to success will decrease quite dramatically doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out. Evolutionists, who have actually seriously considered this problem must recognize the implications here, but seem to be trying to brush it all under the rug because no one knows of any other viable mechanism (again, despite Pauluc’s unsupported claims to the contrary – to include his “life enzymes”).
In any case, it is possible for you to move beyond blind faith in the unsupported claims of your “experts” and consider the information that is available to all for yourself. Start at least trying to do a little math on your own and you will no doubt recognize the problem for yourself regardless of what your experts continue to claim – without any basis in empirical evidence or science.
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.
