Comment on The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation by Sean Pitman.
Further to the issue of immunological evolution I would suggest that anyone interested in this question start from this summary of the key early papers on the retrotransposon origin of the RAG gene function that was prepared by NCSE for the Doer trial.
http://ncse.com/book/export/html/2520
It was obviously much more convincing to the Judge than Behe’s concession that God was needed to make ID an intelligible hypothesis.
That’s because the Judge Jones didn’t and doesn’t have any understanding of the difference between low-level evolution (within 20aa sequence space, which is very very low level indeed), and higher level evolution at the level of something like the rotary bacterial flagellum (which requires a minimum of over 5000 specifically coded aa positions). There’s a huge difference here which the Judge Jones, and you, don’t seem to appreciate. The non-beneficial gap distances are very small in 20aa sequence space, but are truly enormous in 5000aa sequence space. That is why the immune system works very well via RM/NS in 20aa sequence space while there are no examples, at all, of anything qualitatively new evolving at or beyond the level of the sequence space size/specificity of 1000 saars
I am sure, of course, that you have read all of these references but I have not seen a detailed critique from you specifically on the origins of adaptive immunity, Rag gene origin and the origin of the gene families that represent the core of immunity (Ig family molecules, TNF family, cytokine families and the chemokine families).
I would be interested to know why you think the designer did not use the same highly efficient adaptive immune system found in vertebrates in invertebrates and had such cumbersome systems of highly replicated Ig genes in cartelaginous fish?
One does not need to know the reasons why a designer did anything before one can be able to recognize design behind various systems or even basic structures.
Let’s say our Mars Rover happens to come across a highly symmetrical polished granite cube measuring, say, one meter on each side. Such a cube would be clear evidence of intelligent design for most candidly minded people – including most scientists. This determination would be made, however, without the need to know why the designer of this cube decided to create it, by what mechanism it was created, or why it happens to be on Mars. None of this information is needed in order to detect the need to invoke the hypothesis of intelligent design…
I would like a bit better considered response than to my last 4 questions on primates where your responses were
I would guess….
I don’t understand….
I don’t think it matters….
I do think that….This I am sorry to say falls well short of the mathematical elegance you demand of others and which the detailed analysis in the paper obviously called for.
Hardly. You keep asking for things for which there is insufficient evidence or information. If you think there is sufficient evidence, why don’t you tell me about the functional genetic differences between the creatures you wish to compare? If you find one that requires a minimum of more than 1000 saars, then you’ve found something that cannot be explained by RM/NS.
What you need to do is one of two things.
1) Find an example of evolution in action that actually produces a qualitatively novel system of function in any kind of living thing which requires more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues.
2) Present a tenable statistical model of how such a system could be evolved via random genetic mutations and a function-based selection mechanism.
If you can do either one of those things, you will have moved from just-so story telling to an actual scientific hypothesis.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
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.
