Indeed it is unpublishable because it lacks novelty. It is …

Comment on Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists” by Sean Pitman.

Indeed it is unpublishable because it lacks novelty. It is known. It generates a simple “so what?” You have to answer the so what with experimental data.

What experimental data would you suggest? A non-beneficial gap distance is the data. The implications of such a gap distance are obvious. No additional experimental data is needed to tell you that a mechanism of random mutations takes exponentially longer to get across such a gap distance (on average) with each linear increase in the gap distance. That conclusion, though very simple, completely undermines neo-Darwinism.

You accept that within these groups family or superfamily there was rapid diversification by mutation and natural selection of simple allelic changes. If that is so I cannot see why all the groups within the caniformia and within the feliformia could not have arisen over the conventional periods of geologica time (which you seem to readily accept). Further why could not the caniformia and feliformia have arisen by the same process of mutation and natural selection.

There would be no reason unless there are qualitatively functional differences within the different gene pools that require more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues.

So the anwer to your question and your accusation that I have no idea how natural selection and mutation works I would say simply that the process of mutation and natural selection that you readily accept as giving quite profound changes over 4000 years is capably over periods of 1000 times that of giving changes within orders by nothing more than simple allelic changes.

That would be a great argument as long as such intraordinal changes never required the production of a qualitatively novel system of function that in turn required a minimum of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues.

The question isn’t if you understand how RM/NS could produce low level changes, or even if all intraordinal differences are low level. The question is if RM/NS could produce qualitatively novel higher-level changes that require a minimum more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acids to work? You simply can’t address that question. And, that question completely undermines neo-Darwinism because such higher level functional differences obviously exist between many different species.

But you say no there is a limit because of the theoretical model of sequence space and the conjecture that there is profound difference (structure of >1000 FSAAR between animals at the level of something like family or above.

I have occam razor on my side in saying there is absolutely no reason to postulate such a barrier in the absence of evidence.

The evidence is that qualitatively unique systems to exist in different gene pools that require a minimum of far more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acids. You do realize this, of course. You know full well that a bacterial flagellar motility system didn’t come out of thin air. It had to come from somewhere. And yet, this system requires several thousand specifically arranged amino acids to function as a motility system. How did such a system evolve at such a high level of functional complexity? You have no idea and Occam’s razor isn’t on your side here. If you’re going to invoke Occam’s razor, the most simple and obvious solution to explaining complex machines that require a significant number of precisely interacting parts is intelligent design. Your previous appeal to some kind of mystical “emergent” property of biological machines beyond “reductionist mechanics” is nonsense. They are machines in every sense of the word. And, such machines, if built of anything else, would be instantly recognized as being very similar to machines that humans build, and would therefore “have the appearance of design”. Even Richard Dawkins admits this much. He says straight up that biological machines look designed, but aren’t designed. Well, if they look designed, Occam’s razor suggests that the burden of proof is then on those who claim that they aren’t designed to show why they aren’t designed – to demonstrate a viable mechanism that could do the job.

Well, sorry to say, you haven’t done that. And, there are very good reasons for this – such as the nature of sequence space beyond very low levels of functional complexity.

Further your postulate of a barrier is not at all based on any empirical evidence but on one particular reading of a religious text. That has not been part of science.

The Bible is not required to support my hypothesis of a statistical barrier to evolutionary progress beyond very low levels of functional complexity. Where did you get this idea? The limitation is based entirely on what is known about sequence space and the exponential decline of potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences with each step up the ladder of functional complexity. The Bible doesn’t even address such a concept nor does the Bible explicitly declare that any such limitations exist to speciation over any given period of time.

This is where your argument on 1000FSAAR has to be pitched if you expect to be taken seriously. You have to show what are the specific 1000FSAARs that occur between species which you claim cannot be related by descent because of such structures.

I already have. Start with what you know more about – like bacterial biomachines. Many such qualitatively novel biomachines exist between species that simply cannot be explained the Darwinian mechanism. If Darwinists would admit even this much, the whole game would be over – and they know it. You know it too.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
I have no fear, thanks to God and His mercy, and no one is free of bias – not even you. You’ve simply traded one religion for another. It is still possible that your current bias blinds you to what would otherwise be obvious.


Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”

No, I think science would have discredited them if their ideas were not supported by observation and experimentation.

Exactly, so why not at least try to do the same for my ideas, which are quite easily falsifiable?

I know, you can’t do it yourself, but you’re quite sure that if I publish my ideas in a mainstream science journal that someone out there will know how to shoot my theory all to shreds. Right? This sounds like a no-brainer! Why not just published my ideas and test them against the big boys? It must be that I’m afraid to get shot down! and that’s why I don’t publish… Don’t you think?

I guess that’s why I went on live radio to debate Jason Rosenhouse? – because I was afraid that he’d show me how silly my ideas are on public radio? – how the Darwinian mechanism is so clearly capable of creating all kinds of things regardless of their level of functional complexity? If I was so afraid of getting smashed to pieces by some of these Darwinian big shots, why take such public risks? – even in their own blogs and public forums? Why not just hide out in my own little ghetto?

Come on now. You have to know that I’d love to be able to publish my ideas on the statistical limits to the Darwinian mechanism in a science journal like Nature or Science or any mainstream science journal. I really would. The problem, as I’ve already explained, is that no one is going to publish, in any mainstream science journal, any argument for intelligent design or creative intelligence (even if the intelligence were a “natural” intelligence like some kind of intelligent alien life form) as the origin of various kinds of biological machines. It just doesn’t happen these days without someone getting fired over it. So, the next best thing is to take the argument directly to them and challenge them in their own blogs, on the radio, and on television, etc. There’s nothing else I can do. My hands are tied.

In any case, do let me know when you’re willing to reasonably define what it would take for you to recognize a phenomenon as a true “miracle” or when you’re able to present something, anything, that explains how the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS can actually work beyond very low level of functional complexity.

Until then, what are you really contributing here? What are you trying to say? – that you don’t know but someone else probably does? That you’re skeptical about everything and nothing could possibly convince you of the existence of God or any other designer of life? – not even if you were to personally witness some of the most fantastic miracles described in the Bible? Good luck with that… but you’re just fooling yourself in your efforts never to be tricked by anything. You’re missing out on a great deal that life has to offer.

Still, I wish you all the best.


Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
All the best to you… yet again 😉


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.