@pauluc: So God has to intervene for big animals that

Comment on WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation by Sean Pitman.

So God has to intervene for big animals that reproduce slowly but not for little animals that turn over rapidly and can use a process of natural selection to maintain fitness and eliminate negative mutations? Is that your view?

No. Slowly reproducing creatures have been degenerating all along since Eden.

I have referred you to the literature that clearly shows there is a natural process for elimination of â€œbadâ€ mutations. I do not know if this is the only mechanism operative in slow growing animals with long generation times. I suspect there are other similar natural mechanisms but that ignorance is no excuse for denying that there is a viable mechanisms which was all I was initially arguing.

Of course there are natural processes that can eliminate â€œbadâ€ mutations. The problem is that for slowly reproducing creatures these mechanisms cannot eliminate them nearly as fast as they are entering the gene pool. Thatâ€™s the problem here which you have not substantively addressed.

Nuchman and Crowell Genetics 2000? Come on genetics has moved on a long way since then. No-one is denying mutation and no-one is denying that they are mostly detrimental. That is obvious as I stated before.
We now have genomic sequence data from families (trio) to define directly the new mutation rate per generation.

Roach JC, Glusman G, Smit AFA, Huff CD, Hubley R, Shannon PT, Rowen L, Pant KP, Goodman N, Bamshad M, Shendure J, Drmanac R, Jorde LB, Hood L, Galas DJ. Analysis of genetic inheritance in a family quartet by whole-genome sequencing. Science 2010 Apr;328(5978):636-639.

~1.1 Ã— 10^âˆ’8 per position per haploid genome or 66 per genome.

This is an interesting result that essentially cuts in half the previously cited human mutation rate. For example, a 2009 Nature article cites direct measurements of mutations in the Y-chromosome in a family line to come up with an overall mutation rate of around one in 30 million base pairs or ~200 mutations per person per generation.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090827/full/news.2009.864.html

Either way, the overall mutation rate isnâ€™t really the issue here. The problem is with the detrimental mutation rate. Given the dramatic reduction in what was previously thought to be non-functional â€œjunk DNAâ€ in the human genome (it is now thought that the majority of the genome is functional to one degree or another), even a mutation rate of “~66 per person per generationâ€ is going to produce well over 3 functionally-relevant mutations per person per generation (probably well over 5 or 6). Of course, the vast majority of such mutations will have a detrimental effect on functionality, swamping the relatively rare compensatory and other forms of beneficial mutations. In order for natural selection to help weed out all of these detrimental mutations as fast as they are being produced, many individuals will have to die before reproducing the next generation. What death ratio are we talking about here? That’s the important question.

The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 â€“ e^ -U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size (i.e., a 95% death rate before reproduction). If the detrimental mutation rate is increased to 5, the reproductive rate would have to increase to ~296 per female per generation in order for natural selection to keep up with the detrimental mutation rate.

How is this problem explained? I fail to see how anything youâ€™ve cited so far really deals with this issue? It is easy to explain how bacteria, viruses, and nematode worms can keep up with such bad karma since their potential reproductive rate is in the many thousands per individual per generation. This is simply not true for humans or other slowly reproducing animals.

I am beginning to doubt you have read any of the the Este papers referenced. In defining population size effect they kept the population size to 1, 5, or 25 in their initial papers. Ie they took that number of 25 worms after each generation and moved them into the next culture for 1 generation. And yes you can have sexual reproduction with a population size of 1 as they are hermaphrodite. The 1000 progeny that you cite is a nonsequitor for the experiments on population size and natural selection.

Iâ€™m beginning to doubt that you carefully read the Este papers yourself. If you will note, when the population was kept at 25, there was a constant degenerative effect over time in the gene pool.

â€œNotably, no lines in the long-term natural MA experiment have ever been observed to significantly improve beyond the control with respect to the typically measured fitness-related charactersâ€¦ Even the largest population-size treatments show a slight trend toward reduced fitness compared to the control.â€ â€“ Estes et. al. 2004

In short, for natural selection to effectively act to counter the entire detrimental mutational load per generation, the effective reproductive rate had to be increased quite significantlyâ€¦ as highlighted in subsequent papers on C. elegans.

Oh, and by the way, the human selection of individual nematode worms to populate the next generation is equivalent to an enforced death rate that is extremely high. If the individual reproductive rate for a nematode worm is around ~5000 offspring during the lifespan of the worm, and only 25 of the offspring are selected to populate the next generation, that is an effective pre-reproductive death rate of over 99%. Again, such a death rate could not be remotely tolerated by a human population without very quick extinction.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

Sean Pitman Also Commented

WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation
@Professor Kent:

Studies of the association between (animal or plant) protein and disease incidence may consequently be less reliable if the contributing protein sources are not evaluated in addition to total protein intakes.

The findings of Colin Campbellâ€™s “China Study” did not show that all animal proteins are detrimental to human health. As far as I’m aware laboratory research (with lab rats) only seemed to confirm that one animal protein in particular, casein, is detrimental to human health in the form of the promotion of cancer cell growth. It is suggested that other animal proteins may also function in a similar manner to that of casein, but I don’t think that this has been confirmed in isolation with either animal or human experiments.

Beyond this, of course, The China Study cites a lot of research, not just the one big study in China, all supporting the same conclusion: a plant-based, whole foods diet provides tremendous health benefits over traditional American/European diets. This conclusion also appears to be supported by the fact that Seventh-day Adventists are part of the longest-lived â€œBlue-Zoneâ€ peoples and are the only group of long-lived people that have a mixed ethnic background. This strongly suggests a dietary component to longevity.

There are of course some seemingly valid negative critiques of Campbellâ€™s methods and conclusions. In my opinion, there are most likely numerous contributing variables which tend to favor the vegetarian diet over the diet rich in animal products (as Iâ€™ve already noted above).

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation
@Bill Sorensen:

â€œNo cross was or will be need for mistakes that have taken place and will continue to take place in heaven that are based on a lack of knowledge.â€ – Sean Pitman

This is partly true like much of what you have to say. But â€œpartlyâ€ is not sufficient to explain or describe all the elements of Godâ€™s government.

First, let me say â€œThe crossâ€ is a revelation, not an inovation. The principles of the cross are an essential and eternal part of Godâ€™s government.

The â€œsinlessâ€ angels are considered sinless only and precisely because they are accepted â€œin Christâ€.

The sinless angels are considered sinless because they have never rebelled against their consciences – against what they knew to be right. This is the reason why they never needed a Savior to sacrifice himself on the cross as we did… even though they certainly made many mistakes along the way due to a lack of perfect knowledge. They never required redemption from a life of sin as we do.

The cross is also not “eternal” since it was not always needed and never should have been needed in God’s ideal government.
You see, the cross simply was not necessary before the Fall of Adam and Eve because there was no redeemable moral fall before Adam and Eve deliberately chose to rebel against what they knew was right for selfish reasons.

There was of course a moral fall before Adam and Eve – i.e., the fall of Lucifer and those angels that chose to go with him in his rebellion in Heaven. However, this particular fall was unredeemable because they rebelled in the full knowledge of God and the implications of their own actions. There was nothing left that could be done or shown to these rebels that hadn’t already been done.

Adam and Eve, on the other hand, rebelled against what they knew was right, and therefore sinned against their consciences. However, they did not rebel in the full light and understanding of God’s character or with the full understanding of the implications of their actions. Therefore, it was possible to re-establish the relationship between God and man given a further demonstration of the character of God and of the nature of Evil which would have the power to convert many human hearts.

Did Adam and Eve make mistakes in Eden before the Fall? Of course they did, due to their lack of knowledge. But, these were not moral mistakes. Was it possible that Adam could have accidentally tripped Eve when she came around a corner unexpectedly? Of course! Could Eve have accidentally hit Adam in the face with a branch of a tree, not knowing he was directly behind her? Obviously. Clearly, however, such mistakes in action, due to a lack of knowledge, are not sinful. They are amoral mistakes. There is absolutely no need for Jesus to have died on the cross for such amoral mistakes.

You don’t seem to understand that morality requires the conscious ability to make a choice. Robots are not moral agents because they are not free to choose between options nor are they capable of understanding the implications of options. The same is true for animals or even humans that have suffered enough brain damage so that they no longer understand the implications of their actions. A lack of knowledge produces the same effect – it removes moral responsibility to the same degree that there is a lack of knowledge.

You may be a good scientist Sean, but I know theology. Iâ€™ll listen to you on scientific issues, you would do well to listen to me on theological issues.

If you do know theology better than I do, you will have to do a whole lot better at explaining yourself in a way that makes much more sense to my simpleton mind.

Just think about what makes humans morally responsible for certain actions while animals or robots wouldn’t be morally responsible for the same actions.

It seems to me, and I may be too simplistic in my thinking to understand, that it all has to do with a conscious realization of what you’re doing and the consequences of your actions.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation
@Bill Sorensen:

Suppose I speed through some town and I donâ€™t see a speed limit sign that says 35 miles an hour.

This is a very common example used by people who don’t understand the difference between committing an amoral mistake versus an action against one’s own conscience – a moral wrong.

Just because someone can be convicted for doing something that they didn’t know was wrong doesn’t mean that they can also be convicted for sin. It is for this reason that only God can judge the moral state of a person because only God knows the true heart of a person – the true motive.

When it comes to morality, everything is based on a person’s motive before God – everything.

I repeat again, even in heaven it will be possible to make amoral mistakes due to a lack of infinite knowledge. Some of these mistakes may even have negative consequences for those we love – even in Heaven. Yet, these mistakes will not be considered “sinful” because they weren’t done with malicious intent, but out of ignorance.

I dare say that even angels make such mistakes from time to time. Once the mistake is realized, one apologizes and moves on. There is no sin here. No moral fall has taken place.

My final comment is that you have a warped view of guilt in reference to law. If you break Godâ€™s law, you are guilty whether you know it or not.

And you don’t seem to understand that it is impossible to break the moral law without knowing it. One always knows when one breaks the moral law of Love that is written on the hearts of us all. It is for this reason that none of us have any excuse for breaking this law before God – because we already knew what it was and that it was right when we broke it.

So Paul says, â€œAt these times of ignorance, God winked at.â€ Not because people were not guilty, but because God took into account their ignorance of His will.

They were guilty only of errors based on a lack of knowledge. They were not guilty of sinning against their conscience or “sinning”.

And the only reason God can â€œwinkâ€ at sin or overlook sin is because of the atonement of the cross. So, once again, you have a convoluted non-scriptural view of sin, guilt, and the law.

No cross was or will be need for mistakes that have taken place and will continue to take place in heaven that are based on a lack of knowledge. The cross of Jesus was only needed because of the sin of deliberately going against our conscience – against the moral Law of Love. That is why the relationship was broken between us and God and that is why the cross was necessary to re-establish this relationship.

Our relationship with God was not broken over some honest misunderstanding. Our relationship was broken due to a deliberate rebellion against what we knew was true – against the Law of Love. That’s what broke the relationship.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com