@LSU Alumnus 1996: As countless studies (not to mention the …

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

@LSU Alumnus 1996:

As countless studies (not to mention the anecdotal research in which you specialize) demonstrate, we slowly-reproducing mammals demonstrate observable mutations of functional value without any evidence of genetic decline.

You seem to be unaware of certain relevant facts. The majority of functional mutations do not have large detrimental effects, but are “nearly-neutral”. Those mutations with a large functional effect are relatively rare. These are fairly well-established observations.

Of those near-neutral mutations, the vast majority are slightly detrimental with relatively rare near-neutral mutations being beneficial. This concept is supported by various lines of evidence, to include direct experimental results on near-neutral mutations which showed that the significant majority of such mutations are detrimental:

For the most part, models that included beneficial mutations (red lines in Figure 1) were deemed biologically unrealistic. In particular, three of four of the detected beneficial mutations occurred within one or two bottlenecks of a deleterious mutation (lineages A, B, and J), suggesting that these steps resulted from noise in the data rather than actual beneficial mutations. Therefore, it seemed biologically more plausible to assume that our data set did not contain any beneficial mutations…

In general, we expect nonsynonymous mutations to have deleterious effects and synonymous and noncoding mutations to be essentially neutral. The close match between the number of deleterious mutations predicted by the maximumlikelihood analysis (nDEL ¼ 33.4) and the number of accumulated nonsynonymous mutations (32) supports this view.

http://www.unc.edu/~haipeng/publication/virus.pdf

Such near-neutral detrimental mutations are realized at a rate of greater than 3 (most likely greater than 10) per person per generation (given an overall mutation rate of ~50 per person per generation). There is very little argument in literature regarding these numbers. They have a very good basis in currently known empirical observations.

At this point your argument seems to be that because you don’t see a detrimental effect that you can readily recognize from one generation to the next that something must be wrong with these numbers.

What you evidently don’t understand is the concept of a threshold level of detrimental mutations. There will be no significant decline in population size or reproductive rates until the surplus potential of the pre-established reproductive potential of the gene pool is exhausted to a level where the average individual cannot reproduce fast enough to replace his/her own loss from the population. At this point, there will be what is called a “mutational meltdown” – but not before.

Before this detrimental mutation threshold is reached within the gene pool as a whole, population sizes and observed reproductive rates will not change to any significant degree.

As deleterious mutations accumulate by fixation, there is a gradual decline in the mean viability of individuals. Once the mean viability declines below l/R, the net reproductive rate is less than one (individuals can no longer replace themselves), and the population size begins to decline. This precipitates a synergistic interaction between random genetic drift and mutation accumulation, which we refer to as a mutational meltdown.

M. Lynch, J. Conery, and R. Burger. 1995. Mutation accumulation and the extinction of small populations. The American Naturalist: 146:489-518

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

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 Campbell’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 “Blue-Zone” 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 Campbell’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 I’ve already noted above).

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation
@Bill Sorensen:

“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.” – Sean Pitman

This is partly true like much of what you have to say. But “partly” is not sufficient to explain or describe all the elements of God’s government.

First, let me say “The cross” is a revelation, not an inovation. The principles of the cross are an essential and eternal part of God’s government.

The “sinless” angels are considered sinless only and precisely because they are accepted “in Christ”.

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. I’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 don’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 God’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, “At these times of ignorance, God winked at.” 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 “wink” 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


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.