Comment on WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation by Sean Pitman.
You simply cannot establish precisely what was present or absent in an original gene pool with “pre-established phenotypic options,†so you are operating on assumptions of what “was there,†not actual data. How is your position any better than that of evolutionists?
Let’s consider dog breeds as an example. We know that essentially all modern breeds of dog (~400 of them) were created within the last 300 years or so. We also know that much of this variation was not the result of novel allelic mutations that were not already present in the recent ancestors of all modern breeds. As with the case where human siblings can look quite different from each other based on genetic recombination of pre-established trait options, the same is/was obviously true for dogs. These trait options are selectable either by nature or by artificial/human selection for desired trait expression.
Of course, there are several well characterized traits that are the result of truly novel mutations within dogs. For example, mutations are responsible for the stubby, curved legs of dachshunds, corgis, basset hounds, and 16 other breeds of dog. This particular feature is known to be the result of a mutation of a single gene. This mutant gene causes the overproduction of the growth-promoting protein, which turns on key growth receptors at the wrong times during fetal development. In other words, this mutation results in a loss of a pre-established genetic function. The odds that a random mutation would be able to disrupt such functionality are actually very good. If such a disruption in functionality is preferentially selected, it can be realized in a gene pool very quickly.
As would be suspected, therefore, most known nonsynonymous mutations in dogs are thought to be detrimental.
“The excess nonsynonymous changes in dogs are likely to be mainly slightly deleterious…â€
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/11/2331.full.pdf
It is therefore quite reasonable to assume that the same thing is true for human ancestry – that we, as slowly reproducing creatures, have suffered a significant number of near-neutral detrimental mutations for each individual in each generation at a rate well beyond what can reasonably have been compensated for by natural selection.
The potential for diversity is not enhanced by phenotypic/genetic isolation. It is reduced. – Sean Pitman
Did you take a course in General Biology? Let me guess: your course at Southern Adventist University (your alma mater) actually skipped the chapters on evolution.
Isolating a breed of dog from interbreeding with other breeds of dog does not enhance the future potential for phenotypic diversity of the isolated breed. The genetic potential for variability is reduced. The isolated breed is less adaptable compared to the original ancestral wild-type gene pool. If you take part of a gene pool and remove it from the larger pool of options, what you have is a reduced number of genetic options – i.e., less potential for future variability.
The fact that novel breeds and even “species†can still be produced over time has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that detrimental mutations are building up in all slowly reproducing gene pools faster than they can be eliminated – i.e., that they are in fact headed for eventual extinction. – Sean Pitman
A remarkable assertion. Was this God’s screw-up, that life–or at least “slowly-reproducing†life–is not sustainable?
Does a car the wears out without constant repairs mean that the designer of the car screwed up? Without access to the tree of life, to God tuning us up on a regular basis, we all get old and die. Is this a “screw-up†on God’s part? – that our own lives, and our individual genomes, are not sustainable for very long without his input? The same is true for the overall gene pool of the human race and for all slowly-reproducing creatures.
So, you argue that we have extremely rapid adaptive changes that promote extremely rapid divergence (as in dog breeds), which you argue occurs most rapidly in sympatry (living together) rather than in allopatry (living isolated from each other). Moreover, the buildup of detrimental mutations does not impair adaptive divergence. Amazing. Are you able to calculate when all these continually evolving races and species are scheduled to crash because of the deleterious mutations they are accumulating? Have many species already succombed due to deleterious mutations rather than other causes of extinctions (e.g., environmental change)? Can you name some examples?
Potential variability is greater for the original wild-type vs. the pure-breed. That’s a well-established observation. The wild-type is simply better able to adapt to new environments and is less prone to disease/sickness. The buildup of near-neutral mutations need not have a significant effect on the ability to reproduce or adapt to new environments until a threshold level of detrimental change is realized.
As far as a population appearing healthy and fully functional, but in fact being on a genomic death march, consider the following statement published by Higgins and Lynch (2000):
“Here we have shown that accumulation of deleterious mutations may be a significant threat to large metapopulations and would be expected to exacerbate the effect of habitat loss or fragmentation on metapopulation viability… Because the decline is sudden but extinction itself still takes a while to occur, the metapopulation may be completely inviable on intermediate or long time scales, although appearing healthy on short time scales.â€
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/5/2928.full.pdf
Predicting the time of the actual genetic “crash†is rather difficult since it is hard to known the actual level of “fitness†of a population and how long it will take near-neutral detrimental mutations to reach a threshold level which irrevocably undermines a minimum level of fitness. Some, like Sandford, generously suggest an upper limit of less than a million years. Based only on detrimental mutations in mtDNA, Loewe (2006) set a generous limit of 20 million years till human extinction. At this point, however, the only thing that can be known with a very high degree of confidence is the direction slowly reproducing species are headed… downhill.
“Overall ToE†concerns all life forms, so if the accumulation of deleterious mutations is a problem only for slowly-reproducing species, then why is this a problem for “overall ToE?†Don’t you think you’re overstating your claims?
If slowly reproducing creatures are headed downhill, not able to survive the proposed evolutionary time frames for their evolution, this would undermine the entire mainstream theory of evolution. This is not an overstatement by any means. A great deal would collapse for the ToE if the problem of deleterious mutations building up in slowly reproducing genomes were generally recognized.
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 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. 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.
