@Professor Kent: Sean Pitman: The potential

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

Sean Pitman: The potential for diversity is not enhanced by phenotypic/genetic isolation.

When I read â€œEducated Truthâ€ like this, I have much difficulty swallowing anything that Dr. Pitman writes. This comment shows little understanding of the most important mechanism of diversification: allopatric speciation. Some readers will recognize it as high school material.

I’m not talking about the method of diversification, but the results of diversification. The method(s) are quite clear and are not the topic of this particular discussion. The results, on the other hand, do not result in an improvement of the offspring compared to the original parent population. Rather, such the phenotypic/genetic isolation of sub-populations (when the sub-population does not contain all the genetic/phenotypic variables available to the original parent population) reduces the future ability of these sub-populations to adapt to new environmental changes. This very simple concept should be self-evident to all but the most obtuse.

Your noted mechanism of speciation, allopatric speciation in particular, occurs when biological populations of the same species become isolated due to geographical and/or other changes that may isolate sub-populations from each other. Clearly, such isolation allows for the isolated groups to genetically diverge from each other over time.

This form of “speciation” may involve a situation where the exact same gene pool options are divided into two isolated groups, which then mutate independently at that point over time. Of course, I’m not talking about this type of genetic isolation. I’m talking about isolating certain specific phenotypes (and their unique underlying genotypes of course) from the original gene pool of phenotypic options – as in the isolation of various unique breeds of dog using selective breeding out from the original parental gene pool (a gene pool which has more numerous phenotypic options that does the particular selection of options that comprise a particular breed of dog).

Such selective breeding, isolating out certain phenotypic features from the original gene pool of options, may eventually result in “speciation” according to various definitions. However, this form of “speciation” does not enhance the abilities of either population to adapt to new environments compared to the original parent population which had access to greater genetic options and therefore had the potential for greater adaptability to changing environments.

In other words, breeding for certain traits does not improve the informational quality or adaptability of the isolated gene pool of phenotypic/genetic options. The resulting breed and/or species is less adaptable to additional environmental changes than was the original parental population.

It is quite clear that pure-breeds of dog or cattle or potato or whatever are less adaptable and more prone to sickness and disease compared to the original parent population. It is also for this reason that the phenomenon of “hybrid vitality” or “hybrid vigor” is commonly observed (where the hybrid offspring of parents from different gene pools are more fit than either parent).

If you would get beyond your high-school textbook, perhaps you’d pick up on a few of these concepts?

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