@pauluc: Mea Culpa. I apologize, You are right. I seem

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

Mea Culpa. I apologize, You are right. I seem to have misread your original statement as a broad questioning of the process of darwinian natural selection. You are absolutely correct that you have been consistent in your claim.

Itâ€™s Ok. We all misread or forget what we read from time to time.

I assumed incorrectly that you could envisage a mechanism to be applicable beyond the confines of its initial demonstration.

Ouch! Gatta try to save face somehow I guess…

The problem here is that not all extrapolations are reasonable if certain variables, which are very different in different situations, are not carefully considered.

Your mistake, in this particular discussion, is in your assumption that the effects of natural selection in populations of nematode worms could be directly extrapolated to human populations (and other slowly reproducing populations). The problem with this notion is that nematode populations have key features that are dramatically different from human populations, preventing straightforward extrapolation. For example, as previously noted for you, nematode worms have a reproductive potential of several thousand offspring per individual worm. This is not true for humans or other slowly reproducing creatures. This means, of course, that nematode worms can suffer a much higher death rate (i.e., death before reproduction) compared to humans â€“ as high as 99.5% death before reproduction. This means, of course, that natural selection can act in a much stronger manner with nematode populations compared to human populations where the surplus number of offspring that natural selection can work with is very limited in comparison.

It is for this particular reason that human and other slowly reproducing populations are much much more sensitive to the detrimental mutation rate within the gene pool. When youâ€™re talking about more than 5 (likely more than 10) near-neutral detrimental mutations per individual per generation within the germline, mutations that are essentially invisible to natural selection anyway, you have a huge problem to explain. Even if the mutations were visable to natural selection where natural selection could immediately eliminate each one as it was realized, there would be a huge problem. Why? Because, elimination of such mutations requires the death of the individual before the individual is able to reproduce and pass on the detrimental mutation load. The death rate required if U=5 would be greater than 99% per generation – way beyond the powers of slowly reproducing creatures to keep up.

You see, either any way you look at it, the required death rate needed for natural selection to keep up with the detrimental mutation rate is beyond the abilities of humans and other slowly reproducing creatures to keep up. For such species, eventual genetic meltdown is inevitable.

That you are consistent however does not add to the virtue of your claim.

â€œIt remains, therefore, as I originally claimed â€“ that there is no known viable mechanism for removing detrimental mutations from such slowly reproducing creatures nearly as fast as they are entering these gene pools.â€ â€“ Sean Pitman

I do not know of a mechanism beyond that of selection shown in model systems for the removal of large slowly reproducing species. I am not arrogant enough to say there is no mechanism fulfilling the criteria you have selected but I am prepared to consider it unknown.

Science isnâ€™t based on what is unknown or what might be known in the future. Science is based on what little is known right now. Based on what is actually known right now, the best empirical evidence we have strongly suggests that slowly reproducing creatures are gaining detrimental mutations far far faster than they can be removed from these gene pools by natural selection. Thatâ€™s the best scientific conclusion that is currently available.

Will future observations undermine this scientific hypothesis? Perhaps. The potential for falsification is always there for any useful scientific theory. However, until that time, the evidence that is currently available remains very strong.

If you show me data that genetically all life is degenerating I will accept it but I will examine that data critically and I will compare against the other data I know on genetic evidences for a history within the genome and see it is cogent.

The data doesnâ€™t show that all life is degenerating. Only those forms of life that are not reproducing fast enough to allow for natural selection to effectively eliminate the detrimental mutation load per generation are degenerating.

I am sceptical of mathematical predictions and models which is really the basis of your and Sandfords predictions.

Thatâ€™s what science is. Science is all about the statistical predictive power of the hypothesis. If you cannot demonstrate the statistical odds of your prediction being useful at predicting the future, based on past successes of your hypothesis at predicting the future, you donâ€™t have a scientific hypothesis.

To convince me you will have to provide some data. You will also need to have a model.

The data and the model have already been presented to you. What more do you want? You know the detrimental mutation rate and you know the required death rate in order for natural selection to be effective at eliminating these detrimental mutations from the gene pool. You also know that every human being has thousands of detrimental mutations within his/her genome. As a recent example, it has just been discovered that 20% of men have, not just one, but two defective copies of a gene called, â€œDEFB126â€. This gene is responsible for producing the protective protein coating on sperm cells so that they can more effectively penetrate cervical mucus to reach the egg. The defective sperm look and behave perfectly normally otherwise. Yet, it is thought that this particular defective gene may explain why some 70% of male infertility cases are â€œunexplainedâ€.

There are hundreds of thousands of mutations like this in existence in the human population as a whole and we each individually have thousands of detrimental mutations in our own genomes. And, it is only going to get worse over time given the data currently in hand.

What else do you need to know?

Do you believe that it was only after the flood that mutations began to accumulate?

Did you not read where I said that the genetic decline started after Eden? For being such an expert in reviewing and understanding scientific papers, you donâ€™t seem to me to have a very good memory for what you read.

Was there a mantle over the earth that protected the antedeluvians?

How is this question relevant? While Iâ€™m sure the pre-Flood world was very different than ours, much of the germ line mutation rate is based on copying errors which are independent of radiation or any other potential outside influence on somatic genetic mutations.

If you assume that the mutations present in the human genome described in the 1000 genome project were not present in 2349-2348 BC all must have accumulated over the last 4360 years.

Iâ€™m sure Noah and his sons had many mutations in their genomes that Adam did not originally have in Eden.

â€œEach individual had 50-100 variants implicated in inherited disorders and 250-300 loss of function variantsâ€. This makes it likely that there are 300-400 loss of function or genetic defects. At a generation time of 20 years we should have 1.4-1.8 new mutations per generation.

This reference does not take into account â€œnear-neutralâ€ detrimental mutations, which would be a great deal more than 300 or so. This reference only deals with major detrimental mutations that are known to be involved with known inherited disorders. There are many many more inherited disorders which are unknown or which have such a slight deleterious effect that they have yet to be identified.

What do you predict from an egyptian mummy or a sample of tissue from 1000 years ago. You would expect essentially no defect in any open reading frames for the mummy and around 100 defective genes for the 1000 year old sample. Sandford has a heap of money I would have thought you could persuade him to test this.

There would be less detrimental mutations, but determining how many then vs. now would be impossible given current technology since we are currently unable to identify very many near-neutral mutations in humansâ€¦ even though we know they exist by other means.

On of the characteristics of Mortons Demon is that it does not allow you to openly search for new information so I suspect that both you and he would not be keen on doing the science. It easier and safer to do the modelling complete with all it assumptions about the proper variables.

Oh please. You have your own Mortonâ€™s Demon that blinds you to the implications of very relevant data due to your own pre-existing paradigm. We all have our own blinders on. It is best when we can at least acknowledge the fact that those who disagree with us or question our ideas arenâ€™t the only oneâ€™s subject to personal bias and the potential to be blind to evidence.

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