@Professor Kent: Sean Pitman: But, do you have any evidence

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

Sean Pitman: But, do you have any evidence that the beneficial mutation rate is remotely able to compensate for the detrimental mutation rate? As far as Iâ€™m aware it is quite clear that the detrimental mutation rate so far outpaces the beneficial mutation rate that there really is no comparison. If you know better, by all means present your evidence.

Prof. Kent: Now weâ€™ve come full circle. I already showed you specific examples in which selection overcame deleterious mutations in slowly-reproducing mammals, including the conclusion of Hagenblad et al. 2009, based on real data from nature (rather than your mathematical mumbo jumbo): â€œFor markers on chromosome 23, the signal of selection was particularly strong, indicating that purifying selection against deleterious alleles may have occurred even in this very small population.â€ You dismiss all such studies, just as you dismiss everything else that doesnâ€™t suit your notions or purposes. You asked for empirical evidence; what more do you want? Never mindâ€¦I donâ€™t give a ratâ€™s hairy behind.

Come on now. All this study points out is that beneficial mutations do happen. That’s obviously true. I’ve never said otherwise. Beneficial mutations, in the form of reversion mutations, compensatory mutations, truly novel beneficial mutations, and the like do actually happen and are selectable, in a positive manner, by natural selection.

The problem, of course, is that the rate of beneficial mutations is far far less than the rate of detrimental mutations. None of your examples say anything about the rate of beneficial mutations vs. detrimental mutations – especially when it comes to near-neutral mutations.

In real life, the detrimental mutation rate swamps the beneficial mutation rate – to the point where the beneficial mutation rate is effectively irrelevant when it comes to the overall effect on the quality of the gene pool over time.

If detrimental mutations are completely, irrevocably protected from selection, then you are right. You insist that selection cannot overcome the accumulation of deleterious mutations, but obviously your claim depends on the strength of selection. Youâ€™ve now conceded that generation time is indeed relevant to the strength of selection, but you still refuse to connect the dots.

Detrimental mutations are not protected from natural selection – by defintion (except of course for near-neutral mutations which are protected, but only for a while until a threshold level of them is realized). Natural selection always acts, ultimately, against detrimental mutations. However, natural selection needs an excess in offspring, per generation, beyond what is needed to maintain the population’s size, in order to act over time without destroying the population itself and driving it into extinction.

What you’ve yet to understand is that the ability of natural selection to act against detrimental mutations doesn’t solve the problem for creatures that don’t produce very many offspring per generation.

You also don’t yet understand that the strength of natural selection doesn’t affect this particular problem at all – not at all. The strength of selection is entirely irrelevant when it comes to trying to solve the problem we’re discussing. You see, it doesn’t matter if natural selection is very strong or very weak as it acts against detrimental mutations.

For example, lets say that natural selection was extremely strong in a given environment, able to detect and eliminate every single detrimental mutation as soon as a detrimental mutation strikes any individual in a population. What would such strong powers of natural selection do to the population? Well, it depends on the rate of detrimental mutations compared to potential rate of offspring production. If the average detrimental mutation rate were 3 mutations per individual per generation (U=3), that would mean that in every generation 95% of all offspring would have at least one detrimental mutation and would be eliminted before reproduction by a strongly-selective process.

What does a 95% death rate before reproduction suggest to you? What it suggests to me is that if the gene pool is to stay functionally neutral the average reproductive rate per female is going to have to be more than 40 offspring in order for two to survive the culling process of natural selection and reproduce the next generation. Otherwise, the population size would shrink in every generation until the population went extinct.

As it turns out, the detrimental mutation rate for humans is over 5 (some suggest that U is really greater than 10 or even greater than 30 given the newly discovered functionality of what was once thought to be “junk-DNA” in the human genome). The death rate for U=5 would be ~99.5% – suggesting a required per female reproductive rate of greater than 292 offspring per generation to stay afloat and avoid population meltdown.

Now, if you weaken the force of natural selection, all you do is allow for more detrimental mutations to build up in the gene pool until a threshold level is reached whereby natural selection is forced to act against them at essentially the same death rate. You see, lowering the force of natural selection simply puts off the inevitable genetic meltdown for creatures that cannot produce very many offspring per generation.

Iâ€™ve tired of this discussion, and Iâ€™m finished with it. Thereâ€™s no point in continuing if we are going to go in circles.

We’re only going in circles because you really don’t understand the problem yet. You still don’t understand that environmental changes and changes in generation times, while they do have the power to affect the action of natural selection as you point out, do not have the power to solve the problem of detrimental mutations building up over time in the genomes of creatures that only produce a few offspring per generation. Not until you do understand this will we stop moving around in circles. But, I’m not holding my breath…

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