@pauluc: Further he argues that human compared to other non-mammalian

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

Further he argues that human compared to other non-mammalian animals have greater fidelity in somatic cell replication and so have a lower rate of somatic cell mutation. What do you suppose accounts for that? Perhaps error correction mechanisms that are present in higher mammals. Do we have a complete understanding of these. I think not but does your model allow for that?

I’ve already argued as much in this very forum (see my commment from August 11, 4:52 p.m.). I myself have pointed out that animals with longer generation times have correspondingly slower rates of mutation over an absolute period of time. This is clearly due to better error correction mechanisms as you yourself surmise.

The problem, of course, is that the per generation detrimental mutation rate still is and always was far far too high for natural selection to keep up (for creatures with few offspring per generation). Also, as already explained above, the relative strength of natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with this problem.

We can argue on the math as much as we want but until you actually provide evidence of increasing deleterious gene accumulation over non-modern times I do not think we have a basis for your argument.

We have plenty of evidence in the form of certain key facts that are clearly supported in literature.

We know the detrimental mutation rate for humans and other slowly reproducing creatures. And, we know that this rate has not changed substantially over time.

Arguably, the only thing that has changed a bit is the force of natural selection. It is reasonably true that human actions have lessened the impact of natural selection in modern times. There really is no argument here so far.

The problem for the ToE is that it the modern relative weakness of natural selection doesn’t solve the problem at all – even if natural selection was much stronger in the past than it is today. The death rate would have been greater, but not nearly high enough to compensate for the known rate of detrimental mutations. Detrimental mutations would still have entered the human gene pool in the past far far faster than they could have been eliminated by a stronger force of natural selection.

Consider that if natural selection where extremely strong, set at its maximum potential effectiveness for removing detrimental mutations, this would result in a death rate for humans of greater than 99.5% off all offsrping in each generation before they had a chance to reproduce.

Humans do not reproduce enough offspring per generation to handle such a high death rate – and yet avoid extinction. Yet, this is the death rate that is required if natural selection were to eliminate detrimental mutations from the gene pool as fast as they are entering it.

I would have no argument that humans are currently accumulating genetic damage but I would tend to agree with Lynchâ€™s argument that this reflects human manipulation of the environment and removal of selection pressure that previously existed. Indeed he argues this is akin to Global warming.

You make this argument because you really don’t understand that lessening the powers of natural selection doesn’t address the problem. The problem is not so much with the theorectical potential for natural selection to remove all detrimental mutations as fast as they enter the human gene pool.

The problem is with the death rate that would be required to achieve such a result. This required death rate far outpaces any historical human ability for offspring production. The same is true for other creatures that cannot produce offspring remotely close to the rate needed for natural selection to effectively cull detrimental mutations from such gene pools.

Your professor Lynch does not address these problems nor does he deal with the actual statistical elements of the problem. He doesn’t deal with the actual rate of detrimental mutations nor does he deal with the per generation death rate that would be required to deal with them. Therefore, there is no real science involved with these bald conjectures beyond their most trivial elements.

I do not trust that you have the biology correct. As I more and more see how you read the literature I am no more sanguine.

If I don’t have the biology correct, such as the rate of detrimental mutations per generation, by all means correct me. That would go a whole lot farther than trying to attack my reading comprehension or grasp of the literature. Prove me wrong with something that is actually relevant to the argument in play here (without misreading what I actually said as you have done in the past).

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