Gene Number Changes Between Humans and Chimps

mark kennedy · #**201** 12th June 2009, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

GuidanceNeeded gave this link to me, which contains this passage:

Thus, neither Christ's spirit nor his body must have resulted from the DNA of Mary’s egg or from any man’s sperm. Both would have contained inherited genetic defects and the sin nature. As Scripture tells us, Jesus was truly the Second Adam. The first Adam was a special creation of God (not related to any human being), and so was the second Adam (Romans 5:12-19). Jesus was just as fully human as the first Adam. And just like the first Adam, he had no sin nature, no inherited sin, no sinful flesh, which has always been passed from one generation to the next since Adam and Eve’s sin. He was absolutely pure and without sin—from the day he was born, till the day he died. He had to be—he was the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, sacrificed for sins (John 1:29).
SOURCE

Ok, lets look at this a minute. As an exposition of the proof texts it's nicely done. The writer simply says that it's reasonable to consider the body of Jesus to be a special creation and as the second Adam Jesus would have had a flawless DNA code. It's a nice exposition.

In addition, Homo sapiens have a [Homo] predecessor --- mankind doesn't --- (except for God, that is).

...the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:38)

Only Adam is properly spoken of as the, 'son of God', in that he had no human parents. Paul speaks of Adam in this way, notice he uses the proper name just as he does with Moses:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:12-14)

This passage easily refutes the common error of TEs to take Adam figuratively. They simply have no answer for this just as they have no answer for the book of Genesis being an historical narrative representing the genealogical pedigree of mankind in general (the generations of Adam) and the Hebrews (the generations of Abraham) respectively.

AV1611VET · #**202** 12th June 2009, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

I don't know how you guys got on the X chromosome/Y chromosome thing but it looks like a dead end to me.

Someone (I can't remember who) tried to change my wording from "DNA" to "chromosome", and I wouldn't let him.

Then someone else tried to change it to "gene", and I wouldn't let him.

Then the ad hominems started, so I figured the discussion was over.

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

Sin is carried in the blood, would seem to be the inference, when it is realized that the blood comes from the Father some think its the reason for the virgin birth. Personally I'm not all that sure but it's an interesting thought.

I'm under the impression the Sin Nature resides in the flesh.

AV1611VET · #**203** 12th June 2009, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Cabal

Sorry, Mark, I should have been clearer.

AV's claim is that sin is ONLY inherited via the father. To have a factor that is present in all humans but is male-transferred only causes several problems.

And I totally agree with you on the "sin gene" concept, it's a complete waste of time - which is why even if the genetics were sound, to pursue this point is a waste of AV's time too.

I did not say there was a "sin gene" --- I said the Sin Nature is transferred via one of the father's DNA units.

The DNA then, with respect to the Sin Nature, serves as a carrier.

Cabal · #**204** 12th June 2009, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Here we go again.

Can a female carry her father's DNA?

If yes --- can one of those DNA units harbor the Sin Nature?
If yes --- what's the problem?

Yes, BUT - the point is, she can then PASS IT ON, VIOLATING YOUR ASSUMPTION.

The only piece of DNA that is unique to males that females can't pass on is the y-chromosome - because they don't have it. However, if that's the only way sin can be passed on, the women won't have the sin nature.

Cabal · #**205** 12th June 2009, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

I did not say there was a "sin gene" --- I said the Sin Nature is transferred via one of the father's DNA units.

The DNA then, with respect to the Sin Nature, serves as a carrier.

BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT A CHANCE THAT WOMEN WILL PASS IT ON TOO!!!!

Cabal · #**206** 12th June 2009, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

Only Adam is properly spoken of as the, 'son of God', in that he had no human parents. Paul speaks of Adam in this way, notice he uses the proper name just as he does with Moses:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:12-14)

That has what to do with Adam's ancestry exactly?

This passage easily refutes the common error of TEs to take Adam figuratively. They simply have no answer for this just as they have no answer for the book of Genesis being an historical narrative representing the genealogical pedigree of mankind in general (the generations of Adam) and the Hebrews (the generations of Abraham) respectively.

As pointed out to you previously, Darwinism does not remove the need for redemption. And as pointed out to you previously also, even if the genealogies were correct, that doesn't rule out evolution.

Cabal · #**207** 12th June 2009, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Someone (I can't remember who) tried to change my wording from "DNA" to "chromosome", and I wouldn't let him.

Then someone else tried to change it to "gene", and I wouldn't let him.

Tough proverbial, AV, the assumptions of your genetic sin model require it. These temper tantrums impress no-one.

Then the ad hominems started, so I figured the discussion was over.

Ad hominems? I recall all your arguments on this topic being countered, at least they certainly were by me. No ad hominems there. Maybe you could man up and start answering the points now, or admit that you're wrong, perhaps?

Skaloop · #**208** 12th June 2009, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Someone (I can't remember who) tried to change my wording from "DNA" to "chromosome", and I wouldn't let him.

Then someone else tried to change it to "gene", and I wouldn't let him.

But genes are composed of DNA, and chromosomes are composed of genes. The reason we were switching around with this reference is to get clarification on what you meant by Sin Nature residing in DNA.

Like if I were to say to you "the Bible predicts who will win the Stanley Cup tonight" you would probably ask for chapter and verse to support that. But that's just getting specifics about where in the Bible the prediction is. You're not changing any parameters, you're getting more specific info.

Similarly, we were trying to sort out which part of human DNA is carrying the Sin nature through fathers only.

mark kennedy · #**209** 12th June 2009, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Someone (I can't remember who) tried to change my wording from "DNA" to "chromosome", and I wouldn't let him.

Yea I saw that, he made some big deal about the difference between DNA and the Chromosome. The thing is, the chromosomes are composed of DNA base pairs so it was obviously an error fabrication tactic.

Then someone else tried to change it to "gene", and I wouldn't let him.

I've seen creationists try to point out a sin bearing gene. I think it would be more like mutations resulting from sin's curse but it's nearly impossible to say for sure.

Then the ad hominems started, so I figured the discussion was over.I'm under the impression the Sin Nature resides in the flesh.

It does but there is also a spiritual dimension. Paul discusses the natural man as well and there is also an aspect of mind. Sin is transcendent and in New Testament theology is more of an absence of righteousness then a list of offenses. The fallen nature as it relates to our sinful flesh represents more of a consequence of sin then a cause.

Sometimes you can get off on tangents and it clouds the understanding of the simple message of the Gospel. Sin transcends our earthly nature in mind, body and spirit and the only cure is the blood of Christ. Presently we have the Holy Spirit sent as our Comforter (literally Helper) until the redemption of the purchase price, that is the redemption of our bodies at the resurrection (see Ephesians 1:9-14).

Sin does have a physical dimension that can only be undone at the resurrection. That does not mean that the source or our sin is genetic, the source of sin is spiritual but the consequences include sin killing us physically and our ability to understand God in our mind (noetic effects of sin).

Sin consumes us mentally, physically and spiritually. The good news is that righteousness does as well.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Cabal · #**210** 12th June 2009, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

Yea I saw that, he made some big deal about the difference between DNA and the Chromosome. The thing is, the chromosomes are composed of DNA base pairs so it was obviously an error fabrication tactic.

No, it wasn't. It was a reasonable step to take.