Gene Number Changes Between Humans and Chimps

[mark kennedy]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

A better way of saying it would be the effects of sin on our DNA. Now, genes are a series of DNA base pairs contained in the chromosomes. Protein coding genes are really a small part of the chromosomes but certain RNA genes (single stranded regulatory genes for instance) can come from other sequences.

As far as sin in the DNA we are probably not talking about a sin gene per se, as if it were added to Adam's genetic code. It's probably something causing mutations or disrupting the molecular mechanisms that repair DNA sequences.

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.

The Bible is very specific about what sin is and it's not the presence of something, it's the lack of righteousness. What happened genetically would have come as a consequence of sin, not as a cause.

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

That's not what he is saying, in fact, he has not attempted such an elaborate demonstration as you are trying to demand. It is commonly believed that one of the reasons for the virgin birth was because you inherit your blood from your father. It's pure, undiluted speculation but still an interesting thought. For me it is of no more consequence or substance then whether or not Adam had a belly button.

Frankly, I think you are just trying to run him in circles using unanswerable questions. No matter what the answer you will just repeat the question. It generally indicates that you have run out or real arguments and have resorted to fallacious ones.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe you could man up and start answering the points now, or admit that you're wrong, perhaps?

I'll say this much --- I'll give some more thought to the point that women can pass on the Sin Nature as well.

Although, I'm under the impression that basic doctrine teaches that it is passed on by the males.

Fair enough?

 

[Cabal]

I'll say this much --- I'll give some more thought to the point that women can pass on the Sin Nature as well.

Although, I'm under the impression that basic doctrine teaches that it is passed on by the males.

Fair enough?

Hally-bally-lujah.

Fair enough.

 

[Skaloop]

A better way of saying it would be the effects of sin on our DNA. Now, genes are a series of DNA base pairs contained in the chromosomes. Protein coding genes are really a small part of the chromosomes but certain RNA genes (single stranded regulatory genes for instance) can come from other sequences.

As far as sin in the DNA we are probably not talking about a sin gene per se, as if it were added to Adam's genetic code. It's probably something causing mutations or disrupting the molecular mechanisms that repair DNA sequences.

If that's your view fine. But that's not at all what AV was talking about.

The Bible is very specific about what sin is and it's not the presence of something, it's the lack of righteousness. What happened genetically would have come as a consequence of sin, not as a cause.

Again,. not what AV was alluding to.

That's not what he is saying, in fact, he has not attempted such an elaborate demonstration as you are trying to demand. It is commonly believed that one of the reasons for the virgin birth was because you inherit your blood from your father.

Except that you don't. Not entirely or exclusively, anyway.

It's pure, undiluted speculation but still an interesting thought. For me it is of no more consequence or substance then whether or not Adam had a belly button.

Then ignore it. It's AV's argument, not yours.

Frankly, I think you are just trying to run him in circles using unanswerable questions.

They're only unanswerable because his position is untenable. They are not unreasonable.

To again move to an analogy regarding the Bible, if I said Jesus condoned abortion as a form of convenient birth control, you'd want me to provide chapter and verse. That I would be unable to do so does not make your question an attempt to "run me in circles using unanswerable questions". My failure to answer is a slight against my position, not your question.

As it is here with AV, if he continues to state that Sin is somehow carried in the DNA and is exclusively passed on by the father of the offspring. Because there is no genetic mechanism that allows something to be passed on by the father only and at the same time infect female children.

No matter what the answer you will just repeat the question. It generally indicates that you have run out or real arguments and have resorted to fallacious ones.

I have plenty of arguments waiting in the wings, but it will require AV to clarify how Sin is carried by DNA, who carries it, who passes it on, and generally where in the human genome it resides.

If he can't answer those questions, it ain't my fault. They are legitimate questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

But genes are composed of DNA, and chromosomes are composed of genes.

All genes have DNA, but DNA don't have genes --- is that right?

It sounds to me like genes are the neighborhood, and DNA are the houses.

And I'm saying the Sin Nature resides in one of those houses, and you guys are saying it should be spotted in someone's backyard, or on the street corner, or on top of a roof.

In other words --- in plain sight.

The Sin Nature is inside one of those houses in the neighborhood, and at best, we're looking down on the neighborhood from a helicopter.

 

[Skaloop]

All genes have DNA, but DNA don't have genes --- is that right?

It sounds to me like genes are the neighborhood, and DNA are the houses.

And I'm saying the Sin Nature is found in one of those houses, and you guys are saying it should be spotted in someone's backyard, or on the street corner, or on top of the roof --- in other words --- in plain sight.

The Sin Nature is inside one of those houses in the neighborhood, and at best, we're looking down on the neighborhood from a helicopter.

That's actually a pretty good analogy, AV. The houses/DNA versus neighbourhood/genes.

And if the Sin nature is in one of these DNA houses, it can indeed be passed on through DNA.

However, it's once you state that it comes from the father only and not the mother at all that there are problems. The father could give the DNA house to either his son or daughter. If he gives it to his daughter, then she could, in turn, give it to her son our daughter, meaning that the Sin nature within that DNA house would not go through the father of her children.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Grace and peace,
Mark

Good points!

When it comes to the Sin Nature, my pastor words it this way:

• We are not sinners because we sin --- we sin because we're sinners.

 

[AV1611VET]

However, it's once you state that it comes from the father only and not the mother at all that there are problems. The father could give the DNA house to either his son or daughter. If he gives it to his daughter, then she could, in turn, give it to her son our daughter, meaning that the Sin nature within that DNA house would not go through the father of her children.

Okay --- now we're getting somewhere.

As Mark said, and I agree, sin is spiritual --- so is the Sin Nature.

So when the father gives the DNA house to either his son or his daughter, the Sin Nature exits that house and becomes part of the flesh.

Then, when the daughter marries and has children of her own, the Sin Nature of her children will be transmitted to them via their father's house.

Her houses won't have the Sin Nature residing in any of them --- his will.

 

[Skaloop]

Okay --- now we're getting somewhere.

As Mark said, and I agree, sin is spiritual --- so is the Sin Nature.

So when the father gives the DNA house to either his son or his daughter, the Sin Nature exits that house and becomes part of the flesh.

Then, when the daughter marries and has children of her own, the Sin Nature of her children will be transmitted to them via their father's house.

Her houses won't have the Sin Nature residing in any of them --- his will.

Yes, we do appear to be getting somewhere. So you are saying that God himself is controlling how the Sin nature is passed on genetically, and restricting it to the father's "house"? That He prevents the Sin nature of the mother from being present in the DNA houses of the ovum?

That, I must admit, would at least make some sense in a "God can do anything" sort of way.

 

[Naraoia]

I will make you a deal then Naraoia; I will not tell you that all the other apes have is insiticts as long as you dont reach in you little box (ToE box that is) and pull out some of those assuptions. Assumptions being that 500 thousand years from now the apes would have lost their tales, they will be communicating with languages like ours, and flying to the moon with a rocket ship they built. Deal? Actually I better give you a million years. You evos need LOTS of time, time time. Throw in some chance, a couple accidents, a couple random mutations...voila AN upright walking, talking, space monkey.

Umm... when have I ever said anything like that? In fact, when have any of us ever predicted that other apes were bound to evolve into duplicate humans?

I don't want you to simply stop saying what you say, I want you to understand that other apes are thinking, feeling creatures whose minds are more similar to ours than you thought. They are not machines guided solely by instincts. They think, plan, learn, choose, invent, and though they can't do integral calculus or write novels (as far as we know, anyway), the differences between us increasingly seem to be of degree, not of kind.

I just wish people like you could learn to look upon other animals with a feeling other than scorn.

You still haven't grasped the simplest concepts of evolution have you Thomas.

The niche for the upright walking talking space monkey is filled.

You still see plans and direction in evolution where no such things exist.

It really isn't a difficult concept - mutation - differential reproductive success.

That is more or less it.

And that.

Adding that natural selection ain't an accident.

Actually he is putting his faith in mutations and a kind of naturalistic lottery winner. Mutations are a failure of DNA repair but when they do have an effect it is almost always deleterious (harmful).

I love how you say "deleterious" and then put in a bracket to explain it. Why not just say "harmful" if you're expecting laypeople in your audience?

Only 29% of the genes in the comparison of the Chimpanzee Genome and the Human Genome sequences are the same.

"The same" meaning identical coding sequence, right? That's a very stringent criterion of similarity, and it neatly sidesteps the fact that most genes are in fact very similar in both species.

More importantly, with brain related genes I have yet to see one that had a beneficial effect.

Right, mutations related to everything are most easily detected when they cause a disease. Picking the brain-related ones and ignoring the rest is disingenuous.

Pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will find a disease or disorder effecting the human brain as the result of a mutation.

Human Genome Project Landmark Poster

And as I've shown you, you can also pick a chromosome, almost any chromosome (IIRC, some of the smallest ones didn't have everything) and you can also find loci for cancers, metabolic disorders and muscle disorders on it. I don't remember that you ever addressed that point.

Also, if you look at those landmarks, the vast majority of them are diseases, affecting every system and process in the body. Why? Because that's how mutations and genes are most easily identified!

(And also, disease-causing mutations are much more important from a practical PoV than mutations that give you a slight intelligence advantage.)

Effects like this one are unknown to science:

They are not, in fact, unknown. I'm close to giving up hammering OdsH into your head, though. The skull just seems impenetrable.

By the way, the rapid expansion of the human brain would not have started 6 million years ago, it would be closer to 2 million years ago:

OK, I do give up on you. You're parroting the same oversimplified data without even a reference to my (and others') repeated corrections. I think that from now on, every time I see these numbers, I'll just link the lurkers to Nick Matzke's nice colourful graph based on all published measurements of hominin cranial capacity as of 2000 (and, now that I've found it, the body size-corrected version), and to a compound interest calculator so they can play around with it and find out just how much (or, in fact, little) brain size had to increase in each generation to get from there to here.

You're not worth more than that.

This can be easily demonstrated from the peer reviewed scientific literature and one more thing. All they are really doing with the fossils are digging up ape fossils and passing them off as our ancestors giving the illusion of a gradual evolutionary process. To date there have been hundreds of fossils that are supposedly our ancestors but the chimpanzee ancestors are represented by three fossilized teeth from roughly the same period.

I've also asked you this before. If these supposed hominins are all in fact "apes" (FYI, we are apes), then what would a transitional fossil between apes and humans look like?

Oh, and before I forget, what were those alleged H. habilis tools that aren't recognised by archaeologists (or something like that)?

I think I told you I'm not letting that slip.

What he is getting at is the blood is inherited from the father while the RH factor comes from the mother.

Rh blood groups are inherited autosomally. The genes are on a perfectly ordinary chromosome and can be inherited from either parent. Like most other genes. The thing with mothers and Rh factors is and RhD- mother's potential immune response to an RhD+ child.

And "blood" inherited from the father? Which age do you live in, honestly?

(Split Rock, this is where my patience with Mark Kennedy officially ends.)