The Bible tells us precisely nothing about this, just as it tells us precisely nothing of DNA from Adam. Neither are detectable in DNA, as should surprise no one.
We know that Jesus was born male.
I posed that question with regard to what Guy wrote: "Note: Jesus’ sex chromosomes had to be “miraculously” (purposefully) transformed in order for him to have been born male to a young woman who’d had “no relations with any man.” I can’t see how one can knowledgeably say anything about that. The Bible is silent about whatever genetic transformations happened. It is described as a miracle, not as a specific biochemical rearrangement. That he was born ‘male’ means nothing particular, sequence wise. The same phenotypes can derive from many, many potential genotypes. Having a Y-chromosome is not necessary nor does the Bible indicate what genetics are required to be a man. Basically, there are numerous (undisclosed) assumptions required to make assertions about Jesus’ genetics. He was born of a miraculous process. Period. There is no extant material to test. You can’t “science it up” further.
Found the original quote:
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.
It’s from Wittgenstein.
Translates to: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof must one be silent.”
Neither are detectable in DNA, as should surprise no one.
For different reasons…
The reason for why it wouldn’t be detectable in Jesus would be because we don’t have his DNA. It could, in principle be detected if we had his DNA and if God modified his genome in a detectable pattern, e.g. one quite different from other people’s. Haploid perhaps? But it certainly doesn’t have to be detectable.
The reason why it would likely be undetectable in Adam’s case is that we don’t see it in any such patterns in the genomes of his progeny, where we might hope to see any signal. Instead, it looks like common descent shared with the great apes.
The reason why it wouldn’t be detectable in Adam would be because we don’t have his DNA.
Adam and Jesus are absolutely no different from a genetic point of view. Most our ancestors are genetic ghosts that leave us no DNA, and even if Adam did leave us DNA, it is not identifiable.
We can no more test (1) whether or not we genetically descend from Adam than can we test (2) whether or not Jesus left illegitimate children by Mary of Magdalene. Christians will accept the first hypothesis, and reject the second. Atheists will accept the second hypothesis, and reject the first. Neither has genetic evidence to go on to make this determination.
That, however, is true. Even if we did not descend from common ancestors with the great apes, it sure looks that way. Dr. Jone’s switch on Chromosome 2 makes that even more clear. It will be interesting to see how he makes that case to other OECs and YECs, if that is really what he thinks.
@Revealed_Cosmology can you accept that terminology? I know you do no accept common descent. Wouldn’t you prefer us to say: It looks like we share common ancestors with the great apes, in place of: "we share common ancestors with the great apes. I’d even be willing to bracket that with the clause: “using the rules of mainstream science.”
No german unless you are gonna translate.
22 posts were split to a new topic: DNA and the Virgin Birth
To be correct Atheists will reject both as lacking in evidence. It was would be unjust to saddle Jesus with child support payments without DNA confirmation or a least testimony that he had relations with Mary of Magdalene.
Far enough. I should have said “some” atheists. Obviously not “all” atheists.
Sure. The joke in biology as that the “H” in Jesus H. Christ stands for ‘haploid’.
Sure I would accept that terminology because it is accurate. I am not trying to use truth to support any agenda. Truth is the agenda, as far as I am concerned.
I would say that we cannot prove that any signal we might find was actually from Adam through science, and it is not necessarily true that Adam even had a uniquely detectable signal. Certainly that is not a scriptural imperative.
In spite of the above you may recall that genetic anthropologists have found a genetic signal that “fits the bill” in time, place, and historical accomplishment. It also “looks like” what a redo of the human genetic code would be. I am referring to the mysterious genetic signal called “Basal Eurasian” which appears around 14K ago in the right place and is associated with the spread of true agriculture, animal domestication, and civilization building.
You may recall one of my first posts here was using them as a “proxy” for Adam to show how fast the right genetic signature could spread, and that this was a floor, not a ceiling for how fast family relatedness could spread.
Now back to the chromosome fusion and its likely appearance before home sapiens and issues related to ID on that:
Please don’t get irritated for me on this, but it recently occurred to me why the “fingerprints of God” would not be so easily detectable between Pan and human genomes. That is, so far as we know the changes between them are within the range that we might expect from known naturalistic processes. Perhaps the reason isn’t because there were no more rapid or massive changes than one might expect through natural means, but rather that those changes occurred just before that point. And it even makes sense (for an IDer or Creationist or even evolutionist who holds to the Christ-centered framework) why that might be…
Back to our regularly-scheduled programming:
What exactly is at stake with this line of questioning?
Asking what the Bible says about DNA seems surreal to me.
What exactly is at stake with this line of questioning?
For those who have not yet read @swamidass’ disclaimer, I provide it below for your convenience:
The Bible says nothing about DNA. Right?
Just like it says nothing directly about common descent, the absolute age of the earth, the solar system, any unified field theory, relativity, an inflationary phase in the universe’s unfolding… and yet, what it does say has very interesting correlates in each of these areas. So, what’s the point?
I know you are going to find this surprising, but promoting a controversial idea is usually not assisted by grabbing onto as many other “barely-related” controversial ideas as possible…
Casting all your dice in the tiniest little basket you can find doesn’t work, either. What, exactly, is it you’re afraid of?
I’m going to bed. Let’s it cool it with the sniping. If you don’t like what someone is saying just ignore it and move on. The better we treat each other, the more fun this discussion will be, and the more people may want to join us. No one here is the enemy.
Agreed. Good night, folks.