Darrel Falk and ENV on Chromosome 2

[Guy_Coe]

We know that Jesus was born male.

[Argon]

@swamidass

The Bible tells is precisely nothing about this, just as it tells us precisely nothing of DNA from Adam.

I agree.

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.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Argon

The reason for why it wouldn’t be detectable in Jesus would be because we don’t have his DNA.

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.

@Argon

Instead, it looks like common descent shared with the great apes.

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.

---

@anon46279830 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.”

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Guy_Coe

Was der Mensch gewissen von das Bibel, konnen Sie bestimmt gesagen. Gott hast gesprochen, und wir sind shadenfraude es nicht zum gelernen

@Argon

Was der Mensch nicht wissen kann, kann der Mensch nicht sagen

No german unless you are gonna translate.

[Patrick]

@swamidass

Atheists will accept the second hypothesis, and reject the first.

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.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Patrick

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.

[Argon]

@swamidass

Though, I suppose it can be entertaining to wonder about.

Sure. The joke in biology as that the “H” in Jesus H. Christ stands for ‘haploid’.

[anon46279830]

@swamidass

@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 .”

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.

@swamidass

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.

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…

Intervention Started Early on Road to Humanity

[Guy_Coe]

Back to our regularly-scheduled programming:

@swamidass

Essentially there has been fairly broad consensus among OEC and YEC scientists that this fusion is really not a fusion. Yet, Dr. Jones really does think this could have arisen by natural processes. That is an interesting development to see him break ranks here. That is good news, right?

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Argon

What exactly is at stake with this line of questioning?

Asking what the Bible says about DNA seems surreal to me.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

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:

Forum Disclaimer

This is the Peaceful Science Forum, hosted by Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass MD PhD, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis. See his scientific work is here: http://swami.wustl.edu/. Dr. Swamidass affirms mainstream science, including evolutionary science, the common descent of all living things (including humans), methodological naturalism (though he thinks it’s incorrectly named), and an old earth. He opposes political action to change science curricula, and is a skeptic of Intelligent Design and scientific creationism. Agreeing with the non-theist Eugenie Scott, he argues science is silent on God’s action, and cannot properly consider theological claims, like the existence or action of God. He also places a high value on building bridges, and kindness to others, which should not be mistaken for an endorsement of any claims. Dr. Swamidass is also a Christian. He confesses, along with other scientists, that Jesus rose from the dead. For this reason, he is sensitive to the conce…

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@gbrooks9

Asking what the Bible says about DNA seems surreal to me.

The Bible says nothing about DNA. Right?

[Guy_Coe]

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?

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Guy_Coe

So, what’s the point?

@Guy_Coe

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…

[Guy_Coe]

Casting all your dice in the tiniest little basket you can find doesn’t work, either. What, exactly, is it you’re afraid of?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

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.

[Guy_Coe]

Agreed. Good night, folks.