What I find confusing is why God had to kill anybody to atone for the original sin of A&E? So God had to become a physical man and be killed (a blood sacrifice) so that A&E fruit eating transgression against God (Himself) could be forgiven.
2 Likes
Let me repeat a little of our last conversation so that it is clear where we are at.
J (Jensen): It sounds like you are saying that (under Davidās and Georgeās models) those being taught moral and spiritual awareness already have the capacity for this awareness but it takes a special inculturation or teaching to actualize that awareness. But likewise I could say that the first humanās non-human parents and wider species also had the capacity for this awareness but that it could not be actualized without an added genetic impetus, however small that input might have been.
H (Harshman): You could indeed say that, [the last sentence,] but it would make no sense.
J: Why do you think that?
H: Because itās incoherent. If you have the capacity for something it doesnāt take a mutation to āactualizeā it. You seem not to know what ācapacityā means. And, again, if you think a single mutation can produce a complex feature, apparently by activating genes that had been long dormant, you donāt understand how that works either.
J: You agreed that āit is a necessary conclusion of [Davidās and Georgeās] modelsā that āthose being taught moral and spiritual awareness already have the capacity for this awareness but it takes a special inculturation or teaching to actualize that awareness.ā Capacity means potentiality. Without that teaching, those capable of attaining this awareness, this particular mental function, will never attain it. Those having the potentiality of becoming human only actualize that potential in the presence of a particular necessary condition. But likewise under my model, those capable of attaining this awareness will never attain it without a specific mutation which releases that particular mental function. So there is nothing incoherent about saying that having a capacity for something may require a mutation to actualize it.
I think that by now most of those who have followed our discussion can see that youāre grasping at straws. Since you cannot defeat my argument that the shift to humanness could have occurred with very genetic change, Iād like to go back and talk a little more about the shift involving more significant genetic changes. The following is taken from that post I made which was so long that you didnāt bother to read it.
J: If having a large number of non-functional genes building up over thousands of years waiting to be switched is unlikely, then we could reduce their number and have their build up over a shorter amount of time.
H: That doesnāt make it any better. Youāre still talking about a series of miracles to produce these āgenes in waitingā. Even giving them previous functions donāt help, since they would have to be carefully designed to be able to switch to a new function resulting from this one master mutation youāre proposing.
J: We are shifting back into my other argument that there may be more significant genetic changes needed to separate humans from non-humans. The argument Iāve just been offering [previously] is that there may be very few genetic differences between humans and their non-human parents and the wider non-human species.
With your statement about āgenes in waitingā and multiple miracles, I feel inevitably drawn to think about the ID [intelligent design] arguments which have become popular since Michael Beheās work concerning irreducible complexity and specifically the bacterial flagellum. He and others have claimed that these biological machines are so complex that they cannot be put together in some simpler form and then step by step be formed eventually into the flagellum. Critics have responded by pointing out that we have a less complex molecular machine which looks like it is a flagellum predecessor. It looks like the flagellum simplified and cut down and it has the function of a pump. ID people respond that it would take multiple miracles to get the pump to change in just the right ways to actually perform its new function. Gradually moving from pump to flagellum would involve numerous steps each one of which the machine would have no function. If biologists assume there is no genetic problem moving from the pump to the flagellum, why do you think there is a problem moving from functional or functionless genes to a new functional gene? How is your argument different from the ID argument?
One last thing. In your last statements you mentioned that I do not know how a single mutation (apparently) activating long dormant genes actually works. My understanding is that the mutation of a regulatory gene can, first of all, activate some genes. I understand that some genes have a given function or are dormant and the mutation changes their function or simply turns them on, respectively. Secondly, it may also deactivate other genes, that is, turn off their current function. Do I misunderstand that as well? If so, how am I mistaken? Or is this just another empty accusation?
Is anyone actually following this discussion? If so, how can you possibly know what they can see?
My argument has nothing to do with the ID argument. You are claiming, in effect, that a single mutation can change a pump into a flagellum. No, it canāt. And your proposed scenario is now so muddled that nobody could possibly know what you mean by it.
Your understanding is probably incorrect. I say āprobablyā because what you mean by āactivate some genesā is not clear.
Your understanding is wrong. There is no such thing as a ādormant geneā, much less a whole series of them just waiting for the right mutation in some other gene.
Yes, you do. I think itās possible that you may be confusing the normal processes of gene regulation, in whch a single transcription factor may activate or repress expression in multiple genes, with the evolution of gene regulation. One mutation does not assemble a new regulatory network; that would take careful prior design of a network in waiting.
I have made no empty accusations, just accusations you refuse to credit.
Why is nobody else weighing in here, incidentally?
2 Likes
Patrick, you are bound and determined to get us another reprimand from Josh for deviating from topic. But until he removes our posts I think you should see that there is a good explanation. Whether you agree or not that the following is a good explanation, Iāll have to wait to see.
Any sin, any harm to another person they do not deserve, any usurpation of the rights of another (including God) they do not deserve, requires separation from God. If God is absolutely and perfectly good, then God cannot have relationship with anyone who is not. Whether Godās atonement deals with original sin, A&Eās sin which affected all of their descendants, is more questionable. What is not questionable according the the New Testament is that our sins separate us from God and that God loved us so much that he was not willing to remain separated from us and that we remain in the filth and pit which is sin. Our sins also require punishment. When we harm someone else, justice demands that we receive as we have given. The only way that separation could be removed was by the substitution of one who has the capacity to be our substitute. Only God himself had the capacity to be our substitute, to take upon himself the punishment our sins deserve. The āpainā that substitution deserved, if it was truly even analogous to what we know of as pain, was so great that only God could bear it; it was truly pain to God in the sense that it was something which was extremely repulsive to God much like physical and psychological pain is something we want to avoid. God endured this only because his desire to be reconciled to us was so much greater. God had to become a man, bear the pain and death and separation from himself that we deserve to so reconcile us to himself.
If A&E were the only humans to ever have existed, this atoning act would still have had to have occurred if only for them. But you asked about original sin, the sin nature which is passed on to A&Eās descendants. If this idea is to make any sense at all, the only way I can see it is if a part of Adamās nature, the part he created of himself when he sinned, was passed on to all of his descendants. How this was passed on I donāt know. But we all have a sin nature as is evident from the fact that everyone does sin. The sins we commit because we inevitably sin are covered by the atonement as well as those sins we freely commit. Iāve written too much already but I will respond again if you still have questions and objection. But I do want to keep this as short as possible because this is off topic. (I feel a little like a kid who is doing something forbidden who keeps looking over his shoulder to make sure his parents donāt catch him.) Iāve explained this idea probably a lot more extensively and more clearly in my book so I should refer you there: Human Suffering and the Evil of Religion, ch. 3. Passing on a sin nature (as explained in the book) does not involve any wrongdoing on Godās part.
Because he is writing gibberish, and does not understand the science he is attempting to marshal for his cause. Itās difficult to make any sense of what heās writing, either theologically or scientifically. Consequently I donāt see how to participate helpfully.
2 Likes
Seems like a good pointā¦
2 Likes
One reason Iām pressing John on these issues is just on the chance that he is right that I do not adequately understand the science. Unless he or you can show me where Iām mistaken, we wonāt make any progress at all. So far I donāt see that he has answered the argument that a small genetic change can produce humanness. Only further discussion will help me see if a larger genetic change is a feasible channel to this end. Iām not opposed (in principle) to divine intervention to build up a structure which can be turned on to produce the first human, but I need to understand the objections involved. Unless you can pinpoint where you think Iām not making sense theologically or scientifically, Jonathan, simply saying this is so will not bring us any progress at all.
1 Like
You will first need to adequately define the difference between humanness and the non-humanness that immediately precedes it.
1 Like
It is not a matter of chance. It is a simple fact that you do not understand the science.
He has shown you several of your errors, and you keep acting as if he hasnāt.
Here are some examples.
No evidence provided, no scientific explanation of the mechanisms involved, no scientific (or even theological), definition of āhumannessā.
No evidence provided, a string of totally unsubstantiated claims, no testable hypothesis, mere assumptions, incomprehensible explanation of how this process produced the as-yet-undefined āhumannessā.
No theological justification for any of this, not least of which the disturbing scene of Adam having sex with his own daughter.
Totally incomprehensible; no demonstration of how this scenario āwould explainā any of this.
Yes.
Quite apart from all the theological handwaving, I have no idea what is meant by āa genetically related moral problemā.
More theologically confused assumptions and handwaving miracles.
Again a weird confusion of genetics and morality; itās not remotely clear how one justifies the other. I donāt even understand what youāre saying.
In other words you think thereās nothing wrong with incest, but you do think thereās something wrong with people who think thereās something wrong with incest? If thatās not what you mean then I donāt know what you mean. This whole section is creepy and weird and incomprehensible.
No explanation given as to how this āfits so much more easilyā.
It should bother you. Please read about the Westermarck Effect.
As for the science, John Harshman has already explained in detail how itās a mess. This is a good summary.
See also Joshuaās comment here.
Fantastical genetics is right. Youāre just making things up without any regard for the actual science.
There is no way to make progress here, because you think you are making perfect sense and you think you understand the science, and when people say you donāt understand what youāre saying you dismiss them, and when people demonstrate you donāt understand the science you dismiss them. Look at this comment you made to John.
One alternative is that he knows what he is talking about and you do not.
2 Likes
Sin is such an imaginary construct, ill defined, and essentially meaningless in living in a modern secular society. Sin lacks any legal, ethical, or moral basis in the United States today. Secular morality, law and ethics have replaced biblical law, morals, ethics and values for the betterment of humanity.
Good 'ole wholesome biblical incest. Thanks for more examples of biblical morality that is now criminal in all 50 states in the US.
I agree. There is a gap here.
What I am trying to figure out is why you feel the need to explain your theological position in genetic terms. Why not just explain to us what you think is important from a theological point of view, and we can give you examples of scientific models that might work with it?
1 Like
Please explain.
1 Like
There are many genetic diseases in humans, so I would think that if humanness came down to a single mutation we would be able to spot it in the living population. Do you know of any genetically linked cognitive diseases that fit the bill? I donāt.
1 Like
@DJensen doesnāt understand the scientific objections and if he doesnāt he will continue on. However helping him understand might be difficult.
What I donāt understand is why my alternate strategy is not workable.
There is no meaningful genetic difference between the pre-Adam humans and the genomes of Adam-and-Eve.
Have you asked him?
Does āmeaningfulā contribute any meaning to that sentence?
I have another long post dealing with the question of whether a mutation of my āhumanness alleleā might result in loss of humanness, a question someone posed much earlier. Iāll post it after I pose my questions for this post since it relates to your comment and question yet I donāt want to distract anyone from the question at hand with such a long post.
BTW, I do have a lot of responses coming up for the many posts that have come up recently. But there has been a lot to respond to, so it may not be soon.
First let me ask you (and anyone else who would like to chime in), Is it conceivable that a gene in the human genome could exist which is so resistant to mutation that we would not expect anyone to ever have that gene mutated in the history of humanity yet that mutation would not be fatal for the individual? I ask this on the chance that someone with a mutation of this humanness gene has never existed.
Secondly, remember that I said that the non-humans in my model should be very similar in behavior to the humans. This makes me wonder if some sociopaths lack (per hypothesis) the humanness gene. There are some benign psychopaths. I believe that is what they are called. Not all psychopathy is socially harmful. (No comment for now as to whether such people or others with extreme mental disabilities should or should not be considered human. That discussion will come later. And it is not a foregone conclusion that they are not human under my model.) Does the scientific community know any of the gene differences which produce sociopathy? I suspect that there may be different genes which may be present which produce the same effect or something like the same effect. Is there ever just one gene which can produce sociopathy?
Thirdly, Iāve mentioned the possibility that the first true humans were genetically very different from later ones. Is it possible that the single mutation which separated the first humans from the non-humans of their species (per my hypothesis) could not be detected because of these genetic changes? For example, might there be backup genes now in place which could be activated if the original humanness gene is knocked out. (If Iām using the terminology wrongly, please correct me. If I am, I think you understand what I mean.)
T_aquaticus, thank you for one of the first contributions (there have been others) to help me understand some of the problems with my model.
1 Like
What do you mean by āresistant to mutationā? No genes are resistant to mutation. Genes vary in the selective response to mutations, if thatās what you mean. But in that case, the only way to have no individuals ever born with a mutation to that gene would be if the mutation were a dominant lethal.
What does ātrue humanā mean, exactly? What species would these humans have belonged to? When would they have lived? How would these supposed backup genes have arisen, in your scenario?
So it sounds as though it is possible. But are there not different ways a gene might be mutated? Would that mean that all possible ways the gene might be mutated would have to result in a dominant lethal?