Sin and Genetics

Sin on a Chromosome?

Posted by Paul Rothberg on September 13, 1998 at 17:16:25:

I heard a rumor about creationists. I heard that creationists think that SIN can be located on a chromosome. Therefore, my question for creationists today: Is this rumor true?

First Response

Posted by Mockingbird1 on September 13, 1998 at 18:44:44:

PK: That is news to me. Of course I just found out the other day that what evolutionists understand the theory of evolution to be is really a large and growing body of knowledge and not a theory in a scientific sense. So, that I don't know something really may not bear on whether or not others hold the opinion.


Response to Mockingbird1

Posted by The Dire Puppy on September 13, 1998 at 19:23:55:

Came across a couple of things recently that may be of interest.  The gray fox and the island fox of the Catalina Islands are reproductively incompatable, and the period of time of geographical separation is put at around 16.5 K yrs. This came from MacDonald's "The Velvet Claw: a natural history of the carnivores".

There's also a lot of other nifty tid-bits, however, for some reason, the book has absolutely NO bibliography! So I cannot check the references. Won't allow myself to believe that MacDonald would have purposefully omit it, that would be highly unprofessional. I will assume that it was BBC Books, for cost cutting reasons. But still, it only cheapens their own product, and I'll check any more of their stuff before I purchase.

The other was a blurb in the 21- Aug. Science on stuff presented at the symposium "Molecular Strategies in Biological Evolution held in NYC in June. "The work shows that the mutations leading to evolutionary change are neither as small nor as rare as many biologists have long assumed. Sometimes they involve the movements of relatively large pieces of DNA,..." (Just a teaser) Cool stuff really.


Response to Dire Puppy

Posted by Mockingbird1 on September 13, 1998 at 21:22:42:

DP: The gray fox and the island fox of the Catalina Islands are reproductively incompatable, and the period of time of geographical separation is put at around 16.5 K yrs. This came from MacDonald's "The Velvet Claw: a natural history of the carnivores".

PK: That is interesting. I'll try Infoseek for some on line leads.

DP: "The work shows that the mutations leading to evolutionary change are neither as small nor as rare as many biologists have long assumed. Sometimes they involve the movements of relatively large pieces of DNA,..."

PK: Looks like chromosomal translocations. There is a significant one inferred in the Gorilla ancestry. I am puzzled on how it can fit in w/ natural selection. It would be cool to observe a new translocation and monitor how it might persist and dominate a population.


Response to Mockingbird1

Posted by Paul Rothberg on September 13, 1998 at 22:54:41:

PK: Looks like chromosomal translocations. There is a significant one inferred in the Gorilla ancestry. I am puzzled on how it can fit in w/ natural selection. It would be cool to observe a new translocation and monitor how it might persist and dominate a population.

PGR: Yes PK, that is the excitement of science. I am not sure if you meant the fusion that created human chromosome 2, but the evidence is that it did occur. The details of the selection are probably very interesting. There are books on the subject, but I haven't read them so I don't know if they answer the question. Interestingly, the type of events proposed to account for the chromosomal differnces between humans and great apes are polymorphic in the human population. Not the exact breakpoints, but other inversions.


Response to Paul Rothberg

Posted by Mockingbird1 on September 14, 1998 at 08:32:23:

PR: Yes PK, that is the excitement of science. I am not sure if you meant the fusion that created human chromosome 2, but the evidence is that it did occur.

PK: Thanks, actually I was talking about the inferred translocation on a gorilla chromosome. The inferred simple fusion into human 2 might not have selected pressure since the affected genes would readily pair up w/ heterogeneous chromosomes. This would not be the case in the translocation.


Second Response

Posted by sos on September 13, 1998 at 19:51:24:

No, I don't think sin is a genetic condition, but a spiritual condition. Perhaps it is convenient for some to think of sin similar to a dominant mutant gene because the spiritual "corruption" is passed down to the offspring. Thus we read in scripture, "as in Adam all die" (1 Cor 15:22) we have a universal "human" condition. This is man's "natural" state.

We also have individual judgment:  "Like Adam, they have broken the covenant-- they were unfaithful to me there." - Hosea 6:7 (NIV)

In Romans, we see both the curse of sin and the gracious remedy for those who accept it.  Rom 5:12-21:

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!  16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.   17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.  18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.  20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (NIV)

It may be interesting to note that "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." - Lev 17:11 (NIV)

Many of the blood's factors are genetically passed on by the father... The Holy Spirit of God was responsible for Jesus' human conception...And we read, "How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!" – Heb 9:14 (NIV)

What does this have to do with genetics... very little. But, I can see where some authors might draw some unwarranted conclusions linking genetics with spiritual things.


Third Response

Posted by Kevin Kamberg on September 13, 1998 at 20:40:13:

This is the first I've heard of this. It sounds pretty strange and I'd be very surprised if any Creation scientist believes that.

Basically, I agree with sos's analysis of the possible source of this "rumor."

Fourth Response

Posted by MEYER on September 13, 1998 at 21:11:02:

I believe you're yanking chains on this one.   However, if creation scientists believe all of creation is knowable, then it wouldn't surprise me if they were looking for "sin". If it is possible to explain scientifically all of Noah's adventure, then sin would be a cinch.

And I don't mean that in a nasty way toward creation scientists. I'm just saying that there are things that mainstream and creation science cannot know, and the physical properties of sin is one, because sin is in the soul and not the flesh. We commit sin by using our free will. If there is a sin button, that would suggest that we could get rid of it. And that ain't going to happen.


Fifth Response

Posted by Jim on September 14, 1998 at 09:15:49:

This rumor has yet to reach my ears from anyone other than an evolutionist. Sorry!

 

 

 

 
 
CARM ison
 
 
CARM.org
Copyright 2014

CONTACT US:
CARM Office number: 208-466-1301
Office hours: M-F; 9-5 pm; Mountain Time
Email: [email protected]
Mailing Address: CARM, PO BOX 1353, Nampa ID 83653