Iron sharpens iron.

[Travelsong]

Since we know that the YEC tactic of disputing evolution is based on distorting the evidence from creation I thought it might be a decent idea to have a thread where we address some of the common YEC arguments as a sort of reference sheet. I'm not a technically minded person so when I see a whole lot of math and complicated terminology I can understand how it would appear intimidating to the average layman. Of course we all know it does no good to wear the face of legitimacy if the foundation is a pack of lies.


Anyone care to take a stab at this one?

Cystic fibrosis is caused by tiny (point) mutations in chromosome 7, leading to deletion of a single amino acid in as=m ion transport protein, 1,480 amino acids long. The total nucleotide monomer content of the human genome is at least 3 billion nucleotides, all very specifically interdependent in unimaginably complex ways. The cystic fibrosis genetic mutation involves a random change of not more than 3 nucleotides.

The important point is that science has now quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (.0000001%) of an animal's genome is relentlessly fatal!

Now the genetic difference between human and his "nearest relative," the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal (and of course the death of a crippled mutant animal ends all possibility of further change).

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Well, for one thing, I'm quite sure that the genes for cystic fibrosis weren't involved in the evolution of man or chimpanzee, so what those partiular mutations were don't count!

Every one of us had 5 to 6 random changes in our nucleotides. Why aren't we all dead? Because most of the changes aren't quite as dangerous as the changes that make for cystic fibrosis. Many are in fact of no consequence at all, good or bad.

 

[Bro. James]

Simple math and common terminology:

If homosexuality is "in the genes", how do they reproduce?

1-homo + 1-homo = 0 offspring or a genetic dead end.

If the homosexual part of the populace continues to increase, will the population eventually stop reproducing because it is mostly homosexual?
Maybe we do not need to colonize Mars after all.
We are stuck on this planet folks. Now what?

Have we considered the condition of the population of Sodom and Gomorrah before they were destroyed? It seems many of them were having an "identity crisis" and were living an "alternative lifestyle". God called such an abomination.

Theistic evolutionists and creationists are in two completely different worlds. They use some of the same terms, but they have not the same definitions which also makes their paradigms so far apart. Until such time as there can be agreement as to infallible revelation, there can really be little discussion. The ground rules have to be established before the game begins.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[UTEOTW]

"Simple math and common terminology:

If homosexuality is "in the genes", how do they reproduce?

1-homo + 1-homo = 0 offspring or a genetic dead end.

If the homosexual part of the populace continues to increase, will the population eventually stop reproducing because it is mostly homosexual?"

It is a complex question. Who says that there is a genetic cause to begin with?

To be difficult, I am going to propose a genetic answer myself. Now first off, this is likely one of those situations where a certain gene only changes the percentages just a bit or even where it is a combination of genes in play.

However there is a straight forward answwer to some cases. Genetic recombination swaps genetic material between chromosomes during reproduction. If part of the sex determining region of the gender determining chromosome gets swapped, then you can have a situation where an offspring has both male and female genes mixed together on the sex determining chromosome. This can lead to all sorts of issues, some physical some not. (You're adults, put your minds to work.) But it would be reasonable to assume that mistakes in this process could also be responsible for some of those who claim to be gay. I would also think that this idea, or at least some sort of genetic aspect, is supported by observation of occasional such behavior in animals.

Disclaimer: None of this is to say that everyone who claims to be gay is so because of genes nor to excuse behavior.