Please forgive me for posing too many questions. But, …

Comment on How much of the Human Genome is Functional? by Ken Christman, M.D..

Please forgive me for posing too many questions. But, did those ancient church records come with genetic mapping? Is it conceivable that a mutation might have occurred in Giovanni’s father, grandfather, etc.? Perhaps his mother, grandmother, etc.? Do you even suppose that the mutation extends back to Noah or his 3 sons? What if this Milano “mutation” isn’t a mutant at all, but rather, someone near Noah mutated and this gene was original? I struggle to see how we can assume these conclusions without church records that are accompanied by complete sets of genomic mapping.

As for the question of when the human race will become extinct, might I suggest that it has nothing to do with the human genome? Jesus explained that nobody knows, not even the angels in heaven. However, he also suggested that people will be able to determine seasons as the fig tree demostrates its seasonal changes. Do you see any seasonal changes? At that point, a large segment of the human population will be sublimated regardless of the condition of their genomes. The remainder will have their genomes restored back to the original, with never ever a chance of another mutation.

The beautiful thing about this is that we can be absolutely certain which group we will be in, as Jesus promised in John 3:18: “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

Ken Christman, M.D. Also Commented

How much of the Human Genome is Functional?
I searched the two links provided, but could find absolutely no mention of Giovanni Pomarelli, supposedly the originator of this mutated Milano gene. One of the links described detailed studies on only three closely related Italians. The other link had an Abstract that pointed to uncertainty: “Despite intensive study, it is not clear whether the removal of the arginine or the introduction of cysteine is responsible for this altered functionality.” That same paper concludes with: “Whether or not alterations in HDL caused by the R173C mutation alter the anti-atherogenic properties of HDL compared with WT apo AI is still controversial.”

I did, however, search for Mr. Giovanni Pomarelli and caught up with him in a news release which suggested that this man, born in 1780, was indeed the source of this mutation, as a number of his current offspring trace their heredity back to him!! No genetic studies needed. Just a wild assumption.

For me, I don’t have enough faith for wild assumptions. I continue to believe that in a single afternoon, God created a perfect human genome out of a gob of dirt. The two perfect sets of human genomes had no mutations and needed none, because they were already perfect. Instead of worshipping their Creator with extreme thankfulness, they wandered off and did what He had expressly forbidden. That is when those nasty mutations started. It robbed them of their perfection.

In spite of this dreadful mistake, their Creator offered a way out for not only the two guilty parties, but also for all their offspring. He would send His own Son to die an ignominious death to pay the price for such an offense, thus restoring that perfect human genome and simultaneously restoring immortality. What else is necessary to obtain immortality? Nothing more than acceptance of this free gift. Nothing more than a belief in the Creator God and an acceptance of His Son who paid the price for our redemption.

What amazes me is that so few accept this free gift. Brilliant scientists continue searching for their own solutions. Ray Kurzweil, a gifted scientist, innovator, and futurist, is searching for his own immortality, which he believes he can achieve once the human race achieves “singularity”. So, he takes loads of vitamins, nutrients, and assorted substances to stay alive long enough to reach this point of immortality. While one can applaud Kurzweil’s earthly accomplishments, he is dreadfully mistaken in his trust in fellow scientists. While he is correct that we are heading toward a point of “singularity”, he denies that at that point, human ingenuity will have nothing to do with determining who achieves immortality and who doesn’t.


How much of the Human Genome is Functional?
We all agree that the human genome is extremely complex. There are essentially two ways of approaching its origin:
1. It developed over billions and billions of years, beginning with the Big Bang, and subsequently refining itself without any guidance and strictly by accident, so that sentient humans ultimately evolved on their own. It was a slow, tedious, uphill road. While some “scientists” have served up some “evidence” to support this, I find it impossible to muster up enough faith to believe it is scientifically true. For one thing, human mutations do not improve the human model, but rather, damage it.

2. God created the human genome in a single day. It was perfect. Flawless. Could not be improved upon. It was created to last forever. Mutations were not part of the original model. Mutations came after Adam and Eve’s disobedience. From that point forward, it was a slow, tedious, downhill road. While Adam and Eve lived circa 9 centuries, what else would you expect if they started with perfect, flawless genomes? However, after the Noah’s Flood, lifespans were sharply decreased. Do you suppose God might have allowed mutations to increase? After all, if He created Adam out of dirt in an afternoon, it would seem a simple matter to increase the mutation rate, don’t you think?

“And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” Genesis 1:31. I would suggest that calling His creation “very good” was equivalent to calling it perfect. When Jesus was addressed as “Good Master” in Matthew 19:16, He responded, “There is none good but one, that is, God.” So, if God’s creation was perfect to begin with, would we be so bold as to suggest that natural and sporadic mutations might improve that perfect model? Do you suppose God saw the evil of the antediluvians, and decided to shorten human longevity by turning up the mutation rate? Don’t you think that God views bacterial mutation differently than human mutation? Do you even suppose that God might provide for certain bacterial mutations (such as antibiotic resistance)?

The ccr5 mutation is posited by “scientists” to have arisen more than 5,000 years ago. That would place this “mutation” squarely in the antediluvian age, if not back to creation itself! Wow, these learned “scientists” must know a lot more about the antediluvians than I do. If, indeed, this “mutation” occurred 6,000 years ago, is it possible that it was actually God’s original model?

These ccr5 “scientists” further suggest that this “mutation” was a selective agent in the bubonic plague and smallpox. In order to prove that such a “mutation” indeed had a protective effect against these diseases, and indeed did exist in these survivors, one would expect that these researchers would need to unearth quite a few corpses of survivors and non-survivors and study their genomes. On the other hand, do you suppose that some survivors might have acquired some immunity in one way or another? Do you suppose some were younger, healthier, etc.? Look at Ebola today, with its very high death rate. There are some survivors, however. Would we agree that those survivors might be constitutionally stronger, healthier, etc.? We certainly would not suggest that those victims would mutate in order to achieve some degree of protection, would we?

I would suggest that vaccine protection against viral and/or bacterial diseases should NOT be confused with any sort of genetic mutation. These are two entirely different processes.

As for articles dealing with “mutations” of atherosclerosis genes, we all know that there are definite genetic predispositions related to numerous genes. Yet, who knows when and which genes mutated? None of these articles offer any hard evidence of such information.

Yes, indeed, there are some people who have strong bones, while others have weak ones. However, they all break if enough force is applied. Just because some people escape fractures while in an auto accident is no proof beneficial mutation. However, one might postulate a possibility of harmful mutations occurring many centuries ago, followed by a mutation back to the original one created by God in the first place? I don’t know.

I would suggest that there is a lot of bad science out there, and we should be very wary of accepting interpretations, regardless of how eloquently they are produced. For me, the evidence is clear: God created a perfect human genome in His own image, and it has been down hill ever since. I am eagerly awaiting the Restoration, when all those mutant genes are forever discarded.


How much of the Human Genome is Functional?
@<@Sean Pitman: @Sean Pitman: a href=”#comment-58037″>Sean Pitman:

It was my understanding that we were discussing the human genome, not the bacterial genome. Obviously, humans have been tinkering with the bacterial genomes for a long time, and made some fascinating discoveries. Humans are now tinkering with the human genome, but generally for the correction of harmful mutations. Even if humans should be successful in improving the human genome over its normal state (and that is a big “if”), this is no proof of naturally occuring evolutionary improvements.

Research on E. Coli bacteria, where one can observe billions of organisms over a short period of time, is much different from genetic research on the human genome. Whether or not bacteria can modify mechanisms of processing lactose or citrate, or develop alternate pathways inducing antibiotic resistance is, in my opinion, hardly evolutionary. These simple bacteria will always be bacteria, and are certainly not evolving into higher organisms. They are simply improving their survival. This, in fact, is hardly a good thing for humans. It would be much preferable for humans to mutate and produce mechanisms of bacterial destruction.

If some humans would mutate a gene that would selectively destroy harmful bacteria, that would be quite an event!
While on the subject of lactase evolution, it should be noted that many humans have mutated into a state of lactase deficiency, thereby being unable to process lactose efficiently. Many of these humans are miserable when consuming dairy products. I think we would hardly label this a positive mutation, although this type of mutation is not nearly as harmful as cancer-producing mutations, or so many other life-shortening mutations.

I am still extremely interested in any observed naturally occuring mutation in the human genome which has been found to be beneficial.


Recent Comments by Ken Christman, M.D.

Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species
Decay is perfectly natural in a sinful world. There was NO decay prior to the Fall. Non-decay does not require active maintenance on the part of God. His creation was perfect and did not require maintenance like human creations require. Model T’s require active maintenance as they are human creations. The human body God created would have lasted an eternity if sin (disobedience) had not interrupted such perfection. That is when decay started. That is when the genomic code started to deteriorate. It ultimately led to disease and death. God cannot be compared to a mechanic in heaven, as His perfect creation does not require repairs. While the price of sin (disobedience) has been fully paid for, the restoration to perfection has not happened yet. Once it occurs (which I believe will be soon), there will be a complete restoration that will not require a “mechanic” for active maintenance, as decay, degeneration, decay, death (all those ugly D’s) will no longer exist.

As for assuming that genetic mutations have occurred at a constant rate since the fall of Adam and Eve, we should consider the fallacies of assuming constant degradation of Carbon-14 and the problems such assumptions have created. As Creationists, we should exercise caution in making assertions we cannot prove.

As for God being bound by His own laws, let us consider Jesus bringing perfect peace and tranquility just by commanding the elements to be still during a raging storm. We cannot understand such divine power over EVERYTHING, including the power to breath life into a lump of clay which was instantly transformed into a perfectly fine human body with over 5 billion base pairs (the human genome) and able to perfectly replicate without decay or deterioration of the system. Satan also has supernatural power, but God’s power is infinitely greater. Whenever there is supernatural activity, it can come from only of two sources. We do know for a fact that postdiluvian human life spans rapidly contracted from ca. 900 years to circa 70 years in just a few generations. I’m sure most Creationists would agree that God had a hand in this, and that this was not “natural”. Whether He did this by altering the mutation rate, we have no way of knowing, as mutation rates were not measured at that time and there is no way for us to reconstruct those past mutation rates.

As for Einstein, Newton, and others, I would exercise restraint in following any of their religious or theological assumptions.


Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species
We may have observed mutation rates in the recent past, but how do we know what mutation rates were 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, or 6,000 years ago? Prior to roughly 6,000 years ago, we can safely say mutation rates were ZERO, as God’s creation was perfect, and there was no sin, death, or deterioration in the genomic code!


Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species
While data suggesting the hand of the Creator God in the creation of all living things is always welcome, one should exercise great caution in assuming the constancy of mutation rates. After all, God shortened human lifespans from ca. 900 years to ca. 70 years in only a few generations. Do you suppose He might have done that by altering mutation rates? Do you suppose that a powerful God who breathed life into a lump of clay could easily tinker with mutation rates? Furthermore, mutation rates would have highly variable effects on life forms in different species based upon average lifespans. Let us hope and pray that more scientists will be troubled by uncovering data that will lead them to trust the Genesis creation account as the only scientifically logical explanation of how we got here.


The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
Your concern about mysticism within Adventism is well founded. Pastor Bill Loveless identified Ellen White in the pages of the Adventist Review as a “true mystic.” “Mysticism” is defined in the dictionary as a euphemism for the occult. Look it up.


The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
You are right. I am totally confused as to what distinguishes “Historical Old Covenant” from “Old Covenant Thinking”. You and Chris White maintain that Sabbath observance is not necessary for salvation. Ellen White clearly states that it is necessary. Chris and Ellen CANNOT both be correct.