There is More to Human Sexuality than XX and XY

Ron, Let’s set aside the conversation about gay and bisexual men, as that is only part of LGBTQI+. I will agree that scripture can be viewed to address the above, but committed scholars most certainly have a variety of views on the topic which can be supported, and which vary with your heart felt view/opinion.

So, let’s return to the actual topic of the article which covers a much broader subject area, which in your response you didn’t even acknowledge the existence of. How do you propose to relate to the whole of the LGBTQI+ population, which includes Intersex individual, individuals with a DSD (Disorder of Sexual Development), which cover a wide array of conditions. How about a person who is born with Androgen insensitivity syndrome, and many other genetics make ups besides XX and XY. What about transgender and gender-nonconforming people, and yes lesbians. I fear you paint with a broad brush of exclusion, even judgement, Christ in Matt 19:12, and the story of Philip and the eunuch seem fully fitting and inclusive for those I mention here.

I am willing to be judged for being inclusive, loving, accepting and understanding…

2 Likes

Thanks, Steve. I am not sure where you are coming from. The Bible tells us that even the Pharysees practiced love, or what appeared as love. They actually twisted God’s commands to suit their ideas of love, like disobeying God’s commands to parents in order to give gifts to the sanctuary which went to themselves. Jesus and the Bible talk alot about love, but also about disobedience and its consequences. To destroy the old word of ca. 2 billion people is no small thing. But guess why they were destroyed? To obey is better than the fat of rams and to disobey is as witchcraft the Good book tells us. So check up on love and obedience, my friend. Blessings.

No, you can’t, since variation has been clearly linked to mutation. Numerous studies with bacteria show just this connection. Bacteria have just one copy of each gene, meaning that at each locus there is just a single allele. You can start a colony of bacteria from a single bacterium, and all the offspring will be identical, each locus has just one allele in the entire population, there is no variation among the individuals in the population. Even if these bacteria trade DNA with one another by conjugation, they will still all remain identical, since they all have the same alleles. Alternate alleles in such a population can only arise via mutation, and they do, regularly. And this has been demonstrated repeatedly, although most such mutations are detrimental, some are not, and over time such a population of bacteria will develop genetic variation. In fact, over time, new phenotypes can arise, in some cases completely new phenotypes that only arise because of the process of mutation. What I am sharing here is trivial, and something that every biology student learns in their introductory biology class.

Granted, diploid organisms like ourselves are much more complex and we engage in sexual reproduction, which repackages the variation we already possess in various ways, resulting in a diversity of offspring. We didn’t get to the place we are now with such great genetic diversity by simply rearranging what was there from the start, otherwise how could we end up with loci that have dozens of variant alleles. If you start with two humans and go from there, you only have four alleles maximum per locus with which to work. How could humanity of started with just four alleles and ended up with dozens without mutations. If you understand genetics, it is simple common sense.

2 Likes

Yeah, but the point remains, that ALL alleles are mutations. You don’t start with four alleles just because you have diploid species. If you actually have four different alleles of one gene, you can pretty easily see how they are mutations of some original gene. They have descended from a common gene ancestor.

You say,

In order to attain the diversity found in humans, it would take millions of generations to accomplish…

Millions of generations? Really? What calculation is this assumption based on? Hmmmm?

Consider that mutation rates based on pedigrees show that the current mutational variation within the human gene pool can be explained by no more than 300 generations (or around 6,000 years). This mutation rate is about 20 times higher than the mutation rates based on the assumed evolutionary ancestry between humans and chimps. And, this has been shown to be true for both mDNA and chromosomal DNA.

In short, starting with evolutionary assumptions doesn’t match the actual pedigree data that is available to us…

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1082&context=icc_proceedings

Bryan,

You wrote:

There many loci that have dozens of different alleles and more across the human population. A single diploid pair of individuals can possess a maximum of four alleles per locus. Where have all those other alleles come from if not via mutation?

Many novel alleles have come from mutations. However, the functionally novel human alleles that have been produced by random genetic mutations (outside of Mendelian or epigenetic variation) have not produced functional advantages over the original gene pool of options. Rather, such mutations have resulted in an overall functional detriment to the human gene pool.

This is known as downhill evolution, not the other way around.

For your contention to be correct, either Adam or Eve would have had to have had sickle-cell trait, thus enabling their African descendents to have resistance to malaria. Oh, oops, that’s a detrimental mutation (unless, of course, you live in Africa where malaria runs rampant). This is the kind of quandary that happens repeatedly with your kind of reasoning about genetics.

Sickle-cell is a classic example of a mutation that disrupts the original function of a system (hemoglobin in this case) which results in a survival benefit in certain environments. However, this type of survival benefit is like cutting off your arms to avoid a monster that only eats people with arms. In this particular case, the malaria parasite is less able to survive in an oxygen-poor environment. This, produces a survival advantage for those humans with defective hemoglobin funationality - a survival adventage that is produced via a loss of pre-existing functionality is no way to fight genome degeneration over time. Again, such mutations that are based on a loss of original functinality are very easy to achieve in short order, but will eventually add up to result in genomic meltdown and eventual extinction of a species. They simply aren’t helpful over the long haul because there are only so many pre-existing functions you can lose before you have nothing more to lose (i.e., you’re dead).

Again, what do you do with the fact that the known detrimental mutation rate is so high that the human gene pool is degenerating rapidly over time? How does this reality square with your arguments here?

The same cannot be said for same-sex marriage, there is no moral harm you can identify, and since there is no moral harm, why prohibit it, except because it makes you uncomfortable, or it doesn’t reach some ideal you have determined to be important?

I don’t think same-sex marriage should be legally prohibited. That being said, I don’t think one can honesly argue that the Bible supports such a marriage as being the ideal for humanity. Rather, the Bible clearly supports only a marriage between one man and one woman as being the ideal situation before God. I’m not the one making such claims here. It’s the Bible making such claims…

Even were this to be true, how does that address same-sex marriage. No one is implying that same-sex marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. Just because something does not meet some specified ideal, does not mean that alternative approaches or variation should not be allowed. If there is nothing morally wrong with same-sex marriage, why not allow it, especially if it can help gays live more fulfilled and sexually responsible lives? If you are uncomfortable with it, don’t get married to a man yourself, but why prohibit others. Heterosexua marriages loses nothing by also allowing same-sex marriage.

From the Biblical perspective, an effort to do something that God doesn’t not consider ideal for you or me to do is defined as “sin” - a form of rebellion against what God has in mind for you and for me. So, we should always point people toward God’s ideals for humanity.

Again, that being said, no civil law should be enacted to enforce such “Christian Ideals” onto society at large. Everyone should be free to choose to align themselves with such ideals, or not, at will.

However, within the church, we should not promote, or hire anyone who actively subverts, any known biblical ideals for the Christian life.

Depends on how you define the framework. Strictly speaking there is nothing wrong with your argument, if you assume a completely evolutionarily based system where God was not involved in creation in any way. If we assume God created the first humans, as Sean and many Christians argue, the original alleles in those originally created individuals would be considered to be the ancestral alleles, and thus if God gave Adam two alternative alleles at the same locus as he gave Eve two different alternative alleles at the same locus, all four of those alleles would be ancestral, and therefore not mutations of one another.

This does, however, introduce an interesting philosophical conundrum. If God created the first two humans as perfect beings, then clearly when one considers the concept of perfection, some alleles are inherently more perfect than others, and one allele would presumably be the best and most perfect, then Adam and Eve must have been homozygous for all the same alleles across their entire genome, all 22,500+ genes. Then, if humankind originated from such a couple, where would any variation come from? Obviously mutations would have supply that variation, which would be saying that all variation is bad, because it is represents alternatives to perfection. This is the fully corrupted, fallen world view of so many. I find such a dim view problematic, as even after the fall God seems to remind us that nature is still his creation and it is good, even though there are obviously some faults.

If we take this philosophical thread a little further, and consider what would happen if there had never been a fall, and Adam and Eve populated the unfallen earth, what would their offspring be like? I presume they would have to be exact genetic clones of their parents, anything else would be less than perfect. What a boring world that would be. Thus the reason that I have to assume that God built the mechanism of mutation into genetics. Without mutation the living world would be perfect, I suppose, but it would be extremely boring. This is why I think we need to be careful and not get too hung up on perfection, or we might end up labeling variation as bad. Besides, in Genesis it never says God’s creation was perfect, it says it was good. Some genetic variation is clearly bad, but some of it is good, and it is especially good at producing variation in populations.

1 Like

If there is no big kerfuffle, and you are not asking about monogamy with a new gay member, then in essence any behavior is allowed. Right?

I noted in my reading that open discussion of what is expected in a gay relationship was encouraged. That is, the partners need to be up front about what is expected, especially regarding extra-“marital” sex. So, if the local church does not make it an issue, with a certain unspoken expectation, then there will be many different opinions.

This may be so, but I know of no good studies that show the difference. You and Tim have both asserted that young SDA heterosexuals are having pre-marital sex, at, I believe, you have said at the same rate as the secular population. So, why am I to assume that gay SDA’s are going to be any different?

Come on. This is an open discussion. I wish the folk here would be more respectful of Wilson. But any request I should make along those lines would be mocked.

I present the data as I see it. Certainly you are fine with criticizing any other group. Why should gays get a special pass?

Set them straight? The discussion has been between you and me, and really not them. You ae their advocate. OK. I disagree with your assessment.

For instance, the two studies you quote in your post do not really do what “my beloved” McWhorter did. They were not so long term. One discusses (quoted twice by you) compared two cohorts several years apart, but did not do a long there look like McWhirter did, that is follows the same folks for several yrs. etc. So they are not the same.

That being said, my statement that there is “no such animal” was hyperbole, but probably close to the truth. And, why was McWhirter quoted twice in my limited look at the literate in. 2020, and your two studies not quoted at all? Seems he is felt to be authoritative. I myself was surprised to see him still considered appropriate. But he was there.

Well, not quite a lie. Close to the truth even with the studies Ness has quoted.

I have never suggested that this is not the case. It’s obvious that the original plan is for men and women to marry and procreate. Just because that is the ideal does not mean it is the only way things can be oe should be done. Same-sex marriage does not detract from that ideal at all. It’s just that because they have same-sex attraction they do not have the option of that ideal arrangement, but allowing them same-sex marriage gives them as close to that ideal as is possible. Same-sex marriage meets all the goals of heterosexual marriage except for procreation, and not even all heterosexual couples reach that ideal.

I am not acquainted with that definition of sin. I suppose it is a useful philosophical definition of sin, but it isn’t very practical, since in almost every sphere of life there are ideal ways to do things, but such ideals are often not possible. By that kind of definition we are all sinners, gays no less or more than straight people, so what’s the point. Why make a big deal about one particular ideal, i.e. heterosexual marriage, and say that anyone who does otherwise is a sinner and therefor disallow it, when the very “less than ideal” state, i.e. same-sex marriage is not morally wrong. You can certainly argue that same-sex marriage does not match the ideal, but that does not Make it automatically wrong. It must be shown to be morally wrong, which you have not done.

1 Like

That would be evident if they looked unique. The problem is they don’t, do they? Don’t all (or almost all) alleles of a given locus look like they are mutations of a common ancestor? That is they differ in the common ways that we know mutations work?

Are there any examples of alleles of a given locus that are radically different in a way that is not easily explained by common mutation mechanisms?

One always has to wonder about those who consistently pitch in with their amateur expertise in the face of those who’ve made a subject their life’s work, whether their consistent objection every time the subject comes up is a case of “The lady doth protest too much…”

5 Likes

But we didn’t start from a single couple did we? I mean we came from Adam. Eve was formed out of Adam’s DNA, so I’m assuming no new DNA was given to Eve, unless it was a mutation of Adam’s rib. In reading these replies it occurs to me, if you believe in the Genisis creation, we all are from one parent (and his DNA/genes) and not from two different individuals with different DNA… originally. But that was a long time ago and I have difficulty even trying to imagine the life and challenges of my grandparents. On another note…Where do the Neaderthals fit into that picture and I wonder if they also had LGBTQ in their species?

3 Likes

I thought so.

Yes, and it is only technically feasible when starting with such a group, given about ~200,000 years.

1 Like

Floyd. What you are suggesting that Adam and Eve were
IDENTICAL Twins except Eve had an extra X Chromosome
that Adam did not have.
Was Eve an XXY?

2 Likes

LOL, Floyd, you are so right. So now we are down to two alleles maximum at each locus. And to use the correct terminology, Even was Adam’s clone, sort of, although she didn’t have a Y chromosome. Isn’t genetics fun! :wink:

Now Floyd, you know Neanderthals are just degenerate humans. Just ask Sean. :wink:

2 Likes

Yes, this is the only reasonable explanation for the genetic variation currently on display in the human genome. I am always open to alternative explanations, but this is the best current explanation.

1 Like

The same can be said about the evolution of the Universe. To me its fascinating that our own solar system is the product of at a minimum a prior generation of stellar “life” and “death” because the first generation of stars were low metallicity, and its only stellar nucleosynthesis that enables our system and our own lives with high metallicity. And part of that BTW is the fact that large stars have short lifespans! Imagine if large stars had longer lifespans than small stars, then the universe would still consist only of the first generation and would not be a very interesting place yet. Kind of like what if ice were denser than liquid water, what impact would that have had on life on earth?

There are lots of fascinating things in the Universe!

2 Likes

Bryan –
Procreation in Europe and the U.S.
Reports I have read say that populations are decreasing.
Births are NOT keeping up with deaths. Many couples are
opting out having children.
I have heard the same being stated for America.
So even though there are primarily Heterosexual coupling,
these ARE NOT obeying God and reproducing themselves.

Your definition of perfection is what is off. Is blond more perfect than brown? or green eyes more than blue? So many traits have multiple chromosomal determination, 99I know you know this) so there could be mutlitlpe alleles etc. God thinks variation is perfect.

There is no conundrum.

I think that God allowed for variation. But evolution. No. Darwin’s book contains quite a bit of theology–God would have not done, or would have done–it this way. I am not sure he knew or we know what the mind of God did, accept as we study the Bible and nature.

Not sure what you are getting at, but I can say that this statement is true. Whether God created two alleles that differ slightly, or one is derived by mutation from the other, the outcome would be the same. This is the reason that Creationists can even argue for Intelligent Design (ID) at all. It doesn’t prove whether ID is correct or not, it just makes the argument possible. The big caveat to that is that not all mutations are the same, and some shared mutations would be very hard to explain using ID. But all this is really a discussion for another time and place, as this discussion is about LGBTQ+ people and the proposal they should be allowed to marry and maintain their full membership as SDAs.

3 Likes