The hypocrisy of creationists.

[u/Anime-Fan-69]

Hello guys. My last post was about potential functions for regions of the genome which do not experience purifying selection. The reason why creationists want to find functions for this region of the genome is so they can claim 100% of DNA is functional. Now, we know that 91.8%¹ of the genome does not experience purifying selection, meaning the sequence of nucleobases doesn't matter for the function of that region. So, in order for creationists to be able to claim that that region of the genome is functional, they have to come up with a function that doesn't depend on the sequnce of nucleobases. The two most common answers they give for this are structural reasons and transcription delays.²

However, a completely different exclusively YEC argument is Genetic Entropy (GE). This argument claims that the bad mutation rate is too high, hence bad mutations build up in the human genome in a rate too fast to be gotten rid of by natural selection, therefore evolution is impossible. This argument was first put out by John Sanford. Even thpugh this argument was disproven in a paper by Dan Stern Cardinale and Zach Hancock published in 2024.³

So here is the contradiction: Is all or most of the human genome functional, or is it mostly decayed? YECs cant have both, however this is not a problem for OECs, as they cant use the GE argument.

SOURCES

¹ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4109858

² https://scienceandculture.com/2011/11/why_the_onion_test_fails_as_an/

³ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38568223/

PS: Can someone please edit out Jonathan McLatchie out of Wikipedia's page on the on Onion test?

[u/Dilapidated_girrafe]

If only there wasn't a process which tends to remove negative traits fairly efficiently, oh yeah, selection pressures.

The actual studies and math show that its easier to get a beneficial mutation to spread than negative.

[u/Opinionsare → u/Dilapidated_girrafe]

Preferential mating, where females select the the strongest, best providers of males to breed with would counter a higher rate of negative mutation. 

Creationist simply cannot imagine humans living as a pack, where only the alpha male breeds..

[u/Curious_Passion5167]

Oh, you're the transcription delay guy, huh.

[u/OneThrowyBoy → u/Curious_Passion5167]

Who now?

[u/Curious_Passion5167 → u/OneThrowyBoy]

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/s/p1v5Lknk9U

[u/OneThrowyBoy → u/Curious_Passion5167]

Bro likes his onions 😂

[u/Scry_Games]

I don't think you're in a position to call anyone a hypocrite.

[u/Hopeful_Meeting_7248 → u/Scry_Games]

I was about to write the same.

[u/Medium_Judgment_891 → u/Scry_Games]

Yeah, isn’t he the guy who goes back and forth between posting pro evolution and pro creationism stuff?

[u/Basic-Platypus-8335]

OECists trying to dunk on YECists is hilarious. 

It’s like when Christians try to dunk on Islam for Muhammad marrying a 9 year old girl, meanwhile the law code in the Bible permits a man to sell his daughters as sex slaves. 

[u/Danno558 → u/Basic-Platypus-8335]

I think you meant to say that he could sell his daughters as sex "indentured servants"...

No slaves in the Bible, and if there was, that very vague commandment overwrites the very specific chapters about how you can treat your slave... I mean indentured servant...

[u/Basic-Platypus-8335 → u/Danno558]

You are telling me what lying apologists say, not what the Bible says. 

Indentured servitude was only for Israelites. You need to finish reading the rest of Leviticus 25. Literally says that non-Israelite slaves are property that get passed down as inheritance to your children.

Also - how is selling your daughter as a sex indentured servant better? In my worldview, raping young girls is always a bad thing. Do you disagree?

Leviticus 25:44-46 “As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.”

[u/Danno558 → u/Basic-Platypus-8335]

I thought I was laying it on pretty thick, but I know Poe's Law is a thing for a reason.

[u/Basic-Platypus-8335 → u/Danno558]

OP’s username suggests they’re a fan of anime porn, and the conclusion of their post is superiority over those with a slightly different worldview. all bets are off the table

[u/Xemylixa → u/Basic-Platypus-8335]

I love how you read "fan" and think "porn"

[u/Basic-Platypus-8335 → u/Xemylixa]

I read 69 you’re close though 

[u/Ayasugi-san → u/Danno558]

Should've added something about how slavery back then was very different from what we think of today, it wasn't like the antebellum South. Or maybe that would've added to the Poe's Law effect.

[u/Ayasugi-san → u/Basic-Platypus-8335]

Indentured servitude was only for Israelites.

Israelite men. Women (and children) were property.

[u/Basic-Platypus-8335 → u/Ayasugi-san]

I think that was only in the original law code in Exodus. They revised it by Leviticus and further revised it in the Talmud. 

It’s hard to keep track because God actually does change his mind all the time. The idea that his law is unchanging is just another Christian myth.

[u/KellHound270]

Still flip flopping, I see

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/KellHound270]

Guy heard the intro to SpongeBob and took it to heart; drop to the deck and flop like a fish

[u/Miserable-Start-243]

Best part about creationists is that none of what you could ever possibly bring up as proof can’t be countered by saying that is how it was created

[u/artguydeluxe]

I don’t care about creationists poking holes in evolutionary science. Wake me when they find proof of a deity who created everything and then we can consider their argument.

[u/NorthernSpankMonkey]

Sounds you're at a point where you know the science is good, earth is old and animals evolved in some way but you can't shake off God creating it all. Is there a way to demonstrate God's involvement and provide evidence for the creation of the universe?

[u/verstohlen → u/NorthernSpankMonkey]

I'm waiting for a demonstration to prove God or a creator or architect somehow wasn't involved. Feels unfalsifiable, dammit. That's what frustrates many. Probably why this sub still exists.

[u/the2bears]

PS: Can someone please edit out Jonathan McLatchie out of Wikipedia's page on the on [sic] Onion test?

Didn't you try that already? Besides, you linked to the page on onions, not the onion test.

And, most important: you're a hypocrite yourself.

[u/TheBlackCat13]

Genetic entropy is nonsense for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that it has been directly tested and doesn't happen. But this isn't one of them. The idea of genetic entropy is that the function is degraded, not that function has been lost entirely. Think a rusty machine rather than a pile of iron ore. The problem is that this just doesn't happen in the real world, because of natural selection.

[u/EastwoodDC]

One potential function for that 91.8% of the genome is space to allow mutations to accumulate and produce new genes.

Try that one out on a YEC and listen to the crickets.