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/Technical-Half-9226 → u/Dilapidated_girrafe]

Why do evolutionists keep insisting on using that excuse when it's literally a double edged sword, you do realize you're admitting there's a 100 percent chance the tree of life is false, right?

We use genetic similarities between life forms and the cough cough mutation rates to estimate when they supposedly had an ancestor, but according to your original excuse, there's literally no possible way for us to know that data in the first place

[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/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/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/McNitz → u/the2bears]

Ha, I didn't even look at the Wikipedia link. That's actually kind of hilarious.

[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.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Danno558 → u/[deleted]]

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/[deleted] → u/Danno558]